# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 45 Fed. Reg. 34762 1980

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Tue Jan 10 14:32:09 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.Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 101 / Thursday, May 22, 1980 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 51

[FRL 1487-2, Docket No. A-79-40]

Visibility Protection for Federal Class I Areas

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: Section 169A of the Clean Air Act requires EPA to promulgate regulations to assure reasonable
progress toward the congressionally declared goal of "the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment ofvisibility in mandatory class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution." Today's action proposes regulations which would require thirtysix States to develop and implement
programs to address the congressionally declared national goal. EPA is also making available today certain guidelines which would provide analytical tools for carrying out the regulations. This proposal would also provide additional procedures for conducting visibility analyses under EPA's prevention ofsignificant deterioration regulations. This notice establishes a 75-day comment period and schedules two legislative-type public hearings for the purpose of receiving comments on both the proposal and the guidelines. DATES: Written comments must be postmarked no later than August 5,1980. Public hearings will be held on June 30, 1980 (Washington, D.C.), and July 2, 1980 (Salt Lake City, Utah). ADDRESS: All written romments should be submitted (in duplicate, if possible) to; Central Docket Section (A-130), Docket No. A-79-40, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.

Docket No. A-79-40, containing material relevant to-this action, is located in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Central Docket Section, Room 2902,401 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.

Public hearings are scheduled for the following locations:

(a) Room 3906, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, D.C., 9:00 a.m. (EDT), June 30, 1980. (b) Little Theater, Salt Palace, 100 S.W. Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah, 9:00

a.m. (MDT), July 2, 1980.

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. Supplementary Information

A. PublicHearings

EPA is announcing two legislativetype public hearings on the proposed regulations. These public hearings will be held in Washington, D.C., and Salt Lake City, Utah. The purpose ofthese public hearings is to receive public
comment on the proposed regulations. A verbatim transcript ofeach hearing will be made and placed in Docket No. A79-40, Central Docket Section (A-130), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Room 2902, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20460.

Any person who wishes to speak at the meeting should, by June 23, 1980, notify the Information Contact listed above ofthe intent to make an oral presentation, giving name, address, telephone number, and length of presentation. In order topermit as many views as possible, presentations will,in general, be limited to 15 minutes. Additional time will be made available based upon the number ofcommenters and the demonstrated need for additional time. EPAwill develop a schedule for presentations based upon the notices it receives. Persons not providing prior notice but desiring to speak willbe accommodated as time permits. Persons with a written
statement should submit three copies of the statement to aid in its prompt evaluation. A copy ofany written
statement received at the hearing will be placed in the docket noted above.

B. Request forExtensionofComment Period

The Agency recognizes the substantial
amount ofmaterial presented by this proposal and accompanying guidelines but is confident the 75-day comment period and the two public hearings present ample opportunity forthe written and oral presentations ofdata, views, and arguments, especially since this proposal was preceded by an Advance Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (ANPR), published November 30, 1979 (44 FR 69116), which itself established a 30-day written • comment period and three public workshops that were held in Seattle, Washington; Salem, Oregon; and Denver, Colorado, the week ofJanuary 20, 1980. Thus, EPA intends to deny any request for extension ofthe comment period without a showing of extraordinary circumstances. EPAnotes, additionally, that any extension of the
comment period would seriously jeopardize its ability to promulgite final regulations by November 15, 1980 as It
mustunder an order entered November 5,1979 in the United States District Court for the District ofColumbia in Friendsof the Earth, Inc. v Castle, No, 80-3081. Thislitigation resulted from EPA's inability to promugate regulations by August 7, 1979 as required by Section 169(a)(4) of the Clean Air Act (Act)42
USC 7491(a)(4).
II.

Background

A. The Statute

Section 169A ofthe Clean AirAct requires visibility protection for mandatory class IFederal areas whore ithas been determined that visibility Is

an important value. "Mandatory class I Federal areas" are all international parks and certain national parks and wilderness areas as described in Section 162(a) ofthe Act. To work toward meeting the national visibility goal set out in Section 169A(a)(1) ofthe prevention ofany future and remedying ofany existing man-made visibility impairment in such areas, Section 169A requires that the:

eDepartment ofInterior review all mandatory class IFederal areas and identify those where visibility is an important value [Section 169(a)(2)].

eEPA, after consulting with the Department of Interior, promulgate a list of the mandatory class IFederal areas in which visibility is an important value [Section 169A(aJ(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 ofvisibility related pollutants and

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

oEPA promulgate regulations which will (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 fordetermining best available retrofit technology emission limitations forfossil-fuel fired powerplants In

excess of750 megawatts generating capacity [Section 169A(a)(4) and (b)], 

## 34762Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 101 / Thursday, May 22. 1960 / Proposed Rules

- EPA approve ordisapprove SIP revisions submitted in response to the promulgated requirements [Section 110(a)(2)] andpromulgate regulations for those States which submit inadequate regulations or fail to submit regulations in response to EPA'srequirements [Section 110(c)].

9In addition, Congress also included visibility protection requirements in the preconstruction requirements for prevention ofsignificant deterioration [PSD) in Section 165 of the Act:

*Federal Land Managers haVe "an affirmative responsibility" to protect the visibility values of a class Iarea and
may recommend the denial ofa PSD permit ifan adverse impact on visibility would result, even ifthe class IPSD increments would be met [Section 165(d)].

*PSD applicants must analyze the visibility at the site of theproposed construction and any area potentially affected by the proposed construction [Section 165(e)].

B.Rulemaking

On November 30.1979, the Agency initiated informal regulatory development bypublishing an Advance Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (ANPR) (44 FR69116). Thepurpose ofthis ANPR

was to inform the public ofthis effort and to solicit comments on various major issues which needed resolution during regulatory development. A summary and a copy ofallcomments received is included in Docket A-79-40. EPA's response to many ofthose
comments is included in the various sections ofthispreamble. Also on November 30.1979. EPA published its final determination under Section 169A(a)(2) ofmandatory class IFederal

areas where visibility is an important value [44FR 69122).
C.Document Availability
The Agency relied on the documents listedbelow, which served as background to these proposed regulations. The Agency issoliciting comments, especially on the DRAFT documents. The documents listed as final have previously received substantial public review. Both draft and final documents arein DocketNo. A-79-40 and are also available from the

sources indicated below.

(1) "Protecting Visibility: AnEPA Report to Congress' (EPA-450/5-79-008) (final),will be available shortly from: National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port RoyalRd., Springfield, Virginia 22161.

(2) "The Development of Mathematical models for the Prediction ofAnthropogenic Visibility Impairment" (EPA-450/3-78-110 a,b, c), (final), National Technical Information Service, 5285 PortRoyal Rd., Springfield. Virginia 22161 [PB 293119, PB 293120, PB293121).

(3)"Criteria forthe Identification of Integral Vistas (draft)," Control Programs Development Division (MD15), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park. NC 27711. The Agency is proposingto incorporate this guideline byreference in the Federal Register and expects to ask the Director ofthe Federal Register forapproval before promulgation.

(4) "Proposed Guidelines for Determining Best Available Retrofit Technoligy for Coal-Fired Power Plants and Other Major Stationary Sources [Draft)," Control Programs Development Division (MD-15), U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Research Triangle Park,NC 27711.

The Agency is proposing to incorporate thisguideline by reference in the Federal Register and expects to ask the Director oftheFederal Register forapproval before promulgation.

[5) "Preliminary Assessment of Economic Impacts ofVisibility Regulations (Draft)," Control Programs Development Division [MD-IS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, -ResearchTriangle Park, NC 27711.

IlL PROGRAM OVERVIEW

This preamble provides a brief description of the regulatory program, serving to introduce the specific regulatorylanguage. Following the regulatory language is a Supplemental Statement ofBasis and Purpose which discusses thereasons why we have taken certain positions in this proposal

THEPROBLEM

Congress has set asidecertain international parks and national wilderness areas, national memorial parks, and national parks [mandatory class I Federal areas) to preserve and enhance their beauty forpresent and future generations to enjoy.The intrinsic beauty ofthese areas, however, has been threatened due to visibility degrading pollution. Congress became

aware ofthe need to protect visibilityin these areas and directed EPAto explore the relationship between man-caused pollution and visibility.

From thisresearch we can say there

are generally two types of airpollution which reduce orimpair visibility:

[1) smoke, dust, or colored gas plumes that are emitted from stacks and obscure the sky or horizon relatable to a single source or a smallgroup 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 ofpollution are caused by factories, plants, and other sources that emit particles and gases into theair. These substances either absorb or scatter the light, thusreducing the
amount oflight a person canreceive from a viewed object.The practical effect is thatimpaired visibility degrades the aesthetic value of surrounding landscape by either discoloring the atmosphere to produce a visibleplume or whitening thehorizon and causing objects to appear flattened

so thatlandscape colors and textures become lessdiscernible or,in thecase ofa discernible plume. obsuring some portion ofthe landscape.

The Program

A Phased Approachto theProblem
Congress, in recognition ofthe needto protect such aesthetics declared as a national visibility goal theremedying of existing pollution and the prevention of any future pollutionthat interferes with visibility in mandatory class IFederal

areas. We reviewed the techniques for identifying, measuring, predicting, and controlling isibility impairment, and In November, 1979, published "Protecting Visibility: AnEPAReport to Congress" which discusses in detail thepresent scientific knowledge ofvisibility, includingmonitoring, modeling, and control ofvisibility impairment.

As described in that report, we determined that thepresent mathematical models and monitoring techniques, while showingpromise, should be evaluated furtherbefore they

areroutinely required in a regulatory
program which applies to existing

sources that impair visibility.However, in someinstances we can idenfity the origin ofvisibility impairment caused by

a single source orsmall group of sources without the use ofsophisticated analytical techniques. Simple monitoring techniques such as visual observation (eitherground based orwith aircraft)

can oftenidentify which source contributes to the impairment.

Modeling and monitoring techniques which address impairment causedby single sources will soonbe available. Similar techniques which deal with multiple-source problems (regional haze and urbanplumes) need additional research and willnot be available for

some time.

Recognizing the needto initiate. protection as soonas possible while alsorealizing that certain scientific and technical limitations do exist. we are proposing a phased approach to. 

### 34763Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 101 / Thursday, May 22, 1980 / Proposed Rules

visibility protection, Phase Iofthis

program would:

1. Require control ofimpairment that

can be traced to,a single major source or small group ofsources.

2. Evaluate and control new sources to prevent future impairment, and

3. Require States to adopt other strategies to remedy existing and prevent future visibility impairment.

Future phases will fhrther implement the visibility program by addressing

more complex problems such as regional haze and urban plumes. We will
propose and promulgate future phases when improvement in monitoring techniques provides more data on

source specific levels ofvisibility, regional scale models become refined, and our general scientific knowledge of visibility improves.

Even though we are calling these proposed regulations "Phase I of the visibility protection program," the basic

structure ofthe regulations provided today will remain constant forall phases. These regulations function as the basic framework from which this present program can be implemented and into which future phases can be incorporated. In other words, the basic plan requirements will remain consistent while only the elements which define the scope of the program will change in response to advances in

our technical knowledge.

The proposed regulatioris require input into the program by all affected parties: Thus, coordination between the States, the Federal Land Managers, and EPA will be necessary to implement an effective visibility program. The State retains the primary responsibility of developing a viable visibility program. The Federal Land Manager has the responsibility ofprotecting the visibility values ofFederal class I areas. These

two must work together to ensure the visibility values ofthese areas are protected. EPA's responsibility is to (1] promulgate visibility regulations which would require States to revise their State Implementation Plans (SIPs), and (2) contiune research into visibility for

use in future phases.

The Program-In Detail

We are proposing regulations that require the 36 States containing mandatory class IFederal areas to submit revisions to their SIPs within 9 months. These revisions will (1) require certain existing major stationary sources to install the BestAvailable Retrofit Technology (BART) for controlling'those pollutants which cause visibility impairment, (2) identify and evaluate long-term strategies formaking reasonable progress toward remedying existing and preventing future impairment in the mandatory class I Federal Areas, and (3) require the adoption ofcertain measures that will supplement the States' new source review program regarding visibility impacts. These requirements are summarized below.

A. BARTReqiirements

1. The Federal LandManagers and the States willbegin earlyconsultation witheach other. We expect these two
groups to work closely with each other throughout the process ofdeveloping all aspects ofthe SIP revision. Because the Clean Air Act charges the Federal Land Managers with protecting air quality related values, including visibility, the State must adequately consider
comments from the Federal Land Managers.

2. TheFederal LandManager orthe State identifieswhether,withinany mandatory classIFederal area,there exists anyimpairmentofvisibility.This impairment must be identified within 

### go days ofpromulgation ofthese regulations. We are defining "impairment" as any "humanly perceptible change in visibility (visual
range, contrast, coloration) from that which would have existed under natural conditions."

3. Federal Land ManagersortheState willidentifytheintegral vistas(ifany) foreachmandatory classIFederal area. These regulations would permit the Federal Land Managers to identify integral vistas. An integral vista is a view from within the area ofa scenic landmark that is located outside the boundary ofthe aiea.

4. The State,in consultationwith the Federal Land Managers,willidentify theexisting-major stationary sources which cause the visibilityimpairment., The regulation proirides a specific definition for existing major stationary

sources. During Phase I ofthe visibility
program, the State and the Federal Land Manager must be able to "reasonably attribute" the visibility impairment in the mandatory class IFederal area to a major stationary source through visual observation or othertmonitoring technique. During later phases of the
program, the Agency will likely require the State and Federal Land Managers to place more emphasis on the use of modeling in identifying pollution

sources.

5. TheState,in consultationwith the Federal LandManager, willperforma BART analysison existingmajor stationary sourcesidentified as impairingvisibility.The BART analysis does not apply to any source which was in operation before August 7, 1962. In the BART analysis, the State determines what additional airpollution control technologies need to be required in order toreduce existing visibility impairment.

In conducting this analysis, the State first identifies those control techniques that could improve visibility. If techniques exist then the State proceeds with the BART analysis, but Ifno technique exists, then the State stops the analysis at this point. For example, while methods might exist for the partial control ofa pollutant thereductions achievable may notbe sufficient to achieve any improvement in visibility,

In such a case the State would not be obligated to require controls. 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 ofBARTthe Agency has developed a guideline. For large power plants, BART must be determined pursuant to this guideline. The BART guideline proposed today Is necessarily general. The Agency Is considering supplementing this guideline in the near future, particularly with regard to specific large fossil-fuel fired
power plants or categories ofsuch
powerplants.

The last stage ofthe BART analysis is forthe State to specify an'emission limitation thatreflects BART. The

source must then install, operate, and maintain the control technology to meet the emission limitation.

6. The sourcemayapplyto the Administrator foran exemption from BARTon the basisthatthe sourcedoes
notcauseorcontributeto significant impairment ofvisibility.The source mustnotity the Federal Land Manager of its application and must receive 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 the level ofimpairment that interferes with the intended use ofthe area. When applying for an exemption, a source should address the frequency, extent, time ofoccurrence, intensity and duration ofthe impairment. If the Administrator grants an exemption, the Federal Land Manager must concur 34764Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 101 / Thursday, May 22, 1980 / Proposed Rules

before the exemption will become effective.

B.MonitoringofVisibilityImpacts.

1. TheState willdevelop amonitoring strategy.This strategy would assess the State's needfor visibility monitoring taking into consideration available and forthcoming monitoring techniques and guidelines.

2. The Statewillprovide for considerationof monitoring requirements fornewsources.The State should assess the need formonitoring by a source to provide information on any potential impacts on visibility in the Federal Class I area as part of the new

source review process.

3. The Statewillevaluateany available honitoringdata.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.Developmentof theLong-Term Strategy.

The proposal would require each plan to include a long-term (10-15 year) strategy formaking reasonable progress toward remedying existing and preventing future visibility impairment. Therequirements are summarized below. RemedyingExisting Impairment

1. The Statemustconsideranyland management planstoprotectorenhance visibilityin themandatory classI Federal area. This will also be useful in developing the part ofthe long-term strategy relating toprevention offuture impairment.

2. Some of themeasurestheState
mustconsider are.

a.The effectiveness of existingair pollutioncontrol programsinreducing visibilityimpairment. For example, the attainment/maintenance ofNational Ambient Air Quality Standards may have a positive effect on reducing or eliminating visibility impairment in mandatory class IFederal areas. Ifthis is the case, the State should explain how thiswould contribute to reasonable

progress.

b.Additionalemission limitations and schedules forcompliance for uncontrolled or

poorlycontrolled

sourcesnotcoveredby BART.This recognizes that States may have to control sources not covered by BART to make reasonable progress t'ward the national goal.

c.Retirementofexistingsourcesand replacementwithnew. wellcontrolled facilities. Where possible this should be encouraged because this measure may have a positive effect on visibility.

3.The Statemustdoa reanalysis for eachexistingmajorstationary source which contributesto visibility impairmentinamandatoryclassI Federal area. This reanalysis would

occur when the Administrator determines new technology is available which would more effectively control a pollutant which causes visibility impairment. All pollutants would be analyzed for their contribution to the visibility impairment regardless of previous BARTrequirements. Where control representing BART has notbeen previously required for a pollutant reanalyzed, the State shall require the imposition ofsuch control as indicated by this reanalysis. Preventing Future Impairment
TheStatesmust reviewallmajor emitting facilitiesand major modificationsas definedinEPA's PreventionofSignificant (PSD) regulations fortheir anticipated impacts

on visibilityinmandatoryclassI Federal areas. Theprevention offuture visibility impairment was a major concern of Congress. It is addressed not only in Section 169A, which deals exclusively with visibility, but also in Sections.160- 169 on PSD. We have already promulgated regulations meeting the visibility requirements ofthe PSD Sections. In these PSD regulations, the

owner oroperator ofnew major emitting facilities ormajor modifications ofa major emitting facility must assess whether they would impair visibility. Thus, a State's compliance with the PSD
program wouldgo a long way toward preventing future visibilityimpairment in mandatory class IFederal areas.

There is,however, a gap in the PSD regulations in that they do not callfor the review ofa major emitting facility or major modification locating in a "nonattainment" area, even ifit would impair visibility ina mandatory class I Federal

area. Today's proposal would remedy this with regard to visibility impacts by covering all such sources irrespective of their location.

D. Reviewof the Long-termStrategy.
The State willreviewitsstrategyin consultationwith theFederal Land Manager andreportits findingsto the publicandtheAdministrator atleast
every threeyears.We believe that the periodic review of the long-term strategy is an important part ofassessing reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal. Because the visibility program is new and evolving, it is
necessary to 1)take into account advances in technology. 2] evaluate
progress toward the goal. 3) evaluate specific program effectiveness and 4) provide a reassessment ofthe reasonableness ofmeasures incorporated into the long-term strategy. In this review ofthe long-term strategy theregulations would require certain analyses, including: an assessment of the progress achieved in remedying existing impairment, an evaluation of the change in visibility, an assessment ofthe strategy's long-term ability to prevent future impairment, and identification ofadditional measures that may be necessary to make reasonable progress toward the national goal.

E.Aew SourceReviewRequirements for VisibilityImpacts.

EPA's PSD regulations require that a proposed major emitting facility or major modification evaluate its potential impact on visibility and, ifthe source would cause an adverse impact on visibility in aFederal class I area that the State deny the permit.

Commenters on the Advance Notice ofProposed Rulemaking noted that the States need additional guidance fornew

source review.We are therefore proposing a definition of"adverse impact' and clarifying certain procedural relationships between the Federal Land Manager and the State in the review ofnew source impacts on visibility in Federal class I areas. Section 51.307 ofthe visibility regulations specifies requirements the States must meet during the new source review process.

As the first'step in the reviewprocess the State notifies the Federal Land Manager ofany potential new source that may impact visibilityin a Federal class I area. The State and Federal Land Managers then begin consultingwith each other, which consultation will continue throughout thepermitting process. Where the PSD class I increments arenot violated, the Federal Land Manager may demonstrate that the

source will have an adverse impact on visibility in the Federal class Iarea. The managerprovides this demonstration to the State which then either grants or denies the permit application.Ifthe State agrees with the Federal Land Manager's assessment that the source will adversely impact visibility, then the State will deny thepermit. Ifthe State disagrees with the Federal Land Manager's demonstration then it will provide the Federal Land Manager with

a written explanation ofitsfindings. The State may also require the source to monitor visibility at theproposed site as part of the PSD permit application. 

### 34765Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 101 

## / Thursday, May 22, 1980 / Proposed Rules

F. Conclusion

The immediate, principal benefit of these regulations will be (1) the reduction or elimination ofimpacts reasonably attributable to specific existing sources, and (2) clarification of procedures for the review ofnew

sources. The focus ofthese regulations will be principally in the West since
western areas have generally good visibility now and are extremely sensitive to degradation of their .visibility.Also, the majority ofthe mandatory class IFederal areas are located,in the western United States. 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 a limitednumber of existing major stationary sources in a few States will have toretrofit controls. The one major requirement applicable to all 36 States would be the development ofa long-term strategy, which includes a review ofall new sources iripacting visibility, for making reasonable
progress toward the national visibility goal. EPA believes, however, that some of thebasic elements ofan acceptable strategy already exist within the framework ofother air pollution
programs. Therefore, the State will need
to examine the feasibility and efficacy ofonly a few other measures to, determine if they should or need tobe included in thelong-term strategy.

It should be noted, however, that although these regulations require a new

source review program, allStates must review new sources in accordance with PSD regulations. Thevisibility regulations neithersubsume nor eliminate the State responsibility under the PSD program.

The other requirements of these proposed regulations are primarily procedural in nature and while they
must be addressed, we believe that the regulations provide sufficient guidance

to preclude the expenditure ofvast State

resources for compliance.

IV. REGULATORY IMPACT / The Agency hag prepared a draft regulatory impact analysis forreview in

concert with these proposed rules. This document is included in Docket No. A79-40 and may be obtained by writing Control Programs Development Division (MD-15), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711.

V. SOLICITATION OF COMMENTS

The Agency actively solicits
comments on all aspects ofthe proposed regulations and guidelines. Theseproposed rules areissued under the authority granted in Sections 110, 114,16-169,169A, and 301 ofthe Clean AirAct. 42U.S.C. 7410, 7414, 7470-7479, 7491, and 7601.

Dated: May 15,1980. Douglas Costle, Administrator.

Itis proposed to add a new Subpart P
to.Part 51, Title 4 ofthe Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows:
Subpart F-Protection ofVisibility
Sec. 51.30(Y Purpose and applicability. 51.301 Definitions. 51.302 Implementation control strategies. 51.303 Exemptions fromcontrol.. 51.304 Identification ofintegral vistas. 51.305 Monitoring. 51.306 Long-term strategy. 51.307 New Source review.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7410, 7414, 7470-7479, 7491, 7601.
Subpart P-Protectfon of Visibility
§51.300 Purpose,and applicability

(a)Purpose. The primary purpose of this Subpart is (1)to require States to develop programs to assure reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal ofpreventing any future, and renedying any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory class IFederal

areas which impiarment results from man-made air pollution, and (2) to establish procedures fornew source permit applicants, States, and Federal Land Managers to use in conducting the visibility impact analysis required at40. CFR 51.24(p) for new sources.

(b)'Applicability. (1)The provisions of this Subpart are applicable to: (il each State and has a mandatory class I Federal area identified in 40 CFR Part 81, Subpart D, and (ii)each State in which there is any source the emissions from which may reasonably be anticipate to cause or contribute to any impairment ofvisibility in any such

area. (iii) Section 51.307 is applicable to all States for the-purpose ofnew source review underthe Clean Air Act of visibilityimpacts in Federal class I

areas.,

(2) The provisions of this Subpart, except as provided for in subparagraph (iii) above,'are applicable to the following States unless the Administrator later determines that the provisions ofsubparagraph (1)above

arenot met. Applicability ofthe provisions of this Subpart to other States shall becomeeffective only upon the determination oftheAdminstrator that either ofthe provisions in subparagraph (1) above apply.

(i) Alabama (ii) Alaska (iii) Arizona (iv)Arkansas (v) California (vil Colorado (viijFlorida (viii) Georgia (ix) Hawaii (x) Idaho (xi) Kentucky (xii) Louisiana (xiii) Maine (xiv) Michigan (xv).Minnesota (xvi) Missouri (xvii)Montana (xviii); Nevada (xix)New Hampshire (xx) New Jersey (xxi) New Mexico. (xxii) North Carolina (xxiii) North Dakota (xxiv) Oklahoma (xxvi 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.

As used in this Subpart, all terms shall have the meaning provided for in the Clean Air Act except as defined heroin,

(a) "Existing Major Stationary Source"-means any ofthe following stationary sources ofair pollutants which was not in operation prior to August 7,196Z, or reconstructed after that date, and was in existence on August 7, 1977 and has the potential to emit 250 tons per year or more ofany pollutant regulated under the Clean Air Act:

(1) fossil-fuel fired steam electric plants ofmore.than 250 million British thermal units per hour heat input,

(2) coal cleaning plants (thermal dryers),

(31 kraft pulp mills, (4) Portland cement plants, (5) primaryzinc 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, shlfuric, and nitric acid plants,

(11) petroleum refineries, (12)lime plants, (13) phosphate rock processing plants, 34766Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 101 / Thursday, May 22, 1980 / Proposed Rules

(14) coke ovenbatteries, (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 millionBritish thermal unitsperhour heat input,

(23) petroleum storage and transfer facilities with a capacity exceeding 300,000 barrels.

(24) taconite oreprocessing facilities, (25] glass fiber processing plants, and (26) charcoal production facilities. (b) "Potential to emit" means the capability atmaximum design capacity

to emita pollutant after the application ofair pollution control equipment. Annual potential shall be based on the maximum annual rated capacity ofthe stationary source assuming continuous

yearround operation. Enforceable permit conditions on the type of materials combusted or processed may beused in determining the annual potential. Fugitive emissions count, to the extent quantifiable, for each existing major stationary source in determining the annual potential. Secondary emissions are specifically excluded from the determination of annual potential.

(c) "Fugitive Emissions" means those emissions which do not pass through a stack, chimney, vent, orother functionally equivalent opening.

(d) "Secondary emissions" means emissions which occur or would occur

as a result ofthe construction or operation ofan existing major stationary source but do not come from the existing major stationary source.

(e) "Stationary Source" means any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits ormay emit
any air pollutant regulated under the Clean Air Act.

(f) "Building, structure, facility, or installation" means any grouping of pollutant emitting activities which is located on one or more contiguous or adjacent properties and which is owned

or operated by the same person (or

persons under common control).

(g) "Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)" means an emission limitation (including a visible emission standard) based on the degree of reduction achievable through the application ofthe best system of continuous emission reduction foreach pollutant which is emitted by an existing major stationary source. The emission limitation shallbe established, on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the technology available, the costs ofcompliance, the energy and nonair qualityenvironmental impacts of compliance, any existing pollution control equipment in useat the source, theremaining useful life of the source, and the degree ofimprovement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated toresult from the use ofsuch technology.

(h) "Reconstruction" will be presumed
to have taken place where thefixed capital cost ofthe new component(s) exceeds 50 percent of thefixed capital
cost ofa comparable entirely new

source. However, any final decision as to whether reconstruction has occurred shall be made in accordance with the provisions of40 CFR 60.15(f](1-3). A reconstructed source will be treated as a

new major stationary source for purposes of this Subpart, except thatuse ofan alternative fuel or rawmaterial by

reason of an orderin effect under Section 2(a) and (b) ofthe Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of1974 (orany superseding legislation) or by reason ofa natural gas curtailment plan in effect pursuant to the Federal Power Act, shall not be considered reconstruction.

(i)"Fixedcapital cost" means the capital needed toprovide all ofthe depreciable components.

(j)"Visibility impairment" means any humanly perceptible change invisibility (visual range, contrast, coloration) from that which would have existed under natural conditions.

(k) "Natural Conditions" means the visibility which would be expected to

occur in the absence ofman-made air pollution. (1)

"Significant impairment" means for purposes ofSection 51.303 visibility impairment which, in thejudgment of the Administrator, interferes with the management, protection, preservation,

or enjoyment ofthe mandatory class I Federal area, including interference with and impairment ofthe visitor'svisual experience. This determination shallbe made on a case-by-case basis taking into account the extent, intensity, and duration ofthe impairment, frequency and time ofoccurrence ofthe impairment, the correlation between times ofvisitors use and access to the mandatory class I Federal area and the frequency of occurrence and timing of natural conditions. (m) "Integral vista" means the perception from within theFederal class Iarea ofa specific historical, cultural, or scenic landmark or panorama which is located outside theboundary ofa Federal class I area,which vista is important to the vistorexperience ofthe

area orthe fundamental purpose for which the area was established and preserved.

(n) "In operation" means engaged in activity related to the primary design function ofthe source.

(o) "Reasonably attributable" means attributable by means ofvisual observation orother monitoring technique.

(p) "In existence" means thatthe

owner oroperator has obtained all
necessary preconstruction approvals or permits required byFederal. State, or local airpollution emissions and air quality laws orregulations and either has (i)begun, orcaused tobegin, a continuous program ofphysical on-site construction ofthefacility or 'ii) 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.

(q)"Major emitting facility" and "major modification!*means "major stationary source" and "major modification" as defired in40 CFR 51.24.

(r)"Adverse impact" means for
purposes of §51.307 visibility impairment which interferes with the management, protection, preservation,

orenjoyment ofthe Federal class Iarea, including interference with and impairment ofthe visitor'svisual experience. This determination shall be made on a case-by-case basis taking into account the extent,intensity and duration ofvisibility impairment, the frequency andtime ofoccurrence ofthe impairment, the correlation between time ofvisitors use and access to the Federal class I area. andthe frequency ofoccurrence and timing ofnatural conditions.

(s) "Federal LandManager" means the secretary ofthe department with authority overany Federal class I area, the Chairman of the RooseveltCampobello International Park Commission, or their designated agents.

(t)"Agency" means theU.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

§ 51.302 Implementation control strategles.

(a)PlanRevisionProcedures. (1) Each State identified in §51.300(b)(2) shall submit, no later thannine months from the dateofpromulgation ofthis regulation, an implementation plan revision for the purposes ofmeeting the requirements ofthis Subpart.

(2)(i) The State, prior to adoption of any implementation planrequired by this Subpart, shall conductone or more public hearings on such plan. 

### 34767Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 101 / Thursday, May 22, 1980 / Proposed Rules

(ii) Any hearing required by this Subpart shall be held only after reasonable notice, which shall include
at least thirty days prior to the date of such hearing(s):

(A) Notice given to the public by prominent advertisement in the region affected announcing the data(s), time(s), and place(s) of such hearing(s);

(B) Availability of each proposed plan and all supporting documentation in at least one location in each region to which it will apply, and the availability ofeach compliance schedule for public inspection in at least one location in the region in which the affected source is located;

(C) Written notification to the Administrator (through the appropriate Regional Office);

(D) Written notification to each local air pollution control agency in each region to which the plan will apply;

(E) Written notification ofeach affected Federal Land Manager;

(F) In the case ofinterstate impacts, written notification to any other States which may be affected as a result of such plan; and

(G) A summary prepared by the Federal Land Manager ofthe conclusions and recommendations, if
any, on the proposed plan.

(3) Submission ofplans as required by this Subpart shall be conducted in accordance witli the procedures in 40 CFR 51.5.

(4) The State shall include, as part of the information available to the public prior to public hearing(s) on such proposed plan, evidence ofconsultation with all affected Federal Land Managers and their conclusions and recommendations, ifany, on the proposed plan.

(5) The Administrator, prior to proposed approval or disapproval ofa plan submitted under this Subpart, shall consult with all appropriate Federal Land Managers.

(b) StateandFederal Land Manager Coordination. (1) The State shall identify, to the Director ofthe National Park Service, the Director ofthe Fish and Wildlife Service, the Chiefofthe Forest Service and/or the Chairman of the Roosevelt-Campobello International Park Commission, as appropriate, in writing and within 30 days ofthe date of promulgation of these regulations, the title of the official to which the Federal Land Manager ofany area listed in40 CFR Part 81, Subpart D shall:

(i) Submit the list ofintegral vistas that are tobe afforded visiability protection for the purpose of implementing Section 51.304, and (ii) Identify visibility impairment for the purpose ofimplementing subparagraph (4)(ii) below.

(2) The State, at least 60 days prior to holdingpublic-hearings on the plan, shall consult in person with the affected Federal Land Manager on all aspects of the proposed planrevision for the
purpose ofmeeting the requirements of this Subpart.

(3) The plan shall provide procedures forcontinuing congultation between the State and Federal Land Manager on the implementation ofthe visiability protection program required by this Subpart.

(c) General PlanRequirements.(1) The plan shall contain:

(i) A long-term (10-15 years) strategy, including such emission limitations, schedule of compliance, and other such

measures, as may be necessary to-make reasonable progress toward the national goal specified in §51.300(a) in the

manner specified in § 51.306.

(i) An assessment prepared-after consultation with the Federal Land Manager and including such comments

as provided by the Federal Land Manager, ofthe impairment ofvisibility in each mandatory class IFederal area and a discussion ofhow each element of the plan addresses the impairment.

(2)(i) Any integral vista identified under § 51.304(b) shall be protected under the requirements ofthis Subpart

to the same extent as any mandatory class I Federal area identified in 40 CFR Part 81, Subpart D. The plan shall identify all mandatory class IFederal

areas, including all integral vistas to be protected.

(ii) The plan shall provide for the protection ofadditional integral vistas identified in accordance with §51.304(c)
at the earliest opportunity, but inno

case less frequent than the time ofthe periodic review ofthe long-term strategy required by § 51.306(c).

(iii) The plan shall provide for the protection ofintegral vistas identified in accordance with § 51.304 (b) or (c) or (d) for purposes ofreview ofnew major emitting facilities and major modifications as provided for in § 51.306(d).

(iv) The State need not provide visibility protection ofa vista identified

as integral by the Federal Land Manager, ifit demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Administrator, that such an integral vista has not been identified in-accordance with "Criteria for the Identification ofIntegral Vistas."

(3) The plan shall require each source tomaintain control equipment required by this Subpart and establish procedures to ensure such control equipment is properly operated and maintained.

(4)Determinationof BART. (i)The plan shall include emission limitations representing BART for each existing major stationary source identified according to the procedures in subparagraph (ii)below.

(ii)The State, in consultation with the appropriate Federal Land Manager, shall analyze forBART each existing major stationary source which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any area identified in40 CER Part 81, Subpart D,which impairment Is identified by the State, orby the appropriate Federal Land Manager within 90 days ofpromulgation ofthose regulations. The Federal Land Manager may recommend to the State for BART analysis existing major stationary

sources suspected ofcausing or contributing to visibilityimpairment In the mandatory class IFederal area, The State, in determining whether the identified impairment isreasonably attributable to an existing major stationary source, shall consult with and take into account therecommendations ofthe affected Federal Land Manager and the appropriate EPA Regional Administrator, orhis designated representative, and shall provide, in writing and at least 30 days prior to any public hearing on the plan, all supporting documentation on any existing major stationary source not analyzed for BART as recommended by the affected Federal Land Manager or appropriate EPARegional Administrator.,

(iii) Ifthe State determines that technological oreconomic limitations on the applicability ofmeasurement methodology to a particular existing major stationary source would make the imposition ofan emission standard infeasible itmay, in consultation with the Federal Land Manager, instead prescribe a design, equipment, work practice, or other operational standard,

orcombination thereof, to require the application ofBART. Such standard, to the degree possible, is to set forth the emission reduction to be achieved by implementation of such design, equipment, workpractice or operation, and shall provide for compliance by

means which achieve equivalent results,

(iv) Emission limitations setunder this paragraph for fossil-fuel fired generating plants having a total generating capacity in excess of750 megawatts shall be determined due to "Proposed Guidelines forDetermining Best Available Retrofit Technology for Coal-fired Power Plants and Other Major Stationary Sources." 34768Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 101 / Thursday. May 22, 1980 / Proposed Rules

(v)The plan shall require that each existing major stationary source required to install and operate BART do

so as expeditiously as practicable but in

no case later than five years afterplan approval.

(vi)Theplan shallrequire that each existing major stationary source required to install and operate BART install continuous emission monitoring,

as applicable, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix P.
§51.303 Exemptions from control.

(a)(1) Any existing major stationary

source required byaction under §51.302
to install,operate, and maintain BART may apply to the Administrator for an exemption from that requirement.

(2) An application under this Section shall include all available documentation relevant to the impact of the source's emissions on visibility for
any area listed in 40 CFRPart81, SubpartD, and a demonstration by the existingmajor stationary source that it does not or willnot by itselforin combination with other sources emit
any airpollutant which may be reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to any significant impairment ofvisibility in anymandatory class I Federal areaidentified in40 CFR Part 81, Subpart D.

(b) Fossil-fuel firedpower plants with

atotal generating capacity of750 megawatts ormore may receive an exemption from BART only after demonstration to the satisfaction of the Administrator that such source is located at such a distance from all areas listed in40 CFR Part 81, Subpart D that such power plant does not orwill 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 area.

(c) Applicationunder this Section
must be accompanied bywritten

concurrences from all affected States.

(d)The existing major stationary

source shall provide forprior written notice to all affected Federal Land Managers ofany application for exemption under this Section.

(e) The Federal Land Manager may provide an initial recommendation on the disposition ofsuch application. Such recommendation, where provided, shall be part ofthe exemption application. This recommendation shall notbe construed as the concurrence required under subparagraph (h)below. (f)The Administrator,within 90 days ofreceipt ofan application for exemption from control, shall provide notice and opportunity forpublic hearing on the application. (g)After notice and opportunity for publichearing, the Administrator may grant ordeny the exemption. For
purposes ofjudicialreview, final EPA action on an application for an exemption underthis Section shall not

occur until EPA approves ordisapproves the State Implementation Plan revision.

(h)An exemption granted by the Administrator under this Section shall be effective only upon concurrence by the appropriate Federal Land Manager with the Administrator's determination.

§51.304 Identification of integral vistas.

(a) The Federal Land Manager may, in accordance with "Criteria for the Identification ofIntegral Vistas", identify to the State integral vistas to be afforded visibility protection.

(b) Integral vistas identified within 90 days from the date ofpromulgation of these regulations shallbe subject to § 51.302(c)(2)(i).

(c)Integral vistas identified more than 90 days from the date ofpromulgation of the regulations shallbe subject to §51.302(c)(2)(iil.

(d) Integral vistas identified priorto the calendar year inwhich a complete

new sourcepermit application isfiled shall be subject to §51.302(c)(2)(ii).

(e) The State may identify such additional integral vistas,within its boundaries, as itdeems necessary and appropriate.



### (f0 Theprovision for identification of integral vistas for mandatory classI Federal areas under paragraphs (c) and (d) above shall notbe effective after December 31,1985.
§51.305 Monitoring

(a) The State,in consultation with the Federal LandManager. shall include in theplan a strategy for evaluating visibility in the mandatory class I Federal areas by visual observation or othermonitoring techniques. Such strategy shall take into account current and anticipated visibility monitoring research and the availability of appropriate techniques formonitoring visibility and such guidance as is provided by the Agency. (b)The plan shall provide for the consideration ofavailable visibility data and shall provide a mechanism for its

usein BART analyses, new source permit decisions, and other actions under theplan.

§51.306 Long-term strategy.

(a)(1) Each plan shall include a longterm (10-15 years) strategy for making reasonable progress toward the national goal specified in Section 51.300(a). (2) A long-term strategy shallbe identified foreach area listed in 40 CFR Part 81. SubpartD.

(3) The plan shall set forth with reasonable specificitywhy the long-term strategy is adequate for making reasonable progress toward the national goal.

(b)The State.in developing a longterm strategy shall consider any plans and goals provided by the Federal Land Manager for theprotection and enhancement ofvisibility in the mandatory class IFederal area.

(c)(1) The plan shall provide for periodic review and revision, as appropriate, ofthelong-term strategy not less than every three years. This review shall include consultation with the appropriate Federal Land Manager and areport to the public and the Administrator onprogress towardthe national goal.

(2)This report shall include: (i)An assessment, prepared after consultation with the Federal Land Manager and including any evaluations

as provided by the Federal Land Manager under §51.302(c)(4)(ii] ofthe
progress achieved in remedying existing impairment:

(ii) An evaluation, prepared after consultation with the Federal Land Manager and including any evaluations provided by the Federal Land Manager, of any change in visibility since the last such report, or, in the caseofthe first report, since plan approval:

(iii)A reassessment ofthe ability of the long-term strategy to prevent future impairment ofthe mandatory class I Federal area;.

(iv) An identification of additional

measures, including the need for SIP revisions, that maybe necessary to

assure reasonable progress toward the national goal;

(v) An assessment of theprogress achieved in implementing BART and meeting other schedules set forth in the long-term strategy; and

(vi) An assessment ofthe impact of an exemptiongranted under Section 51.303.

(d)(1) The long-term strategy shall provide for review of the impacts on visibility forany area listed in40 CFR Part 81, Subpart D ofall newmajor emitting facilities and major modifications. (2)Thisreview ofnewmajor emitting facilities and major modifications shall be in accordance with such guidance as is providedby the Agency.

(e) The long-term strategy shall include areview ofthe impacts on visibility ofall pollutants regulated under theClean Air Act at such times,

as determined by the Administrator, as

new technologybecomes reasonably 34769Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 101 / Thursday, May 22, 1980 / Proposed Rules

available for the control ofthe pollutant for each existing major stationary

source causing or contributing to impairment in ank mandatory class I Federal area which impact is reasonably attributable to that source. Where control representing BART has not been previously required for a pollutant, reanalyzed at the source, the plan shall require the imposition ofsuch control as indicated by this reanalysis.

(f)The State in developing the longterm strategy shall consider, at a minimum, the following measures for incorporation into the long-term strategy:

(1) Emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control programs,

(2) Additional emission limitations, and schedules for compliance,

-

(3)Mitigation ofimpacts of construction activities,

(4) Source retirement and replacement. schedules,

(5) Smoke management techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes, and

(6)Enforceability ofemission limitations and control measures.

(g)The plan shall discuss the reasons why the above and other reasonable"

measures considered in the development of the long-term strategy were orwere not adopted aspart of the long-term strategy.

(h)The plan shall include schedules for the implementation of the elements ofthe long-tem strategy.

iI) The long-term strategy shall take into account the effect ofnew sources; and, for existing sources, the costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, the remaining useful life of any affected existing source and equipment therein, and the degree of improvement in visibility anticipated to result from control. §51.307 New source review.

(a) For purposes ofnew source review under the Clean AirAct, the State plan shall provide for written notificatfon of all appropriate Federal Land Managers of any proposed new major emitting facility ormajor modification thatmay affect visibility in any Federal classI

area. Such notification shall be made in writing and within 30 days ofreceipt of and at least 30 days prior to public hearing by the State on the application forpermit to construct. Such notification shall include an analysis of the anticipated impacts on visibility on the Federal class I area.

(b) The plan shall provide for consideration ofany demonstration by a Federal Land Manager, provided Within 30 days ofthe notification required by paragraph (a) above, that such proposed major emitting facility ormajor modification will have an adverse impact on visibility in any Federal class I area, incliding any integral vista identified in accordance with paragraph (h)below. Where the State finds that such a demonstration does not adequately support a determination by the State that an adverse impact will result, the State shall provide the Federal Land Manager with such analyses and discussion as supports the State's findings. This must be submitted
to theFederal Land Manager in writing and at least 30 days prior to anypublic hearing on such application or, ifthere is

no public hearing, 30 days prior to issuance ofthe permit.

(c)Where the State,in consultation with the Federal Land Manager, determines that an adverse impact on visibility in any Federal class I area will result from anew major emitting facility

or major modification, the State shall
not issue the permit.

(d) The State plan shall provide for the opportunity forreview, by the public, ofany new major emitting facility or majormodification that may have an impact onvisibility in any Federal class I area.

(e) The plan shall provide for consultation by the State with the appropriate Federal Land Manager on any application for a new source review permit submitted by any major emitting facility or majormodification that may affect visibility in any Federal class I

area.

(f)The State may, after considering the recommendation of the appropriate Federal Land Manager, require monitoring ofvisibility in the Federal class Iarea near the proposed new major emitting facility or major modification for such purposes and by such means as the State deems necessary and appropriate. (g)Theplan shall provide foran opportunity for consultation, prior to issuance of anynew source review permit, with the Agency where a dispute between the Federal Land Manager and the State exists on the issuance ofsuch permit.

(h) The plan shall provide for the protection ofintegral vistas for Federal class -1 areas identified in accordance with "Criteria for the Identification of Integral Vistas" as follow:

(1)For Federal class I areas so designated as ofthe date of promulgation ofthese regulations. (i)Integral vistas identified prior to the calendar year in which a complete

new source permit application is filed, and (iH) Identified priorto December 31, 1985.

(2) ForFederal class I areas designated after the date of promulgation of these regulations, as identified at the time ofreclassification ofsuch area to class I.

(3)The State need not provide visibility protection ofa vista identified

as integral by the Federal Land Manager, ifit determines that such integral vistahas not been identified In accordance with "Criteria for the Identification ofIntegral Vistas." Supplemental Statement ofBasis and Purpose 1

The following discussion supplements various aspects ofthe basis and purpose forEPA's proposed regulations on visibility protection.

1. Thephasedapproach-Congress required that EPApromulgate regulations to (a) assure reasonable
progress toward meeting the national visibility goal set out in Section 169A(a)(1), (b) require BART analyses for existing major stationary sources, and (c) require development ofa longterm strategy [Section 169A(a)(4), (b)(2)]. Congress, however, did not address the problem ofvisibility protection from a scientific perspective since, at the time of the Clean AirAct Amendments of 1977, there was scant technical and virtually no regulatory experience with the protection ofvisibility. Recognizing this, Congress left the appropriate techniques and methods for implementing the visibility protection
program ofSection 169A and, indeed, the precise definition oftheproblem to be addressed to EPA's study and regulations [Section 169A(a)(2), (a)(3), and (b)(1)]. EPA's subsequent study of visibility impairmentrevealed that manmade visibility impairment manifests itselfin various forms. Some ofthese forms can be attributed to specific

sources. EPA has determined, however, that there exist at present limitations In source/impairment relationships which make it impossible inmany cases, particularly for multi-source impacts, to predict confidently that a given amount ofcontrol will yield a specific degree of improvement in visibility. EPA is thus proposing, as anticipated by the Advanced Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (ANPR), a "phased approach" to these regulations.

This phased approach will permit State control agencies to focus initially

on the most clearly defined cases of existing impairment and on strategies to prevent future impairment, while

'Note. This statement will not appear In thn Code ofFederal Regulations. 34770Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 101 / Thursday, May 22, 1980 / Proposed Rules

allowing evolution ofadditional guidelines and control strategies as scientific understanding ofsource/ impairment relationships improves. EPA received support for this approach in
comments from representatives ofboth environmental and industdial groups.

Even though the Agency has referred
to the proposed rules as Phase I the basic structure ofthe regulations provided today will remain consistent forall phases.These regulations function as thebasic framework from which this presentprogram canbe implemented and future phases can be incorporated. In other words, the basic planrequirements willremain consistent while only the elements which define the scope ofPhase Iwill change in response to advances in technical kdowledge.

2. General definitions-As explained below several definitions are consistent with the proposed PSD regulations (44 FR 51924). Where modifications are made in the final promulgation, expected shortly, these definitions will be changed accordingly.

A. "'Existing major stationary source'--Section169A(g](7] defines the
term "major stationary source"; however,to avoid confusion with the PSD regulations, EPAhas defined the
term "existing major stationary source" which includes the age limitations specified in Section 169A(bJ[2)(A). The proposed definition of"existing major stationary source" follows the definition in Section 169A(g)(7). It is limited to specific source categories with the potential to emit 250 tons ormore per year ofany pollutant regulated under the Act. The meaning of Section 169A(g)(7)'s definition of"stationary

sources with the potential to emit 250
tons per year ofany pollutant" depends

on the interpretation of "potential to emit" and "stationary source." Since Congress used similar language in Section 169(1) without indicating a change in meaning, it is appropriate to examine what Congress intended in Section 169(1), in interpreting these
terms [H. Rep. No. 95-564,95th Cong., 1st Sess. 155 (1977)]. InAlabamaPower

v. Costle,13 ERC 1993, the Court has already examined this and the result of this interpretation is the basis for today's proposed definition of"existing major stationar, source" as defined in Section 169A(g)(7). Any change inEPA's proposed interpretation ofSection 169(1) forpurposes ofPSD may affect the definition proposed today forvisibility unless legal authority and differing program objectives would support different definitions for each program. Specifically, today's proposal defines "potential to emit" as "the capability at maximum design capacity to emit a pollutant after the application ofair pollution control equipment." This definition parallels thatproposed in the PSD regulations on September 5,1979 (44FR 51924). "Potential to emit" would be calculated on the assumption that air pollution control equipment incorporated into the design ofa source will control emissions in the manner reasonably anticipated when the calculation is made. Therefore, whether

a source is an existing major stationary

source might depend primarily on what control equipment has been incorporated in its design.

The definition of"potential to emit" also states: "Annual potential shall be based on the maximum annual rated capacity of the stationary source assuming continuous year round operation.

Enforceable permit conditions on the type ofmaterials combusted or processed may be used in determining the annual potential." This is consistent with theAlabamaPowerdecision which calls for calculation ofa source's "potential to emit" based on its "full design capacity" [13 ERC at 20031. However, this calculation could reflect enforceable permit conditions on the
amount ofmaterials combused or processed. Also, again consistent with EPA's PSD proposal, "Secondary emissions" would not count in determining a source's potential to emit.

In determining whether a source, as defined inSection 169A(g](7), has the potential to emit 250 tons per year of a pollutant, EPA proposes to take into
account all of the emissions ofthat pollutant-even fugitive emissions, at least to the extent that they are reasonably quantifiable. EPAbelieves that there is no reason why a source ofa particular pollutant should escape the BART requirement merely because the emissions ofthe pollutant arefugitive, when a source emitting the same pollutant might have to install BART if the emissions are vented through a stack

or other opening. Inboth cases, the emissions could cause orcontribute to visibility impairment.

InAlabamaPower, the Court said fugitive emissions could not be counted in determining whether a source is major unless EPA issues an appropriate legislative rule [13 ERC at 2017]. Today's proposal, therefore, explicitly states that fugitive emissions shall be included in determining thepotential to emit for each of the source categories listed in Section 169A(g)(7). Consistent with the Court's holding, the proposal defines "fugitive emissions" as "those emissions which do notpass through a stack, chimney, vent. or other functionally equivalent opening."

Asfor "stationary" inAlabama Power, the Court said that the definition of"stationary source" in Section 111(a](3) controls the meaning ofthat term when used in the PSD part ofthe
statute [13ERC at 20381.

Theproposed regulations would define "building. structure,facility, or installation" as "any grouping of pollutant-emitting activities which is located on one ormore contiguous or adjacent properties and which are controlled by the same person (or by
persons under common control)." This definition would be important in determining whether additions to, or reconstructions of, an existing stationary source in operation before August 7,1962 would be subject to the BART requirement. For example, a fossile-fuel fired steam electric plant (power plant) ofmore than 250 million
Btu an hourheat input may havebeen "in operation" before August 7,1962, but also may have added twoboilers in 1967. These two boilers would be considered an "existing major stationary source" ifindividually ortogether they had the potential to emit 250tons a year

or more ofany pollutant, and ifthey

were ofmore than 250million Btuheat input since "source" would, in effect,

mean anygrouping ofpollutant-emitting activities at one site andunder common control. The twoboilers would also be

an "existing major stationary source" if they were "reconstructed." The proposed definition of"reconstruction" is consistent with that in 40 CFR 60.15, dealing with new source performance standards..

InAlabamaPower,theCourt stated that Congress gaveEPA latitude to define the component terms of "stationary source" to reflect the purpose and structure of theprogram for which thedefinition is intended [13 ERC
at 2040]. The purpose ofthevisibility regulations is to assure reasonable
progress toward the remedying ofany existing and the preventing ofany future impairment ofvisibility in certain class I

areas. Congress structured the program

so that the BART requirement would be

an important mechanism for achieving

one part ofthat purpose, the remedying of existing visibility impairment. Although theBART analysis itself considers theremaining useful life ofthe

source, cost. and other factors, Congress decided that EPA should notbe required by statute to require BARTfor all

sources regardless ofage as a minimum condition for SIPapproval.

Where a source has had an addition

orreconstruction with thepotential to emit 250 tons a year ofa pollutant

### 34771Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 101 / Thursday, May 22, 1980 / Proposed Rules

between August 7, 1962 and.August-7, 1977, EPA believes that the implicit

concern of Congressregarding

- remaining useful life does not apply to the new components at the site and-that; therefore, Congress did not intend to "grandfather" such additions or reconstructions. Such a "grandfathering" approach would be withoutreason and could seriously undermine progress toward remedying existing visibility impairment.Indeed; preliminary EPA data show that a source citedby' Congress in the legislative history ofthe visibility provisions as causing existing visibility impairment in the Grand Canyon would escape BARTreview entirely under such a grandfathering approach, even though nearly halfits boiler capacity was,added since August 7, 1962.

On this basis,,EPA believes both the proposed definition of"reconstruction" and "building, structure, facility,or installation" are authorized by the Act and are vital to achieving,Congress'

purpose.

B. "Inexistence'"and 'in operation'- The Section 169A requirement for a BART-analysis applies only to a major stationary source "in existence"-on August 7, 1977and which, on that date, had not been "in operation" for more than 15years. EPA has proposed to define "in existence" as meaning "that the owner oroperator has obtainedall
necessary preconstruction or air quality, laws or regulations and has either (i) begun orcaused tobegin, a continuous
program ofphysical on-site construction ofthe facility or (i) entered.into binding agreements or contractual obligations which cannot be cancelled ormodified without substantial loss to the owner or operator, to undertake a program of construction of the facility to be completed in allowable time." The proposal would define "in operation!' as meaning "engaged in activity related to the primary design function of the source." EPA intends a broad interpretation of "primary design function"; thus for example, the production ofcoke in a steel plant is related to its-primary design function, just as is the production ofsteel.

EPA believes the Actrequires that each existing major stationary source that started operation after August 7, 1962 be potentially-subject eitherto the BART requirements or to the PSD requirements,as set outin the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977. EPA specifically solicits comment on whether this interpretation is correct and, whether the proposed definition of "in existence" would serve that interpretation. 

### C:Reasonablyattributable-The proposed-regulations would define "reasonably attributable" to mean attributable byvisual observationor other.monitoring techniques. This is the mechanism thatoimplements the first phase ofthe visabilityprotection
program. Thus, ifan existing major stationary source- emits any airpollutant: whiih-can normally be anticipated to

cause-or contribute-to any impairment in

an area which impairment can be reasonably attributable to such a source onlykby anal-ytical techniques, (i.e., modeling] it will not be subject to 

### a BART analysisin this first phase ofthe visibility protection program. This definition will likely change in later phases to take advantage ofany improvements in'understanding ofthe source/impairment relationship for visibility:EPA specifically solicits
comment on this approach to implementing the BART requirement, including whether there are circumstances where current modeling techniques could be employed to indicate thatimpairment is-reasonably attributable to a source.

(3)'Visibility impafrment-EPA is proposing to define "visibilityimpairment" as any humanly perceptible change in visibility (visualrange, contrast, and coloration)from that which would have existed undernatural

- conditions. The first partof this definition would require that the impairment be humanly perceptible. EPA, in the ANPR, solicited
comment on three separate approaches
to treating perceptibility as an element ofvisibility,impairment. These were (1) the smallest measurable,change in visibility which is detectable by instruments; (2)-impairment which is perceptible to humans; and (3)a visually perceptible impairment which is considered significant or adverse, There

were no comments received in support ofthe first approach. Several
commenters supported the second approach, which EPA is today proposing, because the Act intends for visibility protection to be primarily directed atpreserving the enjoyment andbenefits ofgood-visibility for people.

The restriction to perceptibility, as maybe observed byhumans, is critical. As noted, varying conditions can affect theperceptibility ofa specific impact. Additionally, available instrumentation is more sensitive to contrast and reduction in visual range than is the human-eye. The Agency feels that the interpretation used in these regulations is correct based upon the Congressional

concern regarding visibility. The intent ofCongress in including Section 169A in the Act was.to protect the public's enjoyment ofthe class Iarea and, thus, impacts on visibility which cannot be perceived by a human observer should
not be considered impairment in the
context ofthe national visibility goal. As discussed below, the proposed regulations charge the appropriate Federal Land Managers with identifying' impairment in an area andEPA expects that, in doing so, the Federal Land Managers will keep the public's enjoyment of that area in mind.

Also, several commenters suggested that the third approach to impairment suggested by the ANPR was the most appropriate because, they argued, Congress intended to remedy only thatimpairment that is considered significant or adverse. EPA believes Congress, in declaring the national goal of "the prevention ofanyfuture, and the remedying ofany existing impairment of visibility" (emphasis added), clearly did
notintend that the visibility proteotion
program berdirected at only those impacts considered significant or adverse. Ifthishad-been the intent, Congress clearly could have stated the national goal as the prevention of significantfuture impairment and the remedying ofsignificantexisting impairment. This it did not do. In the provisions ofSection 169A which provide guidance onthe nature ofthe regulations EPA should promulgate, the concept of"significant impairment" is mentioned only in connection with an exemption fiomBART [Section 169A(c)]. Clearly, it would be nonsensical for Congress to provide an exemption based

on a lack of significant visibility. impairment if,by-definition, visibility impairment could notbe other than "significant."

The second part ofthe proposed

- definition includes "contrast," as well as

"visual range" and "coloration" as expressions ofvisibility impairment. EPA believes virtually all manifestations ofvisibility impairment can be expressed by one ofthese terms. Contrast, as discussed in the Report to Congress, is generally a much more easily understopd'indicator of visibility impairment and is mathematically interrelated to visual range. One can often perceive and express contrast changes in visibility more easily than changes in visual range or coloration.

Preliminary studies (seeProtecting Visibility:An EPA Reportto Congress) indicate that a contrast change in the
range of0.02 to 0.05 is capable ofbeing perceived by a human observer. The variation expressed is a result of variability in observer sensitivity and 

### 34772.Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 101 / Thursday, May 22, 1980 / Proposed Rules

spacing of contrasting objects. Additionally, reductions in visualrange

as small as 5%may be perceptible to the human observer.Where the impairment is in the form ofa coherent plume, the above values will not necessarily be limiting. In this case, other factors, such

as a substantial difference in color between the sky and plume, may heighten the viewer's ability to perceive the contrast change. Current efforts to describe visibility impairment in terms ofcoloration are promising but are, as yet, incomplete. While strict values for
contrast and visual range reduction have not been and may neverbe established, the vicinity ofthe lower bounds on perceptibility can be estimated. The final determination is, however, related directly to whether the effect could be observed by man. It is important tonote that the Agency is continuing to evaluate visibility data and that data obtained from studies conducted in 1979 indicate arange of 0.01 to 0.04 contrast change may be perceptible. Additional studies are being conducted in 1980 to confirm past research.

One commenter on the ANPR argued that Section 169A(g)(6), which says "the

terms 'visibility impairment' and 'impairment of visibility' shall include reduction in visual range and atmospheric discoloration," cannot be expanded to include "contrast." This argument contradicts the plain meaning ofthe statutory language. The use ofthe words "shall include" in Section 169A(g)(6), clearly indicates that EPA

must treat "visibility impairment" as including "reduction in visual range and atmospheric discoloration." Just as clear, however, is Congress' intent that Section 169A(g)(6) be inclusive, not restrictive. Congress was explicit when it intended the statutory definition tobe restrictive, as shown by the definitions in Section 169A(g) (3), (4), (5), and (7).

That Congress gave EPA discretion to clarify the meaning ofvisibility impairment is also supported by Section 169A[a)(3)(A). That section requires EPA
to study and report to Congress "on available methods for implementing the national goal." That report must include recommendations for.

"(A] methods for identifying, characterizing, determining, quantifying, and measuring visibility impairment in [mandatory class I Federal areas]."

This language unmistakably indicates Congress' intent that EPA has discretion

on how broadly ":visibilityimpairment" should be defined to effectuate the national goal. This discretion was not solely for purposes ofthe Report to Congress. Section 169A(b)(1) says the visibility regulations shall "tak[el into account the recommendations" in the Report to Congress. EPA's careful study ofthe visibility problem, including that contained in the Report to Congress, supports the definition of"visibility impairment" proposed today and, therefore, it is authorized.

Finally, the definition ofimpairment restricts impairment to thatresulting from human activities, i.e., impairment which would nothave existed under natural conditions.While visibility may be degraded as a result ofnatural
causes, Congress clearly limited the
scope ofthe national visibility goal by including only "impairment [which] results from manmade airpollution:' Although the determination ofnatural conditions would be difficult and is to

some extent dependent on the monitoring research being done, as discussed elsewhere in this notice, EPA believes such a determination will not be critical to some aspects ofthe first phase ofthe program. Ifimpairment can, ,by visual means, be reasonably attributed toa source, the determination ofwhether the impairment is man-made involves no precise measurement of natural conditions.

The remedying ofexisting impairment willrequire the control ofcertain existing sources and, therefore, in some circumstances it may be appropriate to evaluate the potential improvement in visibility against existing conditions. However, aswe approach the national goal the impact ofnew sources will become more perceptible and since new

sources are expected to last longer than existing sources their impacts shouldbe evaluated against natural conditions which would exist in the absence of man-made impairment. Itwill therefore be important to attempt to provide some assessment ofnatural and existing conditions. Although such an assessment will be difficult, one method ofachieving this would be through an analysis ofavailable information to determine the best visibility that currently exists in an area. In making this assessment the State should recognize that frequently visibility is dependent upon seasonal factors.As such, available information should be subdivided into seasonal patterns. The seasonal best visibility would then be chosen on thebasis ofseasonal variations in naturally occurring phenomena which would then represent natural conditions. Of course one valuable method for obtaining data is through visibility monitoring. Although the Agency is currently evaluating monitoring techniques, these proposed rules would require the State to dcvelop

a monitoring strategy which would include a strategy forassessing natural conditions and provide for the reevaluation ofnatural conditions. based upon new data for the purpose of assessing new source impacts on visibility.

(4)Significant impairment-The proposed regulations define significant impairment as "visibility impairment which, in thejudgment ofthe Administrator, interferes with the management, protection, preservation,

orenjoyment ofthe mandatory class I Federal area, including interference with and impairment ofthe visitor's visual experience. This determination shall be made on a case-by-case basis taking into account the extent, intensity, and duration of theimpairment frequency and time ofoccurrence ofthe impairment, the correlation between times ofvisitor use and access to the mandatory class IFederal area and the frequency ofoccurrence and timing of natural conditions."

TheAgency believes that while the national goal calls for "the prevention of

onyfuture, and the remedying ofany existing impairment invisibility" (emphasis added], by establishing exemptions in Sections 169A(c](I] and 169A(c](2] of the Act, Congress clearly recognized that there may be circumstances where impairment may exist but, due to the circumstances surrounding thatimpairment, reduction

orelimination of the impairment may not be appropriate.

Secondly, in determining whether impairment is significant, the Administrator will evaluate: (a)How frequently theimpairment

occurs,



### tb)The extent ordegree ofthe impairment.

(c) The time at which the impairment Occurs,

(d)The intensity ofthe impairment, ;nd

(e) The duration ofthe impairment. There are clearly cases where impairment may exist but doesnot interfere with thepublic's enjoyment of the mandatory class IFederal area as pointed out by several commenters. An example may be where the impairment occurred only when visitor use was negligible or nonexistent. Since the intent of Congress, through Section 169A, is to protect the public's cnijoyment ofthese areas, impairment %hich doesnot affect public enjoyment should not be considered significant. The Administrator will consider the recommendations ofthe appropriate Federal Land Manager since the Federal Land Manager has expert knowledge of

an area. 34773Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 101 / Thursday, May 22, 1980 / Proposed Rules

(5) Reanalysisof BART-Proposed Section 51.306(e) would require that BART be reanalyzed at such times as the Administrator determines that new technology exists for the control ofa pollutant having an impact on visibility. The basic purpose ofthis requirement for reanalysis is to ensure the maximum opportunity for the consideration ofnew technology for the control ofvisibility impairment.

Where a source has had to retrofit controls for a pollutant as a result of a BART analysis, EPA believes that there
may be instances where the source should not later be subject to a different requirement for retrofit control ofthat pollutant. However, EPA believes that,

as a part of itslong-term strategy, a State should reevaluate each existing major stationary source for the applicability ofnew controls for all pollutants. Since the State would be free to require additional controls for a pollutant even where BART has previously been required for that pollutant the State may desire to do so

as part ofits long-term strategy. Where the control representing BART has not been previously required for a pollutant reanalyzbd at the source, the State must require the imposition ofsuch control as indicated by this reanalysis. This reanalysis must also include a congideration ofin-place controls.

EPArecognizes that a broader "grandfathering" of sources which have applied BART controls could insulate such sources from future BART requirements for a pollutant even ifthe previous BART control was minimal. For example, a power plant would have an incentive to modify its burners to reduce emissions ofNO. in response to a BART analysis in order to escape further BART requirements for NO. even though much more effective control technology
may become available in the future. EPA, thus, specifically invites comments

on this and other approaches to the problem. Several alternatives

commenters may wish to address are:

(1) Requiring reanalysis ofsources and imposition of controls on pollutants regardless ofprevious BART determinations.

(2) Requiring automatic, periodic review ofall BART determinations;

(3)Requirng reanalysis ofsources and implementation ofcontrols as a reasonable progress measure;

(4) Requiring reanalysis ofBART for all pollutants during each new phase of regulatory development; and (5)Not requiring reanalysis. Commenters are encouraged to include a discussion ofthe legal and policy basis for any alternatives recommended. 6. Visabilitymonitoring-Many
commenters addressed the issue of visibility monitoring. Many of these

comments dealt with whether EPA, the State, or the Federal Land Manager should have the primary responsibility for visibility monitoring. Today's proposal recognizes the need for cooperation and consultation in the area of visibility monitoring, not only in the

area ofinstrumentation but in the use and interpretation of data obtained. Although EPA will be continuing research in the area ofvisibility monitoring, primarily for the purpose of developing EPA-approved standardized ("reference method") visibility monitoring techniques and data collection for Validation ofanalytical techniques, thisproposal would require the consideratin ofvisibility monitoring and data in two aspects. The first of these areas is the development of a visibility monitoring strategy. The Agency believes that the use of available monitoring data and the collection ofsupplemental data can

serve the State well in preparation of the SIP revision and the assessment of the long-term strategy's ability to make reasonable progress toward the national goal. In this strategy the State is
expected to discuss the use ofvisual observations and other monitoring techniques as decided upon by the State after consultation with the Federal Land Manager. It is anticipated that the supervisor ofthe particular mandatory class I Federal area will be able to provide some assessment over a period oftime as to the impairment that exists

or may not exist in the area. Where agreements ofthis type can be reached they should be incorporated into the monitoring strategy.

The second aspect ofvisibility monitoring is the consideration ofthe need for monitoring associated with a proposed major emitting facility or major modification. The permitting authority should consult with the Federal Land Manager on the individual decision and take into account available visibility monitoring data and the need for additional monitoring data. The authority can require new sources collect such data under the auspices of the PSD program. Where necessary, additional assistance can be obtained through the EPA Regional Offices.

Though the Agency is not prepared to promulgate "reference methods," there is substanial info'mation available regarding visibility monitoring methods currently in use.A discussiion of techniques currently in use and under evaluation for visibility monitoring may be found in "Protecting Visibility: An EPA Report to Congress," Interim guidance on monitoring is expected to be released by the Agency in the near future. After appropriate public review and comment, the interim guidance will be incorporated by reference in the promulgated visibility regulations. A Federal Register notice will announce the document's availability.

7. Visibilitymodeling-Almostall
commenters on the issue ofvisibility modeling agreed with the position set forth in the ANPR that visibility models should be used only with a recognition of their limitations. However, a substantial number ofcommenters expressed the opinion that limitations

on visibility models were so substantial

as to totally preclude their use. As noted in the ANPR, the Agency is attempting
tovalidate several analytical techniques for the purpose of addressing visibility impacts. The Agency believes that although these techniques are currently unvalidated, they can provide valuable input in the decision-making process when combined with common sense interpretations ofall available data. The Agency believes that the proposed regulations recognize both the limitations and the presence of these analytical techniques.

EPA is currently attempting to validate these techniques through various research programs, and will make available for public review and
comments these results as soon as they

are available. Additionally, the Agency is preparing interim guidance on the usa ofanalytical techniques and will also make this available for review and public comment.

Results obtained from visibility analytical techniques may be useful In addressing the impacts ofsingle sources

on visibility in two parts of this proposed rule. The first of these Is the BART guideline, the use ofwhich Is optional except for power plants with a generating capacity in excess of750 megawatts. This guideline suggests the

use of analytical techniques to estimate the degree ofimprovement anticipated from control of certain pollutants. The techniques would estimate the level of impairment under existing conditions and compare it with the impairment estimated by the "model" under anew control scenario. EPA specifically solicits comment on whether this comparison to existing conditions is appropriate in all circumstances, for example, where existing Impairment
may be attributed in part to other

sources which have not been required to install reasonably available control technology.

EPA does not believe these predicted levels ofimpairmqnt should be used In 

### 34774Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 101 / Thursday, May 22, 1980 / Proposed Rules

an absolute manner forall pollutants. Instead, the Agency intends that the predicted levels ofimpairment only be used to assess the relative improvement that maybe achieved under the new control scenario. However, EPA believes it is important to qualify this predicted relative improvement with all available data. For example,it would be useful to compare the impairment resulting from an actual source similar to the analyzed source to that estimated under the new control scenario. Thus, the guideline requires the estimated relative improvement tobe qualified by other available data. While the above discussion qualifies the use ofanalytical techniques, it is important to remember that any such analysis should use all available tools recognizing that each provides valuable information relevant
to the analysis and the limitations on the tool should be recognized.

The otherprogram area for which analytical results can be ofvalue is in the evaluation ofvisibility impacts from

new sources. An interim guidance document for the assessment of these

new sources is being developed and will be made available forpublic comment.

8. InteigovernmentalcooperationThe Agency received 20 comments pertaining to the roles of States,Federal Land Managers, and EPA in the development and implementation of visibility regulations. Nine commenters felt the regulations should be structured
to provide authoritative input form the Federal Land Managers. Others felt the Act gave the State final decision-making authority and the Federal Land Manager only an advisory role.

The regulations, asproposed, provide

an active role for both Federal land Managers and States.The Federal Land Managers are guaranteed input into the SIPrevision process, including identification ofintegral vistas and

concurrence on any BART exemption. The State,however, retains final authority forthe development ofthe SIP, BART determinations, and implementation of the visibility program. EPA would remainprimarily in a technical and policy advisory position, continuing research on visibility and developing Phase IIregulations when it becomes technically feasible.

EPAbelieves the visibility program should truly be a cooperative one. While the States are aware oflocal conditions and preferences, the Federal Land Managers remain most familiar with conditions unique to the parks and wildernesses and the importance ofthe visibility values to the visitor experience in an area.The regulations are structured to provide input into the decision-making process by both the States and the Federal Land Managers, but EPA believes for the visibility
program tobe a viable one, all affectod parties mustwork together.

Several commenters were also conoerned that the subjective judgment of the Federal Land Managers maybe given too much weight. These
commenters suggested that objective guidelines orspecific minimum criteria be applied to any decision by the Federal Land Managers. Under the proposal, judgments by the Federal Land Managers willbe necessarily somewhat subjective because visibility is a perceived quality and difficult to quantify. However, many of these decisions, such as identification of integral vistas, are to be made according
to EPA quidelines or criteria which will provide consistency andprevent random, capricious determinations. Others willbe made in coordination with the States or with assistance from EPA.

9. Protection ofintegralvistos-The proposed regulations would require a State to protect ahy integral vistas which are identified by the Federal Land Manager within 90 days of the promulgation ofthese regulations. unless the State in its SIPdemonstrates
to the Administrator that the Federal Land Manager did not identify the vista according to the criteria set out in "Criteria for the Identification of Integral Vistas". A vista identified by the Federal Land Manager more than90 days afterpromulgation would have to be protected for visibility not later than
at the time ofthe periodic review ofthe long-term strategy.

The reason forthe 90-day period for identification ofvistas to be affected by this first phase of visibility SIPrevisions is that the Act requires SIPs tobe revised within 9months ofthe promulgation date and, in order for a state to meet this deadline, it will need
to know within 90 days of the promulgation date what integral vistas
must be protected in that revision. Some Federal Land Managers have informed EPA that identification within the 90- day period will be possible, although difficult, to meetwhile others have commented that,because ofthe need to integrate visibility protection with planning for certain other management objectives, identification of vistas within 90 days ofpromulgation is unlikely.

Under the proposed regulations, the decision when and whether toidentify

an integral vista is primarily the responsibility ofthe appropriate Federal Land Manager who, under the Act (and the legislation creating an area), has a special role in protecting the values of

an area. Although EPArecognizes the difficulties in identifying thevistas within 90 days,it believes in most cases the appropriate Federal Land.Manager should be able to identify the integral vista within that time.All the areas have already been analyzed pursuant to action under Section 16A(a)(2} to determine whether visibility is an importantvalue. Also, since it seems unlikely thatEPA will promulgate these regulations before November 1980, the time bywhen the integral vistasmust be identified to receive protection in the first phase of SIPrevisions for visibility isstill many months away. EPAis releasing the identification criteria for publiccomment along with this proposal and it shouldbe possible for the Federal Land Managers to take preliminary steps now to prepare for the identification ofintegral vistas, even though the criteria may change in light ofcomments received. For example, one important criterion unlikely tobe changed bypublic comment is whether the legislation creating an area specifically mentioned an integral vista

as a reason forits being given special protection. Itis important to note that the identification criteria present two different techniques for the final identification process. Comment is specifically requested on the appropriateness ofboth techniques.

Over the next few years Federal Land Managers will be developing area management programs which could includeidentification ofadditional integral vistas tobe protected. As a result EPA has proposed a procedure which affords protection ofintegral vistas which havebeen identified by the Federal LandManager prior to the calendar year in which a new source submits a complete permit application. However.EPAbelieves that this procedure could result in some uncertainty for new sources and therefore has proposed thatno additional vistasbe identified beyond December31,1985 for any Federal class I area which exists at thetime of promulgation oftheseregulations. Additionally, theproposed procedure would allow a new source to escape the requirement for protection ofan integral vista that may have beenidentified nearly a year before, by submitting a complete application late in the calendar year inwhich the vistawas identified. TheAgency also believes that theprocedures for the reclassification ofFederal Lands to class Ishould also involve the identification ofintegral vistas in order
to prevent such uncertainties in the future. TheAgency specifically solicits 

### 34775Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 101 / Thursday, May 22, 1980 / Proposed Rules

comments on whether this procedure will result in too much uncertainty for

new sources between now and December31, 1985 and on other systems which could be used to accomplish the, objective ofprotecting new integral vistas while providing timefor the Federal Land Manager to develop management plans for their areas. Based upon the comment received, EPA may retain, modify, or delete this requirement. Three alternatives which the Agency is soliciting comment on are:

(1)providing protection forintegral vistas identified at least a miiimumlime period prior to the submission ofa complete application,

(2) a requirement that the source consult with appropriate Federal Land Manager at some designated interval prior to submission ofthe application and requiring protection ofvistas identified within a specific time period after that consultation, and

(3)a provision which allows the Federal Land Manager to identify additional integral vistas within 30 days of being notified about a new source permit.

EPA recognizes that there are other procedural mechanisms that could be devised for identifying integral vistas. One alternative might be a procedure like that in Section 169A(a](2) of theAct, whereby the Federal Land Managers recommend integral vistas to EPA, and EPA then promulgates the list with any change it feels is appropriate. EPA believes the proposed approach avoids the unnecessarilyprotracted process involved in this alternative,but specifically solicits comments onthis and other alternative procedure for identification ofintegral vistas.

There has leen comment that Congress did not intend to protectvistas which include places outside the boundaries ofmandatory class IFederal

areas. This intent is expressed, these
commenters say, in the planlanguage of Section 169A(a)(1] which identifies the national goal ofvisibility protection "in" mandatory class IFederal areas. Examination ofthe statutory language and legislative history,however,reveals that they both support EPA's position and that removing integral vistas from protection would seriously undermine the purpose ofSection 169A.

EPA's proposal agrees with the plain language of Section 169A. It protects no views into a class Iarea from outside the area as some commenters urged. The only visibility values protected are those "in" a mandatory class IFederal area, just as Section 169A provides. This follows because "visibility" is a perceptual value and theperception

occurs "in" an area. Inidentifying the visibility values of a mandatory class IFederal area, both the House and Senate Report counsel attention to thefundamental purposes for.which Congress established such lands, and bothquote the 1916 National Parks Organic Act (16 U.S.C. Section 1) that the purpose of such lands "is to

conserve the scenery and the natural and historicobjects and the wildlife therein and to provide forthe enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such

means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment offuture generations" [H. Rep. No. 95-294. 95th Cong,-1st Sess. 137 ,(1977], S. Rep. No. 95-127, lst Sess. 36 (1977)]. Irr1978, Congress amended this

act to "reaffirm!' this purpose and direct that the "protection of[areas of the National Park System] shall be conducted in light of the high public value and integrity ofthe National Park System and shall not be exercised in derogation ofvalues and purposes for which these various areas have been established, except as may have been or shall be directly or specifically provided 'by Congress" [16 U.S.C. Section la-1]. The specific legislation establishing the mandatory class IFederal areas cited in
many cases the magnificent scenery of the area as a reason for its establishment [44FR 69122 (November 30, 1979]). Congress, in framing the visibility regulations, clearly was aware that many ofthese areas were set aside -becauseoftheir "extensive vistas, expansive scenicviews, unique natural formations orprimitive value" [123 Cong.Rec. S9172 (daily ed.June 8, 1977)]. EPA's proposal carries out Congress' intent that air quality-related values (includingvisibility)_be protected. These values include vistas, regardless ofthelocation of the places viewed, if they are an integral part ofthe visibility experience in an area. Some areas may have no integral vistas; othersmay. For example, the view fromMesa Verde National Park ofShiptock (New Mexico), a unique natural feature, could be identified as essential to the public enjoyment and values ofthe park.By requiring the participation ofinterested
persons and a careful analysis of pertinent criteria, the proposal assures that integral vistas willnotbe identified carelessly as an air quality-related value bfthe area but,rather, that any such identification will result from a prudent, circumscribed effort.

The legislative history contains many references to the "grand," "distant," and "breathtaking" "vistas"and "panoramas" ofmandatory class I Federal areas which merit visibility. protection [See, e.g., H.Rep. No. 95-.294,
supra, at 148, 204, 205; 123 Cong.Rec. H8651, H8669 (daily ed. August 4, 1977)].
In addition, Congress repeatedly stressed that public enjoyment ofthe parks and the economic benefits tourism brings were reasons for protecting visibility i mandatory class I Federal

areas [See, e.g., H.Rep. No. 95--294,
supra, at 24. Even opponents of farranging protection against deterioration ofair quality recognized that "visibility"

means the ability to see distant places and panoramic sweeps like the view from the top ofa mountain, and that such visibility is a requisite to the full enjoyment ofmandatory class I Federal

areas [123 Cong. Rec. S9249 (daily ed, June 9, 1977)]. Nowhere is there the suggestion that grand vistas integral to public enjoyment ofa mandatory class I Federal area were not entitled to protection ifthe place viewed lay outside the area. Thereason is clear:. denying such integral vistas protection would compromise Congress' intention
to preserve the scenic values for which the area was created and which the public enjoys.

'Another commenter inquired whether EPA intends to interpret the word "within" in Section 165(d)(2) to include integral vistas.As noted previously, EPA has promulgated PSD regulations implementing this section and this aspect ofthe regulations was not at issue in theAlabamaPowerdecision which adjudicated various other issues relating to those PSD regulations. Whether a Federal Land Manager considers an integral vista to contribute

to a visibility value ofan area is for him
to decide; he has the "affirmative responsibility" to protect those values. Although, as stated,EPA does not intend to change its PSD regulations regarding visibility protection, EPA does interpret both the statute and its PSD regulations as authorizing the protection ofintegraI vistas. Congress could not have intended such vistas to be protected by one program and impaired by the other.

EPA urges that proposed major emitting facilities, early in the planning
process, discuss with the appropriate Federal Land Manager the visibility values ofthe area including the existence of any integral vistas.

10. Section51.30OLong-Term Strategy-Consistent with Section 169A(b)(2)(B), theproposed regulations would require each plan to contain a long-term strategy for making reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal. The proposal requires the strategy to contain several measures and suggests others the State should consider in devising the "mix" of

measures appropriate for the particular 34776Federal Register 

### / Vol. 45, No. 101 / Thursday, May 22, 1980 / Proposed Rules

mandatory class IFederal area circumstances.

Because ofthe limited applicability of BARTrequirements, the development of long-term strategies will be central to making reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal. Consequently, EPAviews the requirement as an exceedingly important one, even though it will be necessarily somewhat limited by the phased approach to the visibility program as discussed above. The longterm strategy can, however,begin to address the more complex problems such as regional haze. For example, although visibility impairment resulting from multi-source situations may not be reasonably attributable to any specific

source, other programs for control of such sources should consider the impact, to the degree possible, of control decisions on visibility.

The ANPR suggested that, as an element ofa long-term strategy, EPA might require the setting and meeting of reasonable progress visibility objectives. Today's proposal wouldnot require specific objectives because EPA believes such objectives couldbe unduly rigid, easily misinterpreted, and difficult to assess. Theproposed regulations would, however,require periodic review by the State and a report to the public on the efficacy ofthe long-term strategy.This review would primarily assess the effectiveness ofthe long-term strategy and in this way may be viewed as objective oriented.

Also required would be review ofthe impacts ofall pollutants emitted by a

source previously analyzed forBART when the Administrator determines that

new control technology is available. Although the proposal would not automatically require the installation of additional control equipment for a pollutant forwhich a BART analysishas already imposed retrofit control, a State would have to do the analysis to determine whether additional retrofit control forthe pollutant would be a sensible step toward the national visibility goal. In many cases EPA believes it would be a sensible step and, therefore, urges States to require imposition ofretrofit control forany pollutant regardless ofits control history ifa BART reanalysis to consider new control equipment indicates such retrofitting is appropriate.

Theproposal would require all new major emitting facilities ancrmajor modifications, as those terms are defined in EPA's PSD regulations, 40 CFR 51.24 and amendments, to be reviewed for their impacts on visibility for any area listed in 40 CFR Part 81, SubpartD. EPA is currently preparing a guideline for suchreview. This requirement will assure that any major

new source that may impact visibility in
any ofthese areas will be reviewed for such impacts. For example, a source located in a nonattainment area may not be reviewed under the PSD program for visibility impacts in such areas [AlabamaPower,supra, 13 ERC at 2016].

Proposed Section 51.306() sets out certain measures which the State must consider in developing itslong-term strategy. Although the State may develop its own particular "mix"of
measures, the long-term strategy must be sufficient to make reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal. In evaluating the adequacy of the long-term (10-15 years) strategy, EPA willconsider whether the elements incorporated provide sufficient consideration of impacts on visibility so that reasonable progress toward the national goal is a reasonable assumption. In order to ensure this,
many of the elements are mandatory. and the State must explain why it did or did not incorporate the optional elements.

An essential starting point in developing long-term strategies is assessment ofother air pollution related control programs. Many ofthese programs, such as SIP emission limits and compliance schedules for attainment and maintenance ofthe national ambient air quality standards,

new source performance standards.
motorvehicle emission standards, and PSD willlikely contribute tomaking reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal. Once the impact of these and other regulatory programs is evaluated, the need foradditional

measures can be assessed.

Additional measures that must be considered include additional emission limitations and schedules for compliance, source retirement and replacement schedules, and smoke management techniques. Whether all of these measures (or other ones) are necessary to a long-term strategy for making reasonable progress toward meeting the national visibility goal depends on the particular circumstances ofthe area. Many commenters to the ANPR favored this flexible, areaspecific approach. Others, however, felt EPA should establish anational visibility objective alongwith well designed timetables to monitor reasonable progress. EPAbelieves that regional differences in meteorological conditions around the country and varying degrees ofvisibility impairment and land management practices in and around the class I areas should be reflected in the visibility program.EPA's proposal would allow for this; setting a national visibility objective would not. The proposal is consistent with the Act and its legislative history which also required the BART analysis to consider local factors and recognized that a nationalvisibility standard would be "impracticable" [H. Rep. No. 95-294,
supra, at 205].

One area-specific measure, control of prescribed burning, i.e.,burning for agricultural and forestry management purposes, willneed to be considered in certain areas. Substantial comment was received on prescribed burning, its importance to forest and range management, and ability to influence its extent, timing, and duration. One
comment suggested that prescribed burning wasnot man-made (a natural part ofmany ecosystems) and. thus, did
not constitute "visibility impairment." Others noted theimpacts ofsmoke from prescribed burning.EPA recognizes that prescribed fire is an ecologically sound forest and range management tool used both inside and outside class Iareas. The Agency does notintend that prescribed burningbe eliminated or unnecessarily restricted, butrather, that its impacts on visibilitybe reduced where feasible and appropriate. Prescribed burningis a necessary part of landmanagement but EPA believes there are techniques to limit its effect on visibility. EPAhas requested theForest Service, U.S. Department ofAgriculture, in coordination with land management and airregulatory agencies, to prepare a management guideline for theuse of techniques to manage smoke from prescribed fires. It is anticipated that this guideline willnot onlyinclude evaluation ofalternatives toburnbut will also suggest best management practices forminimizing adverse effects ofsmoke. This document is scheduled forcompletion in early 1981 and EPA intends tomake a draft ofthe guideline available forpublic comment when it is completed.

(11)Applicationof section169.4 to

newsources-Today's proposal limits the BART requirements to certain existing sources, but applies the other requirements ofSection 169A (such as the strategy formaking reasonable
progress toward the national goal) to

new sources aswell. Although EPAhas received comment that therequirements ofSection 169A apply to existing

sources only, the Agency feels theplain language and legislative history ofthe visibility provisions support this proposal, as does common sense.

The plainlanguage ofSection 169A shows that this section is not limited to existing sources. The national goal 

## 347773 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 101 / Thursday, May 22, 1980 / Proposed Rules

toward which the regulations must

assure reasonable progress encompasses not only the "remedying of any existing" impairment ofvisibility, but also "the prevention ofany future" impairment [Section 169A(a)(1)]. The recommendations in the Report to Congress, which are to be taken into
account in the regulations, mustinclude "methods for preventingand remedying * * * manmade air pollution and resulting visibility impairment" (emphasis added) [Sections 169A(a)(3)fC), (b)(1)]. While the BART requirement in Section 169A(b)(2)(A) focuses on control ofexisting sources, subparagraph (B) expressly requires "a long-term (ten to fifteen years) strategy for making reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal." There is no indication that a 15-year planmust be restricted to only existing sources.

The language of other sections ofPart CofTitle Iof the Act underscores the intent to apply Section 169A to new

sources in order to prevent future air degradation. In section 160, Congress
states the purposes "of this part." "This part," means Part C. Part Cincludes Section 169A. Since nearly all the
purposes in Section 160 relate to future goals and activities, and hence to new sources, it is apparent that Section 169A applies to new as well as existing

sources. Similarly, Section 167,which is also in Part C,mandates enforcement action by the Administrator "to prevent the construction ofa major emitting facility which does not conform to the requirements ofthis part.

. . ." If Congress had intended this enforcement authority to be limited to PSD requirements, it would have referred to "this subpart." But using the term "this part," Congress included Section 169A. There would be no necessity to include the requirements ofSection 169A in Section 167unless Section 169A applied
tonew as well as existing sources.

The comment that Section 169A is limited to existing sources minimized the plain language of the Act and addressed two passages in the legislative history.The first is from the Conference Report:

"A major concern which prompted the House to adoptthe visibility.protection provision was the need toremedy existing pollution in Federal mandatory class I areas from existing sources.Issues with respect to visibility as an air quality value in application to new sources are to beresolved within theprocedures for prevention of significant deterioriation." (emphasis added). H.Rep. No. 95-564, supra, at 155.

This passage simplyrecognizes that existing sources, in addition to new sources, must be controlled in order to make progress toward the national goal and that, forpurposes ofvisibility protection, program procedures fornew

sources and those for existing sources be dovetailed so as to minimize any bureaucratic burden.kothihg in this
passage, however, is inconsistent with EPA's proposal. The second passage is Senator Muskie's response to Senator McClure's question whether Section 169A applies only to existing sources. Senator Muskie replied:

"Yes, the Federal interest is limited to existing sources, which have been in existence 15 year orless. Visibility restrictions with regard to new sources would result under the [PSDJ provisions." 123 Cong. Rec. $13709 (dailyed. Aug.4, 1977).

Senator Muskie, however, is apparently speaking oftheBART requirement being limited to existing

sources and, like the conference report, of the desire to dovetail new source visibility requirements with PSD procedures.

Thus, these two passages of the legislative history, taken alone, do not support the commenter's position nor do theyjustify deviation from the plain, language ofthe statute. Further, the House Committee left no doubt that Section 169A was intended to apply to

new sources: * * * the committee recognizes that one mechanism which hasbeen suggested for protecting these areas, the mandatory class I increments ofnew Section 160 [subpart 1 "Prevention of Significant Deterioration"] do not adequately protect visibility in class I

areas.

* * * Inlight ofthe foregoing, the committee concluded that a separate approach was necessary to control the visibilityproblem, inmandatory Federal class I areas.

* * * The committee recognizes that [the national] goal cannot be achieved overnight. But the very difficulty of curing existing problems after the fact argues strongly for a strong preventive approach for the future." Rep. No.95-294,.supra, at205-208.

The opponents of.the measure in the House Committee also agreed that it would apply to new as well as existing

sources. Id. at 529.

The conference committee report indicates that "[tihe conferees agreed to 'the House provision [on visibility protectionJ with modifications." The point, noted above, that the conference report does not in any way indicate that the substantive requirements of Section 169A were applicable only to existing

sources wasunderscored by various House members:

..... as in the House bill, [Section 169A]

as agreed to inconference applies bothto

newand existing sources. As pointed outin the House Committee report, merely meeting class I increments under prevention of significant deterioration will not be adequate to assure visibility protection. Clearly the conferees did not want to Impose two separate pro-construction permit requirements for a new source for the purpose ofassuring compliance with requirements. One permit should suffice." 123 Cong.Rec. H8663 (daily ed.Aug. 4,1977).

Rep. Rogers provided further explanation on this point in his
statement accompanying the technical amendments to the 1977 Clean AirAct Amendments [P.L. 95-190):

"It was suggested that the apparent conflict between the reading ofsome Senators and the House view on theVisibility section (section169A)should be resolved by a technical amendment, However, such an amendment seems unnecessary tome, The conference provision essentially adopted the House bill's approach. This Ismade clearat page 155 ofthe conference report. Nowhere In the conference report is it suggested that any limitation ofthe provision toexisting sources

was adopted by the conferees. While the report recognizes that '[a) major concern which prompted the House to adopt the visibilityprotection [provision] was the need
toremedy existing pollution,' it does not state, nor does it imply that 'existing sources'

were the only concern. As the House Committee report makes clear, new sources

were also ofconcern. (H. Rep. No. 95-204]. What sense would it make to solve existing problems, but allow the same situation to develop as a result ofnow sources?

The conference committee, ofcourse, did
not want to subject new sources to two separate procedural steps underthe PSD and visibility protection provisions. That is why the conference report states, 'Issues with respect to visibility * * * in application to

new sources are to be resolved within the proceduresforprevention ofsignificant deterioration.' (emphasis added). But in the one-stop permit process for new or modified major-sources, the substantive criteria and standards ofPSD andvisibility provisions would have to be met. Thispoint Is underscored by the statutory language of section 169(A)(1) retaining as a national goal theprevention ofany future * * * impairment ofvisibility in mandatory class I Federal areas. Given this clear statement of legislative intent, Ido not believe any technical orconforming amendment is necessary." 123 Cong.Rec. H11g58 (Nov. 1, 1977).

To answer Rep. Ropers' rhetorical question, it would make no sense to
create a visibility program which attacks the problem by controlling older

sources, but allows new sources simultaneously to create the problem

anew. In effect, this would ignore the portion ofthe national goal calling for the prevention ofnew impairment.

(12) VisibilityProtection of

Non. MandatoryClassILands-The regulations required by Section 169A are limited to mandatory class I Federal

areas where visibility is an important value [Section 169A(b)(2)]. In contrast, Section 165(d)(2), which concerns new 

## 34778Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 101 / Thursday, May 22, 1980 / Proposed Rules

sources, applies to Federal lands in all class I areas. As noted above, EPA's PSD regulations also are not limited to "mandatory class I Federal areas," and this-aspect of the regulations was not at issue inAlabamaPower.This means thatFederal Land Managers also have

an "affirmative responsibility" toprotect air quality-related values with respect to Federal lands that are redesignated class I by the States (orCongress). This directive to Federal Land Managers to respect State redesignations is consistent-with the general principle in the Act to recognize State's authority to
set stricter standards than the Act requires [Sections 116, 164].

The legislative history supports this interpretation. The summary and the discussionof Section 165(d) in the Senate Report express no intention to limit the air quality-related values test
to mandatory class I Federal areas, but instead consistently refer to "class I areas." S. Rep. No. 95-294, supra, at 35- 36. The Conference Report says flatly that the "air quality-related values test, including visibility, is applied to sources affecting class I areas" [H. Rep. No. 95- 564, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 153 (1977)]. Statements by conferees during House debate on the Conference Report corroborate this construction [123 Cong. Rec. H866], H8660 (daily ed. August 4, 1977)].

Section 165(d) does not, however, apply to redesignations ofreservation land to class I by Indian tribes. This is because Indian land is not Federal land, and Indian tribes are not Federal Land Managers. The Act treats separately lands within the boundaries ofIndian reservations and lands subject to the jurisdiction ofFederal Land Managers.

It is the "Federal Land Manager * * * charged with direct responsibility for management of any lands within a class I area" that Section 165(d)(2) gives an ".affirmativeresponsibility to protect the air quality-related values (including visibility) of any such lands within a classI area." Section 302(i) defines "Federal Land Managers" as, "with respect to any lands in the United States, the Secretary ofthe department frith authority over such lands." This definition dropped the language from the Senate bill which included asFederal Land Managers "Indian tribes which have legaljurisdiction over tribal lands" [S. 252, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. Section 6 (May 10,1977)]. This does not appear to have been inadvertent, since the Conference Report states the Federal Land Manager is "the Secretary ofthe Department which has the authority

over any specific Federal land" (emphasis added) [H. Rep. No. 95-564, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 172 (1977). Thus, Indian tribes are not Federal Land Managers.

As for the term "Federal land," Congress intended it to "hold its traditional context, and impl[y] no new departure from definitions or systems of classifying Federal lands and landrelated rights" [S. Rep. No.95-127, supra, at 34].The traditional position of the Department of the Interior has been that lands withinlands within Indain reservations are notFederal lands. There is, therefore, no Federal Land Manager to be charged with the "affirmative responsibility" ofprotecting under Section 165(d) Indian Lands redesignated class I.This interpretation is consistent with Part C of the Act which treats Indian lands uniquely and
sets outin Section 164(e) a mechanism forprotection ofthe air quality-related values ofIndian lands affected by a redesignation.

(13)NationalEmissionStandards for Visibility-Onecommenter suggested that the agency establish uniform national emission standards for the major stationary sources, butthis would violate the intent ofCongress which, in regard to the determination ofBART, is clearly stated in Section 169A(b)(2)(A): "each major stationary source* * * shall procure, install, and operate, as expeditiously as practicable (and maintain thereafter) the best available retrofit technology, asdetermined by the State"(emphasis added). Section 169A(b) requires BARTfor large fossilfuel fired power plants (750 MW) to "be determined pursuant to guidelines promulgated by the Administrator * * ' However, the only general authority ofthe administrator to determine BART for specific sources is forplans promulgated by the Administrator where the State has failed to fulfill the requirements ofthe Act. The Bart considerations include available technology, the costs ofcompliance, the
energy and nonair quality environmental impacts ofcompliance, any existing pollution control technology in use at the sources, the remaining useful life ofthe source, and the degree ofimprovement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to resultfrom the use ofsuch technology. Each ofthese considerations is sourcespecific and, therefore. BART mustbe decided on an individual source-bysource basis. Indeed, the conference committee specifically eliminated the regulations and Federal guidelines for determining this technology required by the House passed bill for determining BART except for fossil-fuel fired generating power plants having a total generating capacity in excess of750 megawatts [H. Rep. No. 95-564, Supra,
at 155]. TheBART guidelinefor these large power plants is available for public review and comment (See Document Availability]. Commenters should recognize that the retrofit of control technology is usually much more expensive than the incorporation of similar technology during construction ofa new source. TheAgency particularly solicits all available factual information on the cost ofretrofitting control technology on existing large
power plants. (14) Baseline-Inthe ANPR. EPA introduced the term "baseline" stating that itmight be useful in defining certain other terms used in the visibility
program. TheANPR did note,however, that both ofthe contemplated definitions of "baseline" had drawbacks. Todpy's proposal does not use the term. EPA believes itsuse, as indicated by the
comments received, would lead to confusion.

(15) Plume blight-Fifteen

commenters expressed opinions on the definitions ofplume blight and regional haze presented in the ANPRL EPA's intent in the ANPR was to focus on clearly definable cases ofvisibility impairment forpurposes ofPhase I regulations. The comments indicated that the term "plume blight' caused

some confusion. Therefore, the Agency is defining the scope of the Phase I regulations by the term "reasonably attributable," which is defined as attributable to a single source or group ofsources by visual observation or other monitoring technique. The key distinction between this Phase I definition and future phases is by what

means a source can be identified. Most

sources which contribute to long-range transport visibility impacts cannot be adequately assessed fortheir impacts on such impairment at present. As mentioned previously, these forms of impairment will be dealt with in future phases ofthe program.

One commenter felt water vapor should not be considered as visibility impairment. EPA agrees with this

assessment. Water vaporplumes are generally confined to an area near the

source and should not have an impact

on visibility in a mandatory class I Federal area. However, there are cases in which the steam from an industrial
process combines with other substances such as SO, orNO. This is not considered water vapor by the Agency and could be identified as visibility impairment.

BILLING COO 65.-01-M 

## 34779