Vol. 81 Wednesday, 

No. 86 May 4, 2016 

Part IV 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Parts 51 and 52 

Protection of Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans; 

Proposed Rule 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
26942 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1The Regional Haze Rule may apply, as 

appropriate under the Tribal Authority Rule (TAR) 

in 40 CFR part 49, to an Indian tribe that receives 

a determination of eligibility for treatment as a state 

for purposes of administering a tribal visibility 

protection program under section 169A of the CAA. 

No tribe has applied for such status, and so at 

present the EPA is responsible for implementation 

of the Regional Haze Rule in areas of tribal 

authority. This responsibility includes, but is not 

limited to, implementation of the reasonable 

progress requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f) in 

instances where potentially affected sources are 

located on tribal land, as necessary or appropriate. 

The proposed rule changes may impact the 

development and approvability of tribal 

implementation plans that tribes may wish to 

develop in the future. We encourage states to 

provide outreach and engage in discussions with 

tribes about their regional haze SIPs as they are 

being developed. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 51 and 52 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0531; FRL–9935–27– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AS55 

Protection of Visibility: Amendments 

to Requirements for State Plans 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing amendments 

to requirements under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) for state plans for protection of 

visibility in mandatory Class I federal 

areas (Class I areas) in order to continue 

steady environmental progress while 

addressing administrative aspects of the 

program. The EPA amendments would 

clarify the relationship between longterm strategies and reasonable progress 

goals in state plans, and the long-term 

strategy obligation of all states. The 

amendments would also change the way 

in which some days during each year 

are to be selected for purposes of 

tracking progress towards natural 

visibility conditions to account for 

events such as wildfires; change aspects 

of the requirements for the content of 

progress reports; update, simplify and 

extend to all states the provisions for 

reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment and revoke existing federal 

implementation plans (FIPs) that require 

the EPA to assess and address any 

existing reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment situations in some 

states; and add a requirement for states 

to consult with Federal Land Managers 

(FLMs) earlier in the development of 

state plans. The EPA also proposes to 

address administrative aspects of the 

program by making a one-time 

adjustment to the due date for the next 

state implementation plans (SIPs), 

revising the due dates for progress 

reports and removing the requirement 

for progress reports to be SIP revisions. 

DATES: Comments. Written comments 

on this proposal must be received on or 

before July 5, 2016. Public hearing. The 

EPA is holding a public hearing 

concerning the proposed rule on May 

19, 2016, in Washington, DC. The last 

day to pre-register to speak at the 

hearing is May 17, 2016. Please refer to 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for 

additional information on submitting 

comments and the public hearing. 

Information collection request. Under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 

comments on the information collection 

provisions are best assured of having 

full effect if the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of 

your comments on or before June 3, 

2016. 

ADDRESSES: Comments: Submit your 

comments, identified by Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0531, at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit electronically any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the Web, Cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

comments.html. Public hearing: A 

public hearing will be held at William 

Jefferson Clinton East building (WJC 

East), Room 1117A, in Washington, DC. 

Identification is required. If your 

driver’s license is issued by American 

Samoa, Illinois or Missouri, you must 

present an additional form of 

identification to enter. Enhanced 

driver’s licenses from Minnesota and 

Washington are acceptable. Please refer 

to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for 

additional information on the public 

hearing and location requirements. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general information on this proposed 

rule and Information Collection Request 

(ICR), contact Mr. Christopher Werner, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, by phone at (919) 

541–5133 or by email at 

werner.christopher@epa.gov; or Ms. 

Rhea Jones, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, by 

phone at (919) 541–2940 or by email at 

jones.rhea@epa.gov. For information on 

the public hearing or to register to speak 

at the hearing, contact Ms. Pamela Long, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, by phone at (919) 

541–0641 or by email at long.pam@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Preamble Glossary of Terms and 

Acronyms 

The following are abbreviations of 

terms used in this document. 

AQRV Air quality related value 

BART Best available retrofit technology 

bext Light extinction 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

EGU Electric generating unit 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

FIP Federal implementation plan 

FLM or FLMs Federal Land Manager or 

Managers 

ICR Information collection request 

IMPROVE Interagency monitoring of 

protected visual environments 

NAAQS National ambient air quality 

standards 

NOX Nitrogen oxides 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PM Particulate matter 

PM2.5 Particulate matter equal to or less 

than 2.5 microns in diameter (fine 

particulate matter) 

PM10 Particulate matter equal to or less than 

10 microns in diameter 

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act 

PSD Prevention of significant deterioration 

RPO Regional planning organization 

SIP State implementation plan 

SO2 Sulfur dioxide 

TAR Tribal Authority Rule 

URP Uniform rate of progress 

B. Does this action apply to me? 

Entities potentially affected directly 

by this proposed rule include state, 

local and tribal 1 governments, as well 

as FLMs responsible for protection of 

visibility in mandatory Class I areas. 

Entities potentially affected indirectly 

by this proposed rule include owners 

and operators of sources that emit 

particulate matter equal to or less than 

10 microns in diameter (PM10), 

particulate matter equal to or less than 

2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5 or fine 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 26943 

PM), sulfur dioxide (SO2), oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX), volatile organic 

compounds and other pollutants that 

may cause or contribute to visibility 

impairment. Others potentially affected 

indirectly by this proposed rule include 

members of the general public who live, 

work or recreate in mandatory Class I 

areas affected by visibility impairment. 

Because emission sources that 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

Class I areas also may contribute to air 

pollution in other areas, members of the 

general public may also be affected by 

this proposed rulemaking. 

C. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for the EPA? 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

• Identify the rulemaking docket by 

docket number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

• Follow directions. The proposed 

rule may ask you to respond to specific 

questions or organize comments by 

referencing a Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) part or section 

number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree, 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used to support your 

comment. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns wherever 

possible, and suggest alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

Please note that this is a narrow 

proposed rulemaking. Please focus your 

comments on only those sections of the 

CFR affected by our proposed changes. 

D. What information should I know 

about the public hearing? 

The May 19, 2016, public hearing will 

be held to accept oral comments on this 

proposed rulemaking. The hearing will 

be held at the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, William Jefferson 

Clinton East Building (WJC East), Room 

1117A, 1201 Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC. It will convene at 9:00 

a.m. and continue until the earlier of 

5:00 p.m. or 1 hour after the last 

registered speaker has spoken. We have 

scheduled a lunch break from 12:00 to 

1:00 p.m. People interested in 

presenting oral testimony should 

contact Ms. Pamela Long, Air Quality 

Planning Division, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 

telephone (919) 541–0641, fax number 

(919) 541–5509, email address 

long.pam@epa.gov, at least 2 days in 

advance of the public hearing (see 

DATES). Additionally, requests to speak 

will be taken the day of the hearing at 

the hearing registration desk, although 

preferences on speaking times may not 

be able to be fulfilled. Depending on the 

flow of the day, times may fluctuate. 

People interested in attending the 

public hearing should also call Ms. Long 

to verify the time, date and location of 

the hearing. While the EPA expects the 

hearing to go forward as set forth, we 

ask that you monitor our Web site at 

http://www.epa.gov/visibility or contact 

Ms. Pamela Long to determine if there 

are any updates to the information on 

the hearing. 

Oral testimony will be limited to 5 

minutes for each commenter. The EPA 

encourages commenters to provide the 

EPA with a copy of their oral testimony 

electronically (via email) before the 

hearing and in hard copy form at the 

hearing. 

The EPA may ask clarifying questions 

during the oral presentations, but will 

not respond to the presentations at that 

time. Written statements and supporting 

information submitted during the 

comment period will be considered 

with the same weight as oral comments 

and supporting information presented at 

the public hearing. Verbatim transcripts 

of the hearing and written statements 

will be included in the docket for the 

rulemaking. 

Because this hearing is being held at 

United States (U.S.) government 

facilities, individuals planning to attend 

the hearing should be prepared to show 

valid picture identification to the 

security staff in order to gain access to 

the meeting room. Please note that the 

REAL ID Act, passed by Congress in 

2005, established new requirements for 

entering federal facilities. If your 

driver’s license is issued by American 

Samoa, Illinois or Missouri, you must 

present an additional form of 

identification to enter the federal 

building. Enhanced driver’s licenses 

from Minnesota and Washington are 

acceptable. Acceptable alternative forms 

of identification include: Federal 

employee badges, passports, enhanced 

driver’s licenses, and military 

identification cards. For additional 

information for the status of your state 

regarding REAL ID, go to http:// 

www.dhs.gov/real-id-enforcement-brief. 

In addition, you will need to obtain a 

property pass for any personal 

belongings you bring with you. Upon 

leaving the building, you will be 

required to return this property pass to 

the security desk. No large signs will be 

allowed in the building, cameras may 

only be used outside of the building, 

and demonstrations will not be allowed 

on federal property for security reasons. 

Attendees may be asked to go through 

metal detectors. To help facilitate this 

process, please be advised that you will 

be asked to remove all items from all 

pockets and place them in provided 

bins for screening; remove laptops, 

phones, or other electronic devices from 

their carrying case and place in 

provided bins for screening; avoid shoes 

with metal shanks, toe guards, or 

supports as a part of their construction; 

remove any metal belts, metal belt 

buckles, large jewelry, watches, and 

follow the instructions of the guard if 

identified for secondary screening. 

Additionally, no weapons or drugs or 

drug paraphernalia will be allowed in 

the building. We recommend that you 

arrive 20 minutes in advance of your 

speaking time to allow time to go 

through security and to check in with 

the registration desk. 

E. Where can I obtain a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this 

Federal Register document will be 

posted at http://www.epa.gov/visibility. 

F. How is this Federal Register 

document organized? 

The information presented in this 

document is organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Preamble Glossary of Terms and 

Acronyms 

B. Does this action apply to me? 

C. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for the EPA? 

D. What information should I know about 

the public hearing? 

E. Where can I obtain a copy of this 

document and other related information? 

F. How is this Federal Register document 

organized? 

II. What action is the EPA proposing to take? 

III. What is the background for the EPA’s 

proposed action? 

A. Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment 

B. Regional Haze 

1. Requirements of the 1990 CAA 

Amendments and the EPA’s Regional 

Haze Rule 

2. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

3. Requirements for the Regional Haze SIPs 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
26944 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

2Areas designated as mandatory Class I areas 

consist of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, 

wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks 

that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the 

CAA, the EPA, in consultation with the Department 

of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 

visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 

69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a 

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 

in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate 

as Class I additional areas that they consider to have 

visibility as an important value, the requirements of 

the visibility program set forth in section 169A of 

the CAA apply only to ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal 

areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I federal area is the 

responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land Manager.’’ 42 

U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term ‘‘Class I area’’ 

in this action, we mean any one of the 156 

‘‘mandatory Class I Federal areas’’ where visibility 

has been identified as an important value. 

3When considering the ‘‘time necessary for 

compliance,’’ see 42 U.S.C. 7491(g)(1), a state 

4. Requirements for the Regional Haze 

Progress Reports 

5. Tribes and Regional Haze 

C. Air Permitting 

IV. Proposed Rule Changes 

A. Clarifications To Reflect the EPA’s 

Long-Standing Interpretation of the 

Relationship Between Long-Term 

Strategies and Reasonable Progress Goals 

B. Other Clarifications and Changes to 

Requirements for Periodic 

Comprehensive Revisions of 

Implementation Plans 

C. Changes to Definitions and Terminology 

Related to How Days Are Selected for 

Tracking Progress 

D. Impacts on Visibility From 

Anthropogenic Sources Outside the U.S. 

E. Impacts on Visibility From Wildland 

Fires Within the U.S. 

F. Clarification of and Changes to the 

Required Content of Progress Reports 

G. Changes to Reasonably Attributable 

Visibility Impairment Provisions 

H. Consistency Revisions Related to 

Permitting of New and Modified Major 

Sources 

I. Changes to FLM Consultation 

Requirements 

J. Extension of Next Regional Haze SIP 

Deadline From 2018 to 2021 

K. Changes to Scheduling of Regional Haze 

Progress Reports 

L. Changes to the Requirement that 

Regional Haze Progress Reports Be SIP 

Revisions 

M. Changes to Requirements Related to the 

Grand Canyon Visibility Transport 

Commission 

V. Environmental Justice Considerations 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

VII. Statutory Authority 

II. What action is the EPA proposing to 

take? 

The EPA is proposing changes to the 

requirements that states (and, if 

applicable, tribes) would have to meet 

as they implement programs for the 

protection of visibility in mandatory 

Class I areas.2 This proposal would 

support continued environmental 

progress by clarifying certain or revising 

existing regulatory provisions and 

removing older rule provisions that 

have been superseded by subsequent 

developments. The EPA is proposing to 

clarify the relationship between longterm strategies and reasonable progress 

goals in state plans and the long-term 

strategy obligation of all states. The EPA 

is also proposing to revise the way in 

which some days during each year are 

to be selected for purposes of tracking 

progress towards natural visibility 

conditions in order to focus attention on 

days when anthropogenic emissions 

impair visibility; revise aspects of the 

requirements for the content of progress 

reports; update, simplify and extend to 

all states the provisions for reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment and 

revoke existing FIPs that require the 

EPA to assess and address any existing 

reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment situations in some states; 

and add a requirement for states to 

consult with FLMs earlier in the 

development of state plans. Other 

changes address administrative aspects 

of the program in order to reduce 

unnecessary burden. Specifically, the 

EPA proposes to make a one-time 

adjustment to the due date for the next 

SIPs (from 2018 to 2021, which would 

help states to coordinate regional haze 

planning with that for other programs), 

to revise the due dates for progress 

reports and to remove the requirement 

for progress reports to be SIP revisions. 

All of these changes would apply to 

periodic comprehensive state 

implementation plans developed for the 

second and subsequent implementation 

periods and for progress reports 

submitted subsequent to those plans. 

We do not intend the proposed changes 

to affect the development of state plans 

for the first implementation period or 

the first progress reports due under the 

existing Regional Haze Rule. 

The EPA is proposing these changes 

for several reasons, as described more 

fully in the descriptions of each change 

detailed later in this proposed action. 

The proposed clarifications regarding 

the relationship between reasonable 

progress goals, long-term strategies and 

the long-term strategy obligation of all 

states reflect long-standing EPA 

interpretation of the Regional Haze Rule 

and are intended to ensure consistent 

(and appropriate) understanding of 

these requirements as states prepare 

their plans for the second 

implementation period. Changes to FLM 

consultation requirements would help 

ensure that the expertise and 

perspective of these officials are brought 

into the state plan development process 

earlier, so that they contribute 

meaningfully during the state’s 

technical analysis and deliberations. 

The proposals related to how days are 

selected for visibility progress tracking 

would provide the public and state 

officials more meaningful information 

on how existing and potential new 

emission reduction measures are 

contributing or could contribute to 

reasonable progress in reducing manmade visibility impairment, by greatly 

reducing the trend-distorting effect of 

wildfires and natural dust storms. 

Collectively, these changes would serve 

to strengthen the regional haze program 

based upon lessons learned during the 

decade and a half since the program’s 

inception. 

With regard to the proposed extension 

of the current deadline of July 31, 2018, 

to July 31, 2021, for states’ 

comprehensive SIP revisions for the 

second implementation period, the EPA 

believes this one-time change would 

benefit states by allowing them to obtain 

and take into account information on 

the effects of a number of other 

regulatory programs that will be 

affecting sources over the next several 

years. The change would also allow 

states to develop SIP revisions for the 

second implementation period that are 

more integrated with state planning for 

these other programs, an advantage that 

was widely confirmed in discussions 

with states and that is anticipated to 

result in greater environmental progress 

than if planning for these multiple 

programs were not as well integrated. 

The end date for the second 

implementation period remains 2028, 

meaning state plans will still focus on 

emission reduction measures designed 

to achieve reasonable progress by 2028,3


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 26945 

should account for this factor by setting an 

appropriate compliance schedule. The EPA expects 

that any control measure included in a SIP 

submitted by the proposed July 31, 2021, 

submission deadline will be feasible to implement 

by 2028. 

4H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. at 205 

(1977). 

as required by the current rule. Other 

than the proposed one-time change to 

the next due date for periodic 

comprehensive SIP revisions (i.e., for 

those currently due in 2018), no change 

is being proposed for due dates for 

future periodic comprehensive SIP 

revisions. 

The proposed changes related to 

progress reports are intended to make 

the timing of progress reports more 

useful as mid-course reviews, to clarify 

the required content of progress reports 

for aspects on which there has been 

some ambiguity, and to allow states to 

conserve their administrative resources 

and make progress reports more timely 

by removing the requirement that they 

be submitted as formal SIP revisions. 

We are proposing to retain a 

requirement that states consult with 

FLMs on their progress reports, and that 

states offer the public an opportunity to 

comment on progress reports before 

they are finalized, which are two of the 

steps that apply now to progress reports 

that are SIP revisions and which will 

help ensure ongoing accountability for 

progress reports. 

Finally, the current provisions related 

to reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment require a recurring process 

of assessment and planning by the 

states. Experience since the current 

provisions were promulgated suggests 

that situations involving reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment occur 

infrequently and therefore that an ‘‘as 

needed’’ approach for initiating a state 

planning obligation would be more 

efficient in the use of resources. The 

EPA is proposing to replace the 

recurring process of assessment of 

reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment with an as-needed 

approach, and given our increased 

understanding of the interstate nature of 

visibility impairment, to expand the 

applicability for reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment from only states 

with Class I areas to all states. The 

proposed change to an as-needed 

approach only applies to reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment; 

periodic planning for purposes of 

regional haze will continue. This would 

improve visibility protection, if a 

situation exists or arises in which a 

source in a state without any Class I area 

causes reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment at a Class I area in another 

state. 

The EPA also intends to provide 

states with updated guidance on the 

development of regional haze SIPs, in 

consultation with the states and FLMs, 

separately from this rulemaking. The 

guidance will assist states as they 

refocus on reasonable progress analyses 

for the next regional haze 

implementation period ending in 2028. 

We expect to invite public comment on 

a draft of this new guidance, and we 

expect to receive and be able to consider 

those comments before we finalize the 

Regional Haze Rule revisions. 

III. What is the background for the 

EPA’s proposed action? 

A. Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment 

In section 169A of the 1977 

Amendments to the CAA, Congress 

created a program for protecting 

visibility in the nation’s national parks, 

wilderness areas and other Class I areas 

due to their ‘‘great scenic importance.’’ 4

This section of the CAA establishes as 

a national goal the ‘‘prevention of any 

future, and the remedying of any 

existing, impairment of visibility in 

mandatory Class I Federal areas which 

impairment results from manmade air 

pollution.’’ 

In 1980, the EPA promulgated 

regulations to address visibility 

impairment in Class I areas, including 

but not limited to impairment that is 

‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single 

source or small group of sources, i.e., 

‘‘reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment.’’ 45 FR 80084 (December 2, 

1980). These regulations, codified at 40 

CFR 51.300 through 51.307, represented 

the first phase in addressing visibility 

impairment from existing sources. They 

also addressed potential visibility and 

other air quality-related impacts from 

new and modified major sources already 

subject to permitting requirements for 

purposes of protection of the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) and preventing significant 

deterioration of air quality. The EPA 

explicitly deferred action on regional 

haze (visibility-impairing pollution that 

is caused by the emission of air 

pollutants from numerous sources 

located over a wide geographic area) 

until some future date when 

improvement in monitoring techniques 

provided more data on source-specific 

levels of visibility impairment, regional 

scale models became refined, and our 

scientific knowledge about the 

relationships between emitted air 

pollutants and visibility impairment 

improved. 

It is important to note that not all 

states were subject to the 1980 

reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment requirements. Under the 

1980 rules, the 35 states and one 

territory (Virgin Islands) containing 

Class I areas were required to submit 

SIPs addressing reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment. The 1980 rules 

required states to (1) develop, adopt, 

implement and evaluate long-term 

strategies for making reasonable 

progress toward remedying existing and 

preventing future impairment in the 

mandatory Class I areas through their 

SIP revisions; (2) adopt certain measures 

to assess potential visibility impacts due 

to new or modified major stationary 

sources, including measures to notify 

FLMs of proposed new source permit 

applications, and to consider visibility 

analyses conducted by FLMs in their 

new source permitting decisions; (3) 

conduct visibility monitoring in 

mandatory Class I areas, and (4) revise 

their SIPs at 3-year intervals to assure 

reasonable progress toward the national 

visibility goal. In addition, the 1980 

regulations provide that an FLM may 

certify to a state at any time that 

visibility impairment at a Class I area is 

reasonably attributable to a single 

source or small group of sources. 

Following such a certification by an 

FLM, a state is required to address the 

requirements for best available retrofit 

technology (BART) for BART-eligible 

sources considered to be contributing to 

reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment. Also, the appropriate 

control of any source certified by an 

FLM, whether BART-eligible or not, 

would be specifically addressed in the 

long-term strategy for making reasonable 

progress toward the national goal of 

natural visibility conditions. See 

existing § 51.302(c)(2)(i). 

In practice, the 1980 rules resulted in 

few SIPs being submitted by states and 

approved by the EPA, requiring the EPA 

to develop and apply FIPs to those 

states that failed to submit an 

approvable reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment SIP. 52 FR 45132 

(November 24, 1987). Most of these FIPs 

contain planning requirements only, 

i.e., most of the FIPs merely commit the 

EPA to assessing on a 3-year cycle 

whether reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment is occurring and to 

adopting an appropriate strategy of 

required emission controls if it is. 

We are proposing extensive changes 

to the existing provisions regarding 

reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment to improve coordination 

with the regional haze program 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
26946 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

5 Visual range is the greatest distance, in 

kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be 

discerned against the sky by a typical observer. 

Visual range is inversely proportional to light 

extinction (bext) by particles and gases and is 

calculated as: Visual Range = 3.91/bext (Bennett, 

M.G., The physical conditions controlling visibility 

through the atmosphere; Quarterly Journal of the 

Royal Meteorological Society, 1930, 56, 1–29). Light 

extinction has units of inverse distance (i.e., Mm¥1

or inverse Megameters [mega = 106]). 

6The deciview haze index (discussed in more 

detail in Section III.B.3 of this document) is 

logarithmically related to light extinction and is 

used by the regional haze program because it 

describes uniform differences in visibility across a 

range of visibility conditions. 

7This requirement does not apply to other U.S. 

territories because they do not have mandatory 

Class I Federal areas and are too distant from any 

such areas to affect them. 

8All states and territories, with the exception of 

Hawaii, Montana and the Virgin Islands, submitted 

initial regional haze SIPs. 

requirements and enhance the potential 

for environmental protection, as 

described in the ‘‘Proposed Rule 

Changes’’ section of this document 

(Section IV.G). 

B. Regional Haze 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that is produced by a multitude of 

sources and activities that are located 

across a broad geographic area and emit 

PM10, PM2.5 (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, 

organic carbon, elemental carbon and 

soil dust) and their precursors (e.g., SO2, 

NOX and, in some cases, ammonia and 

volatile organic compounds). Fine 

particle precursors react in the 

atmosphere to form PM2.5, which 

impairs visibility by scattering and 

absorbing light. This light scattering 

reduces the clarity, color and visible 

distance that one can see. Particulate 

matter can also cause serious health 

effects in humans (including premature 

death, heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, 

aggravated asthma, decreased lung 

function and increased respiratory 

symptoms) and contribute to 

environmental effects such as acid 

deposition and eutrophication. 

Data from the existing visibility 

monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring 

network, show that at the time the 

Regional Haze Rule was finalized in 

1999, visibility impairment caused by 

air pollution occurred virtually all the 

time at most national park and 

wilderness areas. The average visual 

range 5 in many Class I areas in the 

western U.S. was 62–93 miles, but in 

some Class I areas, these visual ranges 

may have been impacted by natural 

wildfire and dust episodes in addition 

to anthropogenic impacts. In most of the 

eastern Class I areas of the U.S., the 

average visual range was less than 19 

miles. 64 FR 35715 (July 1, 1999). 

Based on visibility data through 2014, 

considerable visibility improvements (4 

to 7 deciviews) 6 have been made in 

eastern Class I areas on the 20 percent 

haziest days. Some western Class I areas 

have also experienced visibility 

improvements on the 20 percent haziest 

days (1 to 4 deciviews). However, in 

some areas, such as Sawtooth 

Wilderness area in Idaho, improvements 

from reduced emissions from man-made 

sources have been overwhelmed by 

impacts from wildfire and/or dust 

events. There are also some western 

areas where visibility has changed only 

by a slight amount. 

1. Requirements of the 1990 CAA 

Amendments and the EPA’s Regional 

Haze Rule 

Congress added section 169B to the 

CAA in 1990 to address regional haze 

issues. Among other things, this section 

included provisions for the EPA to 

conduct visibility research on regional 

regulatory tools with the National Park 

Service and other federal agencies, and 

to provide periodic reports to Congress 

on visibility improvements due to 

implementation of other air pollution 

protection programs. Section 169B also 

generally allowed the Administrator to 

establish visibility transport 

commissions and specifically required 

the Administrator to establish a 

commission for the Grand Canyon area. 

The EPA promulgated a rule to address 

regional haze in 1999. 64 FR 35714 (July 

1, 1999). The 1999 Regional Haze Rule 

established a more comprehensive 

visibility protection program for Class I 

areas. The requirements for regional 

haze are found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 

51.309. 

The requirement to submit a regional 

haze SIP applies to all 50 states, the 

District of Columbia and the Virgin 

Islands.7 Congress subsequently 

amended the deadlines for regional haze 

SIPs, and the EPA adopted regulations 

requiring states to submit the first 

implementation plans addressing 

regional haze visibility impairment no 

later than December 17, 2007. 70 FR 

39104. These initial SIPs were to 

address emissions from certain large 

stationary sources and other 

requirements, which we discuss in 

greater detail later. Few states submitted 

a regional haze SIP by the December 17, 

2007, deadline, and on January 15, 

2009, the EPA found that 37 states, the 

District of Columbia and the Virgin 

Islands had failed to submit SIPs 

addressing the regional haze 

requirements. 74 FR 2392. These 

findings triggered a requirement for the 

EPA to promulgate FIPs within 2 years 

unless a state submitted a SIP and the 

EPA approved that SIP within the 2-year 

period. CAA section 110(c). Most states 

eventually submitted SIPs.8

Further, 40 CFR 51.308(f) currently 

requires states to submit periodic 

comprehensive revisions of 

implementation plans (referred to in 

this document as periodic 

comprehensive SIP revisions) 

addressing regional haze visibility 

impairment by no later than July 31, 

2018, and every 10 years thereafter. 

These periodic comprehensive SIP 

revisions must address a number of 

elements, including current visibility 

conditions and actual progress made 

toward natural conditions during the 

previous implementation period; a 

reassessment of the effectiveness of the 

long-term strategy in achieving the 

reasonable progress goals over the prior 

implementation period; and affirmation 

of or revision to the reasonable progress 

goals. Further information on these 

periodic comprehensive SIP revisions 

can be found in section III.B.3 of this 

document. In addition, 40 CFR 51.308(g) 

requires each state to submit progress 

reports, in the form of SIP revisions, 

every 5 years after the date of the state’s 

initial SIP submission. The progress 

reports are required to evaluate the 

progress made towards the reasonable 

progress goals for mandatory Class I 

areas located within the state, as well as 

those mandatory Class I areas located 

outside the state that may be affected by 

emissions from within the state. Further 

information on progress reports can be 

found in Section III.B.4 of this 

document. 

The 1999 Regional Haze Rule sought 

to improve efficiency and transparency 

by requiring states to coordinate 

planning under the 1980 reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment 

provisions with planning under the 

provisions added by the 1999 Regional 

Haze Rule. The states were directed to 

submit reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment SIPs every 10 years rather 

than every 3 years, and to do so as part 

of the newly required regional haze 

SIPs. Many, but not all, states submitted 

initial regional haze SIPs that 

committed to this coordinated planning 

process. Coordination of reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment and 

regional haze planning is described in 

more detail later. 

2. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

Successful implementation of the 

regional haze program requires longVerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 May 03, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04MYP3.SGM 04MYP3

asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 26947 

9The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially 

subject-to-BART is listed in CAA section 

169A(g)(7). 

10BART-eligible sources are those sources that 

have the potential to emit 250 tons or more of a 

visibility-impairing air pollutant, were not in 

operation prior to August 7, 1962, but were in 

existence on August 7, 1977, and whose operations 

fall within one or more of 26 specifically listed 

source categories. 40 CFR 51.301. 

11Pitchford, M.; Malm, W.; Schichtel, B.; Kumar, 

N.; Lowenthal, D.; Hand, J. Revised algorithm for 

estimating light extinction from IMPROVE particle 

speciation data; J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 

2007, 57, 1326–1336; doi: 3155/1047– 

3289.57.11.1326. 

12Under the current version of the Regional Haze 

Rule, states must also periodically review progress 

in reducing impairment every 5 years. 

13 Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility 

Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule, 

September 2003, EPA–454/B–03–005, available at 

http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/rh_

envcurhr_gd.pdf; and Guidance for Tracking 

Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule, September 

2003, EPA–454/B–03–004, available at http://

www3.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_

gd.pdf. 

term regional coordination among 

states, tribal governments and various 

federal agencies. As noted earlier, 

pollution affecting the air quality in 

Class I areas can be transported over 

long distances, even hundreds of miles. 

Therefore, to effectively address the 

problem of visibility impairment in 

Class I areas, states need to develop 

strategies in coordination with one 

another, taking into account the effect of 

emissions from one jurisdiction on the 

air quality in another. 

Because the pollutants that lead to 

regional haze can originate from sources 

located across broad geographic areas, 

and because these sources may be 

numerous and emit amounts of 

pollutants that, even though small, 

contribute to the collective whole, the 

EPA has encouraged states to address 

visibility impairment from a regional 

perspective. Five regional planning 

organizations (RPOs) were formed after 

the promulgation of the Regional Haze 

Rule in 1999 to address regional haze 

and related issues. The RPOs first 

evaluated technical information to 

better understand how their states and 

tribes impact Class I areas across the 

country, and then supported the 

development (by states) of regional 

strategies to reduce emissions of 

pollutants that lead to regional haze. 

3. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs 

The Regional Haze Rule required the 

implementation plans due in 2007, 

which covered what we refer to as the 

first implementation period, to give 

specific attention to certain stationary 

sources that were in existence on 

August 7, 1977, but were not in 

operation before August 7, 1962, by 

requiring these sources, where 

appropriate, to install BART controls for 

the purpose of eliminating or reducing 

visibility impairment. 

BART Requirement. Section 169A of 

the CAA directs states to evaluate the 

use of retrofit controls at certain larger, 

often uncontrolled, older stationary 

sources in order to address visibility 

impacts from these sources. 

Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of 

the CAA requires states to revise their 

SIPs to include such measures as may 

be necessary to make reasonable 

progress towards the natural visibility 

goal, including a requirement that 

certain categories of existing major 

stationary sources 9 procure, install and 

operate BART. Under the Regional Haze 

Rule, the EPA directed states to conduct 

BART determinations for any ‘‘BARTeligible’’ sources 10 that may be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

visibility impairment in a Class I area. 

The EPA published the Guidelines for 

BART Determinations Under the 

Regional Haze Rule at appendix Y to 40 

CFR part 51 (hereinafter referred to as 

the ‘‘BART Guidelines’’) to assist states 

in determining which of their sources 

should be subject to the BART 

requirements and in determining 

appropriate emission limits for each 

applicable source. 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 

2005). The Regional Haze Rule also 

gives states the flexibility to adopt an 

emissions trading program or other 

alternative program in lieu of sourcespecific BART as long as the alternative 

provides greater reasonable progress 

towards improving visibility than BART 

and meets certain other requirements set 

out in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). 

States undertook the BART 

determination process during the first 

implementation period. The BART 

requirement was a one-time 

requirement, but BART-eligible sources 

may need to be re-assessed for 

additional controls in future 

implementation periods under the 

CAA’s reasonable progress provisions. 

Specifically, we anticipate that BARTeligible sources that installed minor 

controls (or no controls at all) will need 

to be reassessed. States should treat 

BART-eligible sources the same as other 

reasonable progress sources going 

forward. Consequently, we are not 

proposing any changes to the BART 

provisions in this rulemaking. 

Visibility Metric. The Regional Haze 

Rule established a standard, 

conventional approach to quantifying 

visibility conditions and tracking how 

they change over time. The Regional 

Haze Rule established the 24-hour 

deciview haze index as the principal 

metric or unit for expressing visibility 

on any particular day. See 70 FR 39104, 

39118. The deciview haze index is 

calculated from light extinction values 

and expresses uniform changes in the 

degree of haze in terms of common 

increments across the entire range of 

visibility conditions, from pristine to 

extremely hazy. Deciview values are 

calculated by using air quality 

measurements to estimate light 

extinction, most recently using the 

revised IMPROVE algorithm, and then 

transforming the value of light 

extinction using a logarithmic 

function.11 The deciview is a more 

useful measure for comparing days and 

tracking progress in improving visibility 

than light extinction itself because each 

deciview change is an equal incremental 

change in visibility typically perceived 

by a human observer. Most people can 

detect a change in visibility of one 

deciview. The preamble to the 1999 

Regional Haze Rule provides additional 

details about the deciview haze index. 

We are proposing minor editorial 

changes to definitions related to the 

deciview index to ensure more 

consistent terminology across sections 

of the Regional Haze Rule. 

Baseline, Current and Natural 

Conditions and Tracking Changes in 

Visibility. To track changes in visibility 

over time at each of the 156 Class I areas 

covered by the visibility program (40 

CFR 81.401–437), and as part of the 

process for determining reasonable 

progress, states must calculate visibility 

conditions at each Class I area for a 5- 

year period just preceding each periodic 

comprehensive SIP revision.12 To do 

this, the Regional Haze Rule requires 

states to determine average visibility 

conditions (in deciviews) for the 20 

percent least impaired days and the 20 

percent most impaired days over the 5- 

year period at each of their Class I areas. 

States must also develop an estimate 

of natural visibility conditions for the 

purpose of estimating progress toward 

the national goal. Natural visibility is 

determined by estimating the natural 

concentrations of pollutants that cause 

visibility impairment and then 

calculating total light extinction based 

on those estimates. The EPA has 

provided guidance to states regarding 

how to calculate baseline, natural and 

current visibility conditions at each 

Class I area.13 After the EPA issued this 

guidance, a number of interested parties 

developed alternative estimates of 

natural conditions using a more refined 

approach (known as ‘‘NC–II’’), which 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
26948 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

14Regional Haze Rule Natural Level Estimates 

Using the Revised IMPROVE Aerosol Reconstructed 

Light Extinction Algorithm, available at http://

vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/

GrayLit/032_NaturalCondIIpaper/Copeland_etal_

NaturalConditionsII_Description.pdf; Revised 

IMPROVE Algorithm for Estimating Light 

Extinction from Particle Speciation Data, available 

at http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/

Publications/GrayLit/019_RevisedIMPROVEeq/

RevisedIMPROVEAlgorithm3.doc; and Regional 

Haze Data Analysis Workshop, June 8, 2005, 

Denver, CO, agenda and documents available at 

http://www.wrapair.org/forums/aamrf/meetings/

050608den/index.html. 

15 Given the required timing of the first regional 

haze SIPs that were due by December 17, 2007, 

‘‘baseline visibility conditions’’ were also the 

‘‘current’’ visibility conditions. For future SIPs, 

‘‘current conditions’’ will be updated to the 5-year 

period just preceding the SIP revision. 

16 Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the 

Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, http://

www3.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/visible/

tracking.pdf. 

were used by most states in their first 

regional haze SIPs with EPA approval.14

Baseline visibility conditions reflect 

the degree of visibility impairment for 

the 20 percent least impaired days and 

20 percent most impaired days for each 

calendar year from 2000 to 2004. Using 

monitoring data for 2000 through 2004, 

states are required to calculate the 

average degree of visibility impairment 

for each Class I area, based on the 

average of annual values over the 5-year 

period. The comparison of initial 

baseline visibility conditions to natural 

visibility conditions indicates the 

amount of improvement that would be 

necessary to attain natural visibility. 

Over time, the comparison of current 

conditions 15 to the baseline conditions 

will indicate the amount of progress that 

has been made. 

The rule text adopted in 1999 defined 

‘‘visibility impairment’’ as a humanly 

perceptible change (i.e., difference) in 

visibility from that which would have 

existed under natural conditions. The 

rule text directed the tracking of 

visibility impairment on the 20 percent 

‘‘most impaired days’’ and 20 percent 

‘‘least impaired days’’ in order to 

determine progress towards natural 

visibility conditions. Section 

51.308(d)(2)(i–iv). In light of the 1999 

rule’s definition of ‘‘impairment,’’ the 

term ‘‘impaired’’ in the phrases ‘‘most 

impaired days’’ and ‘‘least impaired 

days’’ could be taken to connote 

anthropogenic impairment. However, 

the preamble to the 1999 final rule 

stated that the least and most impaired 

days were to be selected as the 

monitored days with the lowest and 

highest actual deciview levels, 

respectively. In 2003, the EPA issued 

guidance describing in detail the steps 

necessary for selecting and calculating 

light extinction on the ‘‘worst’’ and 

‘‘best’’ visibility days, and this guidance 

also indicated that the monitored days 

with the lowest and highest actual 

deciview levels were to be selected as 

the least and most impaired days.16 This 

approach has worked well in many 

Class I areas but has not in other areas. 

Specifically, the ‘‘worst’’ visibility days 

in some Class I areas can be impacted 

by natural emissions (e.g., wildland 

wildfires and dust storms). These 

natural contributions to haze vary in 

magnitude and timing. Anticipating this 

variability, in the 1999 Regional Haze 

Rule the EPA had decided to use 5-year 

averages of visibility data to minimize 

the impacts of the interannual 

variability in natural events. However, 

as the IMPROVE monitoring network 

has collected more years of data, it has 

become obvious that in many Class I 

areas 5-year averages are not sufficient 

for minimizing these impacts. As a 

result, visibility improvements resulting 

from decreases in anthropogenic 

emissions can be hidden in this 

uncontrollable natural variability. In 

addition, because of the logarithmic 

deciview scale, changes in PM 

concentrations and light extinction due 

to reductions in anthropogenic 

emissions have little effect on the 

deciview value on days with high PM 

concentrations and light extinction due 

to natural sources. The use of the days 

with the highest deciview index values, 

without consideration of the source of 

the visibility impacts, thus has created 

difficulties when attempting to track 

visibility improvements resulting from 

controls on anthropogenic sources. 

States have identified this difficulty and 

asked that the EPA explore options for 

focusing the visibility tracking metric on 

controllable anthropogenic emissions. 

To help states minimize the impacts of 

uncontrollable emissions on visibility 

tracking, the EPA is proposing to more 

explicitly (and consistently) address this 

issue for future implementation periods 

in the ‘‘Proposed Rule Changes’’ section 

of this document (Sections IV.C. and 

IV.D). 

Reasonable Progress Goals and LongTerm Strategy. To ensure continuing 

progress towards achieving the natural 

visibility goal, each SIP in the series of 

periodic comprehensive regional haze 

SIPs must establish two distinct 

reasonable progress goals (one for the 

most impaired and one for the least 

impaired days) for every Class I area for 

the following implementation period. 

See 40 CFR 51.308(d) and (f). The 

Regional Haze Rule does not mandate 

specific milestones or rates of progress, 

but instead calls for states to establish 

goals that provide for ‘‘reasonable 

progress’’ toward achieving natural 

visibility conditions. In setting 

reasonable progress goals, states must 

provide for an improvement in visibility 

for the most impaired days over the 

period of the SIP, and ensure no 

degradation in visibility for the least 

impaired days over the same period. Id. 

Consistent with the requirement in 

section 169A(b) of the CAA that states 

include in their regional haze SIPs a 10- 

to 15-year strategy for making 

reasonable progress, § 51.308(d)(3) of 

the Regional Haze Rule requires that 

states include their long-term strategy in 

their regional haze SIPs. The reasonable 

progress goals themselves, however, are 

not enforceable. 64 FR 35754. 

In establishing reasonable progress 

goals, states are required to consider the 

following factors set out in the 

definition of ‘‘reasonable progress’’ in 

section 169A of the CAA and 

incorporated into the Regional Haze 

Rule at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) 

The costs of compliance; (2) the time 

necessary for compliance; (3) the energy 

and non-air quality environmental 

impacts of compliance; and (4) the 

remaining useful life of any potentially 

affected sources. States must 

demonstrate in their SIPs how these 

factors have been considered when 

selecting the reasonable progress goals 

for the least impaired and most 

impaired days for each applicable Class 

I area. It is important to understand that 

a state’s long-term strategy is 

inextricably linked to the reasonable 

progress goals because the long-term 

strategy ‘‘must include enforceable 

emission limitations, compliance 

schedules, and other measures as 

necessary to achieve the reasonable 

progress goals established by states 

having mandatory Class I Federal 

areas.’’ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). As 

intended by the EPA and as understood 

by all states in the first implementation 

period, the four reasonable progress 

factors are considered by a state in 

setting the reasonable progress goal by 

virtue of the state having first 

considered them, and certain other 

factors listed in § 51.308(d)(3) of the 

Regional Haze Rule, when deciding 

what controls are to be included in the 

long-term strategy. Then, the numerical 

levels of the reasonable progress goals 

are the predicted visibility outcome of 

implementing the long-term strategy in 

addition to ongoing pollution control 

programs stemming from other CAA 

requirements. To ensure consistent 

understanding about the relationship 

between reasonable progress goals and 

the long-term strategy, we are proposing 

rule text changes to clarify this 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 26949 

17The EPA’s interpretation of the proper 

relationship between a state’s reasonable progress 

goals and its long-term strategy is explained in 

detail in our proposed action on SIPs from Texas 

and Oklahoma. See section IV.C at 79 FR 74828. 

This interpretation was reaffirmed in our final 

action on these SIPs. See section II.C of 81 FR 296 

(January 5, 2016). 

18The text of the Regional Haze Rule states the 

goal of achieving ‘‘natural visibility conditions.’’ 

Section 169A(a)(1) of the CAA calls for ‘‘the 

prevention of any future, and the remedying of any 

existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory 

class I Federal areas which impairment results from 

manmade air pollution.’’ The D.C. Circuit has 

affirmed that the Regional Haze Rule properly 

interprets the visibility goal stated in the CAA as 

achievement of ‘‘natural visibility conditions.’’ 

American Corn Growers Ass’n v. EPA, 291 F.3d 1, 

25–27 (D.C. Cir. 2002). 

relationship in the ‘‘Proposed Rule 

Changes’’ section of this document 

(Section IV.A). The proposed rule text is 

consistent with our long-held 

interpretation of the existing rule text as 

stated earlier.17

In deciding on the long-term strategy 

and in setting the reasonable progress 

goals, states must also consider the rate 

of progress for the most impaired days 

that would be needed to reach natural 

visibility conditions by 2064 and the 

emission reduction measures that would 

be needed to achieve that rate of 

progress over the approximately 10-year 

period of the SIP. Uniform progress 

towards achievement of natural 

conditions by the year 2064 represents 

a rate of progress that states are to use 

for analytical comparison to the amount 

of progress they expect to achieve on 

average. The CAA has the goal of 

reaching natural conditions,18 but does 

not have any date for achievement of 

that goal, requiring only that plans 

demonstrate reasonable progress 

towards it. The Regional Haze Rule 

reiterates the CAA goal, and provides 

for the use of an analytical framework 

that compares the rate of progress that 

will be achieved by a SIP (as 

represented by the reasonable progress 

goals for the end of the implementation 

period) to the rate of progress that if 

continued would result in natural 

conditions in 2064 (i.e., the URP). When 

a SIP contains a reasonable progress 

goal for the most impaired days that 

reflects progress that is equal to the 

URP, the reasonable progress goal is 

said to be ‘‘on the URP line’’ or ‘‘on the 

glidepath.’’ If a state’s reasonable 

progress goal for the most impaired days 

is not on the glidepath, § 51.308(d)(1)(ii) 

requires the state to demonstrate that it 

would not be reasonable to adopt a 

reasonable progress goal (and by 

implication a long-term strategy) that 

would be on the glidepath. The Regional 

Haze Rule does not establish an 

enforceable requirement that natural 

conditions be reached in 2064. The EPA 

has approved a number of SIPs for the 

first implementation period that have 

projected that continued progress at the 

rate expected to be achieved during that 

first period would not result in natural 

conditions until a date after 2064. 

In setting reasonable progress goals, 

each state with one or more Class I areas 

must also consult with potentially 

‘‘contributing states,’’ i.e., other nearby 

states with emission sources that may be 

affecting visibility impairment in the 

state’s Class I areas. In such cases, the 

contributing state must demonstrate that 

it has included in its SIP all measures 

necessary to obtain its share of the 

emission reductions needed to meet the 

reasonable progress goals for the Class I 

area. Furthermore, section 169A(g)(1) of 

the CAA and § 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) of the 

Regional Haze Rule require that states 

determine ‘‘reasonable progress’’ by 

considering the four statutory factors. 

Also, § 51.308(d)(3) requires each state 

to consider its own Class I areas (if it has 

any) and downwind Class I areas (which 

may be affected by emissions from the 

state) when it develops its long-term 

strategy. In determining whether a 

state’s long-term strategy and reasonable 

progress goals provide for reasonable 

progress toward natural visibility 

conditions, the EPA is required to 

evaluate the demonstrations developed 

by the state. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1). To 

ensure consistent understanding about 

the long-term strategy obligations of all 

states, we are proposing rule text 

changes to clarify these obligations in 

the ‘‘Proposed Rule Changes’’ section of 

this document (Section IV.B). The 

proposed rule text is consistent with our 

long-held interpretation of the existing 

rule text as stated earlier. 

In accordance with the Regional Haze 

Rule, states should consider all types of 

anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment in developing their longterm strategy, including major and 

minor stationary sources, mobile 

sources and area sources. At a 

minimum, states must describe how 

each of the following seven factors are 

taken into account in developing their 

long-term strategy: (1) Emission 

reductions due to ongoing air pollution 

control programs, including measures to 

address reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment; (2) measures to mitigate the 

impacts of construction activities; (3) 

emissions limitations and schedules for 

compliance to achieve the reasonable 

progress goal; (4) source retirement and 

replacement schedules; (5) smoke 

management techniques for agricultural 

and forestry management purposes 

including plans as currently exist 

within the state for these purposes; (6) 

enforceability of emissions limitations 

and control measures; and (7) the 

anticipated net effect on visibility due to 

projected changes in point, area and 

mobile source emissions over the period 

addressed by the long-term strategy. 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v). We are proposing 

to update the terminology in the fifth of 

these factors. We are not proposing any 

changes to the current requirements 

regarding the other six factors. 

As discussed earlier, the current 

version of the Regional Haze Rule 

requires control strategies to cover an 

initial implementation period extending 

to the year 2018, with a comprehensive 

reassessment and revision of those 

strategies, as appropriate, every 10 years 

thereafter. The reasonable progress goals 

are specific to the end date of a given 

implementation period. New reasonable 

progress goals for the end of the next 

period are established in the next 

periodic comprehensive SIP revision. 

We are proposing to extend, to July 31, 

2021, the due date for the SIP revision 

that under the existing Regional Haze 

Rule is due July 31, 2018. This proposed 

change is discussed in the ‘‘Proposed 

Rule Changes’’ section of this document 

(Section IV.J). 

Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment. The 1999 Regional Haze 

Rule fulfilled the EPA’s responsibility to 

put in place a national regulatory 

program that addresses both reasonably 

attributable and regional haze visibility 

impairment. As part of the Regional 

Haze Rule, the EPA revised 40 CFR 

51.306(c) regarding reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment 

assessment and planning to require that 

the reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment plan must continue to 

provide for a periodic review and SIP 

revision not less frequently than every 

3 years until the date of submission of 

the state’s first plan addressing regional 

haze visibility impairment, which was 

due December 17, 2007. On or before 

this date, the state must have revised its 

plan to provide for periodic review and 

revision of a coordinated long-term 

strategy for addressing reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment and 

regional haze, and the state must have 

submitted the first such coordinated 

long-term strategy with its first regional 

haze SIP. Under the current version of 

the regulations, future coordinated longterm strategies, and periodic progress 

reports evaluating progress towards 

reasonable progress goals, must be 

submitted consistent with the schedule 

for SIP submission and periodic 

progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 

51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. 

The periodic review of a state’s longVerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 May 03, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04MYP3.SGM 04MYP3

asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
26950 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

19While compliance with § 51.308(d)(4) for 

regional haze may be met through participation in 

the IMPROVE network, additional analysis or 

techniques beyond participation in IMPROVE may 

be required for compliance with § 51.305 for 

reasonably attributable visibility impairment. 

term strategy must report on both 

regional haze visibility impairment and 

reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment and must be submitted to 

the EPA in the form of a periodic 

comprehensive SIP revision. Under our 

proposed changes to the reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment 

provisions, described in detail in 

Section IV.G of this document, this 

coordinated approach to a state’s longterm strategies for regional haze and 

reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment would continue, but would 

apply only when the state is under an 

obligation to respond to a reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment 

certification. 

Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements. 

Section 51.308(d)(4) of the Regional 

Haze Rule includes the requirement for 

a monitoring strategy for measuring, 

characterizing and reporting of regional 

haze visibility impairment that is 

representative of all mandatory Class I 

areas within the state. The strategy must 

be coordinated with the monitoring 

strategy required in the current version 

of § 51.305 for reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment. Compliance with 

this requirement may be met through 

‘‘participation’’ in the IMPROVE 

network.19 A state’s participation in the 

IMPROVE network includes state 

support for the use of CAA state and 

tribal assistance grants funds to partially 

support the operation of the IMPROVE 

network as well as its review and use of 

monitoring data from the network. The 

monitoring strategy was due with the 

first regional haze SIP, and under the 

current Regional Haze Rule it must be 

reviewed every 5 years as part of the 

progress reports. The monitoring 

strategy must also provide for additional 

monitoring sites if the IMPROVE 

network is not sufficient to determine 

whether reasonable progress goals will 

be met. To date, neither the EPA nor any 

state has concluded that the IMPROVE 

network is not sufficient in this way. 

The evolution of the IMPROVE network 

will be guided by a Steering Committee 

that has FLM, EPA and state 

participation, within the evolving 

context of available resources. It is the 

EPA’s objective that individual states 

will not be required to commit to 

providing monitoring sites beyond those 

planned to be operated by the IMPROVE 

program during the period covered by a 

SIP revision. The EPA also believes that 

if the IMPROVE program must 

discontinue a monitoring site, this 

would not be a basis for an approved 

regional haze SIP to be found 

inadequate, but rather the state, the 

federal agencies and the IMPROVE 

Steering Committee should work 

together to address the Regional Haze 

Rule requirements when the next SIP 

revision is developed. As described in 

Section IV.F of this document, we are 

proposing that progress reports from 

individual states no longer be required 

to review and modify as necessary the 

state’s monitoring strategy. We believe 

the IMPROVE Steering Committee 

structure, the requirement to review the 

monitoring strategy as part of the 

periodic comprehensive SIP revision, 

and the requirement for a state to 

consider any recommendations from the 

EPA or a FLM for additional monitoring 

for purposes of reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment will be sufficient 

to achieve the objective of the current 

progress report requirement to review 

the monitoring strategy. 

Consultation between States and 

FLMs. The existing Regional Haze Rule 

requires that states consult with FLMs 

before adopting and submitting their 

SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must 

provide FLMs an opportunity for 

consultation, in person and at least 60 

days prior to holding any public hearing 

on the SIP. This consultation must 

include the opportunity for the FLMs to 

discuss their assessment of impairment 

of visibility in any Class I area and to 

offer recommendations on the 

development of the reasonable progress 

goals and on the development and 

implementation of strategies to address 

visibility impairment. Further, a state 

must include in its SIP a description of 

how it addressed any comments 

provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP 

must provide procedures for continuing 

consultation between the state and 

FLMs regarding the state’s visibility 

protection program, including 

development and review of SIP 

revisions, progress reports, and the 

implementation of other programs 

having the potential to contribute to 

impairment of visibility in Class I areas. 

We are proposing to require that states 

also consult with FLMs earlier in the 

development of their SIPs, as described 

in Section IV.I of this document. 

4. Requirements for the Regional Haze 

Progress Reports 

The current version of the Regional 

Haze Rule includes provisions for 

progress reports to be submitted at 5- 

year intervals, counting from the 

submission of the first required SIP 

revision by the particular state. The 

requirements for these reports are 

included for most states in 40 CFR 

51.308 (g) and (h). Three western states 

(New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) 

exercised an option provided in the 

Regional Haze Rule to meet alternative 

requirements contained in 40 CFR 

51.309 for their SIPs. For these three 

states, the requirements for the content 

of the 5-year progress reports are 

identical to those for the other states, 

but for these states the requirements for 

the reports are codified in 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(10). This section specifies 

fixed due dates in 2013 and 2018 for 

these progress reports. Regardless, the 

current Regional Haze Rule provides 

that these three states will revert to the 

progress report requirements in 40 CFR 

51.308 after the report currently due in 

2018. 

An explanation of the 5-year progress 

reports is provided in the preamble to 

the 1999 Regional Haze Rule. 64 FR 

35747 (July 1, 1999). This 5-year review 

is intended to provide an interim report 

on the implementation of, and, if 

necessary, mid-course corrections to, 

the regional haze SIP, which, as noted 

earlier, is prepared in 10-year 

increments. The progress report 

provides an opportunity for public 

input on the state’s (and the EPA’s) 

assessment of whether the approved 

regional haze SIP is being implemented 

appropriately and whether reasonable 

visibility progress is being achieved 

consistent with the projected visibility 

improvement in the SIP. 

Required elements of the progress 

report include: The status of 

implementation of all measures 

included in the regional haze SIP; a 

summary of the emissions reductions 

achieved throughout the state; an 

assessment of current visibility 

conditions and the change in visibility 

impairment over the past 5 years; an 

analysis tracking the change over the 

past 5 years in emissions of pollutants 

contributing to visibility impairment 

from all sources and activities within 

the state; an assessment of any 

significant changes in anthropogenic 

emissions within or outside the state 

that have occurred over the past 5 years 

that have limited or impeded progress 

in reducing pollutant emissions and 

improving visibility; an assessment of 

whether the current SIP elements and 

strategies are sufficient to enable the 

state (or other states with mandatory 

Class I areas affected by emissions from 

the state) to meet all established 

reasonable progress goals; a review of 

the state’s visibility monitoring strategy 

and any modifications to the strategy as 

necessary; and a determination of the 

adequacy of the existing SIP (including 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 26951 

20 40 CFR 51.308(g). See also General Principles 

for the 5-Year Regional Haze Progress Reports for 

the Initial Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plans (Intended to Assist States and EPA Regional 

Offices in Development and Review of the Progress 

Reports), April 2013, EPA–454/B–03–005, available 

at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016- 

03/documents/haze_5year_4-10-13.pdf, (hereinafter 

referred to as ‘‘our 2013 Progress Report 

Guidance’’). 

21Like the EPA, the Department of the Interior 

and the U.S. Forest Service in the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture have strong tribal consultation 

policies. See: http://www.epa.gov/tribal/

consultation/index.htm; http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/

tribalrelations/authorities.shtml, and https://

www.doi.gov/tribes/Tribal-Consultation-Policy. 

22 In 1978, PSD rules were put in place that 

required permitting agencies to interact with FLMs 

and for air quality related values (AQRVs) to be 

taken into consideration in the PSD permitting 

process. 43 FR 26380 (June 19, 1978). Those PSD 

rules did not cover sources in nonattainment areas, 

and while there were EPA rules for nonattainment 

new source review in existence, they did not 

require consideration of Class I areas. In 1979, 40 

CFR part 51, appendix S established rules for 

nonattainment permitting, but they did not (and 

still do not) require consideration of visibility or 

FLM notification. (The same is also true of a more 

recent addition, 40 CFR 51.165. Where applicable 

to nonattainment areas, this rule does not require 

Class I reviews. While 40 CFR 51.165(b) requires 

that sources located in attainment areas cannot 

cause or contribute to a NAAQS violation 

anywhere, this does not cover AQRVs in Class I 

areas.) As a result, in 1980, the EPA added 

requirements to 40 CFR 51.307 for notification of 

FLMs of pending permits for new sources in 

nonattainment areas. 

taking one of four possible actions).20

We are proposing a number of 

clarifications and changes to the 

requirements for the content of progress 

reports, as described in Section IV.F of 

this document. 

In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(g) 

and 51.309(d)(10), progress reports must 

currently take the form of SIP revisions, 

so states must follow formal 

administrative procedures (including 

public review and opportunity for a 

public hearing) before formally 

submitting the 5-year progress report to 

the EPA. See 40 CFR 51.102, 40 CFR 

51.103, and Appendix V to Part 51— 

Criteria for Determining the 

Completeness of Plan Submissions. We 

are proposing to remove the 

requirement that progress reports be 

submitted as SIP revisions, as described 

in Section IV.L of this document. 

In addition, as with SIPs, states are 

required to provide FLMs with an 

opportunity for in-person consultation 

at least 60 days prior to any public 

hearing on an implementation plan or 

plan revision, which must include an 

opportunity for FLMs to discuss their 

assessment of impairment of visibility 

in any mandatory Class I area, and 

discuss their recommendations on the 

development of reasonable progress 

goals and the development of 

implementation strategies to address 

visibility impairment. See 40 CFR 

51.308(i)(2) and (3). Procedures must 

also be provided for continuing 

consultation between the state and FLM 

regarding development and review of 

progress reports. See 40 CFR 

51.308(i)(4). We are proposing to 

preserve the existing requirement for 

consultation with FLMs on progress 

reports. 

The first progress reports are currently 

due 5 years from the initial SIP 

submittal (with the next progress reports 

for New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming 

due in 2018). Most of these deadlines 

have already passed although some are 

due in 2016 and in 2017. We are 

proposing a set of common due dates for 

future progress reports from all states, as 

described in Section IV.K of this 

document. 

5. Tribes and Regional Haze 

Tribes have a distinct interest in 

regional haze due to the effects of 

visibility impairment on tribal lands as 

well as on other lands of high value to 

tribal members, such as landmarks 

considered sacred. Tribes, therefore, 

have a strong interest in emission 

control measures that states and the 

EPA incorporate into SIPs and FIPs with 

regard to regional haze, and also have an 

interest in the state response to any 

reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment certification made by an 

FLM. 

The EPA takes seriously our 

government-to-government relationship 

with tribes.21 The agency has a tribal 

consultation policy that covers any plan 

that the EPA would promulgate that 

may affect tribal interests. This 

consultation policy applies to situations 

where a potentially affected source is 

located on tribal land, as well as 

situations where a SIP or FIP concerns 

a source that is located on state land and 

may affect tribal land or other lands that 

involve tribal interests. In addition, the 

EPA has and will continue to consider 

any tribal comments on any proposed 

action on a SIP or FIP. 

In the first implementation period for 

regional haze SIPs, the partnerships 

within the RPOs included strong 

relationships between the states and the 

tribes, and the EPA encourages states to 

continue to invest in those relationships 

(including consulting with tribes), 

particularly with respect to tribes 

located near Class I areas. States should 

continue working directly with tribes on 

their SIPs and their response to any 

reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment certification made by an 

FLM. The EPA believes that it is 

preferable for states to address tribal 

concerns during their planning process 

rather than the EPA addressing such 

concerns in its subsequent rulemaking 

process. During the development of this 

rulemaking, the EPA was asked by the 

National Tribal Air Association to adopt 

a requirement that states formally 

consult with tribes during the 

development of their regional haze SIPs. 

While we recognize the value of dialog 

between state and tribal representatives, 

we are not proposing to require it. We 

note that the CAA does not explicitly 

authorize the EPA to impose such a 

requirement on the states. 

C. Air Permitting 

One part of the visibility protection 

program, 40 CFR 51.307, New Source 

Review, was created in 1980 with the 

rationale that while most new sources 

that may impair visibility were already 

subject to review under the Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

provisions (Part C of Title I of the CAA), 

additional regulations would ‘‘ensure 

that certain sources exempt from the 

PSD regulations because of geographic 

criteria will be adequately reviewed for 

their potential impact on visibility in 

the mandatory Class I Federal area.’’ 45 

FR 80084 (December 2, 1980). The EPA 

explained at proposal that this was 

necessary because the PSD regulations 

did not call for the review of major 

emitting facilities (or major 

modifications) located in nonattainment 

areas,22 and that it was appropriate to 

‘‘clarify certain procedural relationships 

between the FLM and the state in the 

review of new source impacts on 

visibility in Federal class I areas.’’ 45 FR 

34765 (May 22, 1980). The EPA 

envisioned that state and FLM 

consultation would commence with the 

state notifying the FLM of a potential 

new source, and that consultation 

would continue throughout the 

permitting process. We are proposing to 

revise § 51.307 only as needed to 

maintain consistency with revisions to 

other sections of 40 CFR part 50 subpart 

P. 

IV. Proposed Rule Changes 

The changes being proposed by the 

EPA will continue steady environmental 

progress in the regional haze program 

while streamlining its administrative 

aspects that do not add to 

environmental protection. The EPA has 

gained a substantial amount of 

knowledge through the process of 

approving SIPs for the first regional 

haze implementation period and has 

learned what aspects of the program 

work well and what aspects should be 

modified going forward. Feedback 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
26952 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

23The EPA’s interpretation of the proper 

relationship between a state’s reasonable progress 

goals and its long-term strategy is explained in 

detail in our proposed action on SIPs from Texas 

and Oklahoma. See section IV.C at 79 FR 74828. 

This interpretation was reaffirmed in our final 

action on these SIPs. See section II.C at 81 FR 308 

(January 5, 2016). 

24The EPA views this as a clarification of the 

requirement that states with sources affecting a 

given Class I area consult on the content of their 

long-term strategies. Such consultation would be 

pointless if each state were not meant to consider 

the other states’ planned emission control 

measures. 

received from co-regulators during this 

process has been invaluable in 

developing this proposal, which seeks 

to reduce administrative burdens of the 

regional haze program without 

sacrificing environmental protection. 

Indeed, the EPA believes that reducing 

administrative burdens will result in a 

more effective program in terms of 

achieving the goal of improved 

visibility. 

A. Clarifications To Reflect the EPA’s 

Long-Standing Interpretation of the 

Relationship Between Long-Term 

Strategies and Reasonable Progress 

Goals 

The EPA is proposing to amend 

§ 51.308(f) of the Regional Haze Rule, 

which contains the requirements for 

comprehensive periodic revisions to 

regional haze SIPs, by adding new 

provisions that will govern the 

development of long-term strategies and 

reasonable progress goals in future 

implementation periods. We are 

proposing these changes to make clear 

the connections between the existing 

long-strategy and reasonable progress 

goal requirements. Although the 

regional haze SIPs submitted by the 

states during the first planning period 

generally demonstrated a clear 

understanding of the connections 

between these two program elements, 

recent comments by some owners of 

industrial sources and states have 

indicated confusion as to the meaning of 

these provisions. The EPA’s proposed 

revisions to § 51.308(f) are consistent 

with the EPA’s long-standing 

interpretation 23 of the existing 

regulations at § 51.308(d), but are 

organized in a more logical fashion. 

While the new provisions track the 

language of the existing regulations at 

§ 51.308(d) in many respects, the EPA 

also has proposed changes in certain 

places to eliminate ambiguities created 

by the existing language and to conform 

with substantive changes being 

proposed elsewhere in this rulemaking. 

In this section, we discuss only those 

changes that are intended to provide 

clarity regarding the relationship 

between long-term strategies and 

reasonable progress goals. Unlike some 

of the provisions discussed in 

subsequent sections of this preamble, 

the changes discussed in this section do 

not create new requirements for states. 

Section 51.308(d) of the existing 

Regional Haze Rule is organized into 

four subsections: (d)(1), concerning the 

calculation of reasonable progress goals; 

(d)(2), concerning the calculation of 

baseline and natural visibility 

conditions; (d)(3), concerning the 

development of long-term strategies; 

and (d)(4), concerning the development 

of monitoring strategies. This 

organizational structure does not reflect 

the actual sequence of steps in the 

regional haze planning process. For 

example, § 51.308(d) lists the 

requirements for reasonable progress 

goals before the requirements for longterm strategies. In practice, states must 

evaluate the four statutory factors to 

select emission control measures for 

their long-term strategies before they 

can calculate their reasonable progress 

goals by modeling the visibility 

improvement that will result from the 

implementation of those controls. 

To address this issue and provide 

clarity to states and other stakeholders, 

the EPA is proposing to organize the 

requirements in § 51.308(f) in a more 

logical fashion. First, proposed 

subsection (f)(1) provides the 

requirements governing the calculation 

of baseline and natural visibility 

conditions, which are necessary to 

calculate the URP. A state should 

calculate current visibility conditions, 

the URP and the URP line first. In doing 

so, the contributions of PM species to 

current anthropogenic light extinction 

(referred to as the anthropogenic light 

extinction budget) will become evident, 

which will inform the state’s thinking as 

to which sources or source categories 

should be evaluated for potential 

reasonable progress control measures. 

Second, proposed subsection (f)(2) 

provides the requirements governing the 

development of long-term strategies. In 

this step, states must, among other 

things, evaluate sources that impact 

visibility at one or more Class I areas for 

potential control measures by 

considering the four statutory factors. 

Third, proposed subsection (f)(3) 

provides the requirements governing the 

calculation of reasonable progress goals. 

Once a state has established emission 

limitations and other control measures 

as part of its long-term strategy, the state 

will have the information necessary to 

model the visibility improvement that 

will result at each Class I area on the 20 

percent most impaired days and 20 

percent clearest days after the long-term 

strategy has been implemented. The 

projected visibility conditions at the end 

of the applicable implementation period 

constitute the reasonable progress goals. 

States must then compare the goals for 

the Class I area to the URP. If the goal 

for the 20 percent most impaired days 

is above the URP line, the state must 

demonstrate that there are no additional 

control measures for sources reasonably 

anticipated to contribute to visibility 

impairment in the Class I area that are 

reasonable to include in the long-term 

strategy. Finally, proposed subsection 

(f)(6) provides the requirements 

governing monitoring strategies, which 

must be sufficient to allow states to 

assess the adequacy of their long-term 

strategies going forward. 

In addition to these organizational 

changes, the EPA is proposing new 

language in § 51.308(f)(2) that differs 

from the existing language in 

§ 51.308(d)(3), but is intended to 

achieve the same result. First, the EPA 

is proposing language in § 51.308(f)(2)(i) 

and (iv) to clarify that all states, not just 

those with Class I areas, must consider 

the four statutory factors and properly 

document all cost, visibility and other 

technical analyses when developing 

their long-term strategies. Second, the 

EPA is proposing language in 

§ 51.308(f)(2)(ii) that requires states to 

consider the URP and the measures that 

contributing states are including in their 

long-term strategies when determining 

whether the state’s own long-term 

strategy is sufficient to ensure 

reasonable progress.24 Finally, the EPA 

is proposing language in 

§ 51.308(f)(2)(iii) to clarify the 

respective obligations of ‘‘contributing 

states’’ and ‘‘states affected by 

contributing states,’’ during interstate 

consultation. As is the case under the 

existing rule text, the EPA will evaluate 

the sufficiency of the record developed 

by each state, the state’s conclusions, 

and any disagreements among states to 

determine whether the state has used 

reasoned decision making in choosing a 

set of a control measures that will 

achieve reasonable progress at the Class 

I areas impacted by the state’s sources. 

States must document all substantive 

interstate consultations. 

B. Other Clarifications and Changes to 

Requirements for Periodic 

Comprehensive Revisions of 

Implementation Plans 

The following clarifications and 

changes are also proposed to be 

included in the revised § 51.308(f). 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 26953 

25 IMPROVE data from the 2000–2004 period may 

be revised after initially reported because of more 

recently revised methods for calculating ambient 

concentrations from measurements made on filters 

and because of revised methods for filling in 

missing or invalidated data. Such revisions are 

made in order to maintain consistency in reported 

results across the years. 26 64 FR 35730 (July 1, 1999). 

The uniform rate of progress line 

starts at 2000–2004, for every 

implementation period. The current text 

of § 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B) contains a 

discussion of how states must analyze 

and determine ‘‘the rate of progress 

needed to attain natural visibility 

conditions by the year 2064.’’ While not 

actually used within the current rule 

text, the term that has been commonly 

used to describe this rate is the 

‘‘uniform rate of progress’’ or URP. The 

current text of § 51.308(f) indicates that 

states must evaluate and reassess all 

elements required by § 51.308(d), and 

hence the URP, in the second and 

subsequent implementation periods. 

Section 51.308(d) is not perfectly clear 

about whether ‘‘the rate of progress 

needed to attain natural visibility 

conditions by the year 2064’’ is meant 

to refer to needed progress measured 

from visibility conditions in the 

baseline period of 2000–2004, or further 

needed progress measured from 

‘‘current’’ visibility conditions (i.e., the 

visibility conditions during a 5-year 

period ending shortly before SIP 

submission). In other words, the section 

is not perfectly clear as to whether the 

glidepath or URP line that applies to the 

SIP for the second or a later 

implementation period always starts in 

the baseline period of 2000–2004, or in 

the most recent 5-year period. It is clear 

that the glidepath or URP line then 

reaches natural visibility conditions in 

‘‘2064,’’ but no exact date in 2064 is 

specified. 

To ensure consistent understanding, 

the EPA is proposing rule revisions to 

state explicitly that in every 

implementation period, the glidepath or 

URP line for each Class I area is drawn 

starting on December 31, 2004, at the 

value of the 2000–2004 baseline 

visibility conditions for the 20 percent 

most impaired days, and ending at the 

value of natural visibility conditions on 

December 31, 2064. In this way, it is 

clear that for a Class I area that has 

achieved more than the URP in the first 

implementation period, the state can 

take that into account in its URP 

analysis for the second implementation 

period. Specifying that the 5-year 

average baseline visibility conditions 

are associated with the date of 

December 31, 2004 and that natural 

visibility conditions are associated with 

the date of December 31, 2064 also 

clarifies that the period of time between 

the baseline period and natural 

visibility conditions, which is needed 

for determining the URP (deciviews/

year) is 60 years. 

Note that because of updates to the 

IMPROVE program, some data values 

from 2000–2004 may be revised over 

time.25 Therefore, the value of the 

starting point for the URP (i.e., baseline 

visibility conditions) should be recalculated for purposes of accuracy of 

analysis in any given periodic 

comprehensive SIP revision. In 

addition, the value of the baseline 

visibility conditions must be 

recalculated to be consistent with the 

approach used for the selection of the 

most impaired days in the SIP revision 

under preparation (see Section IV.C of 

this document). 

Along with the clarification that the 

baseline period remains 2000–2004 for 

subsequent implementation periods, the 

EPA also proposes to include 

clarifications on how states treat Class I 

areas without available monitoring data 

or Class I areas with incomplete 

monitoring data. If Class I areas do not 

have monitoring data for the baseline 

period, data from representative sites 

should be used. If baseline monitoring 

data are incomplete, states should use 

the 5 complete years closest to the 

baseline period (e.g., if a monitor began 

operating in mid-2000, then 2001–2005 

would be used as the baseline period for 

the Class I area). The proposed rule text 

on this issue, appearing in 

§ 51.308(f)(1)(i), does not appear in the 

current § 51.308(d) because at the time 

§ 51.308(d) was proposed and finalized, 

it was not anticipated that this data 

incompleteness situation would exist. 

We are proposing to add this provision 

to remove any uncertainty about how an 

issue of data incompleteness should be 

addressed in a SIP. 

As part of this clarification and to 

maintain consistency in the reasonable 

progress goal framework, the proposed 

language in § 51.308(f)(3)(i) (and an 

accompanying definition of ‘‘end of the 

applicable implementation period’’ 

added to § 51.301) would make clear 

that reasonable progress goals are to 

address the period extending to the end 

of the year of the due date of the next 

periodic comprehensive SIP revision. 

Also, proposed § 51.308(f)(1)(iv) 

specifies the end day of 2064 as the 

ending point of the glidepath or URP 

line. 

Visibility conditions on the clearest 20 

percent of days must show no 

deterioration from conditions in 2000– 

2004. The current text of § 51.308(d)(1) 

states that the reasonable progress goals 

must provide for an improvement in 

visibility for the most impaired days 

over the period of the implementation 

plan and ensure no degradation in 

visibility for the least impaired days 

over the same period. This text is 

ambiguous as to whether ‘‘the period of 

the implementation plan’’ refers to the 

entire period since the baseline period 

of 2000–2004, or to the specific 

implementation period addressed by the 

periodic SIP revision. However, a 

summary table in the preamble to the 

1999 Regional Haze Rule indicated that 

the 2000–2004 period would be used for 

‘‘tracking visibility improvement.’’ 26 To 

provide further clarity, we are proposing 

new rule text in revised § 51.308(f)(3)(i) 

to make it clear that the baseline for 

determining whether there is 

deterioration on the 20 percent clearest 

days is the baseline period of 2000– 

2004. 

Analytical Obligation When the 

Reasonable Progress Goal for the 20 

Percent Most Impaired Days Is Not On 

or Below the URP Line. The EPA is 

proposing to clarify how the comparison 

of the reasonable progress goal for the 

20 percent most impaired days to the 

rate of visibility improvement needed to 

attain natural conditions by 2064 (i.e., 

the glidepath or URP line) determines 

the content of the demonstration the 

state must submit to show that its longterm strategy provides for reasonable 

progress. This clarification appears in 

the proposed § 51.308(f)(3)(ii). 

The current text of § 51.308(d)(1)(ii) 

discusses required actions of the state 

containing the Class I area should it set 

a reasonable progress goal that provides 

for a slower rate of visibility 

improvement than that needed to attain 

natural conditions by 2064 (i.e., a 

reasonable progress goal for the 20 

percent most impaired days that is 

above the URP line). This section 

provides that in this situation, the state 

must demonstrate, based on the four 

reasonable progress factors, that the rate 

of progress for the implementation plan 

to attain natural conditions by 2064 is 

not reasonable, and that the progress 

goal adopted by the state is reasonable. 

To clarify how a state must show that 

being on the URP line is not reasonable 

in its SIP for the second and subsequent 

regional haze implementation periods, 

the EPA is proposing in 

§ 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A) that if the reasonable 

progress goal is above the URP line, the 

state must demonstrate, based on the 

four reasonable progress factors, that 

there are no additional emission 

reduction measures for anthropogenic 

sources or groups of sources in the state 

that may be reasonably anticipated to 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
26954 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

contribute to visibility impairment that 

would be reasonable to include in the 

long-term strategy. States must provide 

a robust demonstration, including 

documenting the criteria used to 

determine which sources or groups of 

sources were evaluated and how the 

four factors were taken into 

consideration in selecting the measures 

for inclusion in its long-term strategy. 

In existing sections 51.308(d)(2)(iv) 

and 51.308(d)(3)(i) and (ii), sentences 

addressing obligations of the state with 

the Class I area and obligations of the 

contributing state(s) are juxtaposed in 

such a way that it can be confusing for 

a reader to understand which of the two 

states is being referred each time the 

word ‘‘state’’ appears. The proposed 

§ 51.308(f)(2)(iii) more clearly spells out 

the respective consultation 

responsibilities of states containing 

Class I areas as well as states with 

sources that may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment in those areas. 

To clarify and solidify the obligations 

of what we are referring to as 

contributing states, § 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) 

is proposed to specify that in situations 

where reasonable progress goals are set 

above the glidepath, a contributing state 

must make the same demonstration with 

respect to its own long-term strategy 

that is required of the state containing 

the Class I area, namely that there are no 

other measures needed to provide for 

reasonable progress. This provision will 

ensure that states perform rigorous 

analyses, and adopt measures necessary 

for reasonable progress, with respect to 

Class I areas that their sources 

contribute to, regardless of whether 

such areas are physically located within 

their borders. 

Emission inventories. The proposed 

language of § 51.308(f)(2)(iv) regarding 

the baseline emissions inventory to use 

in developing the technical basis for the 

state’s long-term strategy would 

reconcile this section with changes that 

have occurred to 40 CFR part 51, 

subpart A, Air Emissions Reporting 

Requirements, since the Regional Haze 

Rule was originally promulgated in 

1999. The proposed changes also would 

provide flexibility in the base inventory 

year the state chooses to use, as the EPA 

has always intended if there is good 

reason to use another inventory year. 

EPA action on reasonable progress 

goals. Proposed language in 

§ 51.308(f)(3)(iv) would make clear that 

in approving a state’s reasonable 

progress goals, the EPA will consider 

the controls and technical 

demonstration provided by a 

contributing state with respect to its 

long-term strategy, in addition to those 

developed by the state containing the 

Class I area with respect to its long-term 

strategy. This section is a clarification of 

§ 51.308(d)(1)(iii), which only explicitly 

mentions the demonstration provided 

by the state containing the Class I area. 

Progress reports. Finally, proposed 

language in § 51.308(f)(5) complements 

proposed changes regarding progress 

reports and the proposal to eliminate 

separate progress reports being due 

simultaneously with periodic 

comprehensive SIP revisions. This 

language would require the periodic 

comprehensive SIP revision to include 

certain items of information that would 

have been addressed in the progress 

report, thereby expanding its scope 

somewhat. While the state would no 

longer need to prepare and submit two 

separate documents at the same time 

(the periodic comprehensive SIP 

revision and a progress report), the same 

information would still be covered. 

Combining requirements in this way 

will avoid the overlap in content that 

would occur with two separate 

documents. 

Smoke management programs and 

basic smoke management practices. The 

proposed § 51.308(f)(2)(vi)(E) mirrors 

the existing § 51.308(d)(3)(v)(E) with 

updates to reflect terminology used 

within the air quality and land 

management communities to clarify and 

promote a common understanding of 

this provision. We propose to replace 

the term ‘‘smoke management 

techniques’’ in § 51.308(d)(3)(v)(E) with 

‘‘basic smoke management practices.’’ 

We propose to replace the term ‘‘forestry 

management purposes’’ with ‘‘wildland 

vegetation management purposes’’ in 

recognition that not all wildland for 

which fire and smoke are issues is 

forested. We also propose to replace the 

phrase ‘‘plans’’ with ‘‘smoke 

management programs for prescribed 

fire.’’ Like § 51.308(d)(3)(v)(E), the 

proposed § 51.308(f)(2)(vi)(E) would 

require states to consider only currently 

existing smoke management programs 

(formerly referred to as ‘‘plans’’). 

Section IV.E of this document discusses 

wildland fire-related issues in more 

detail and includes explanations of the 

terms ‘‘basic smoke management 

practices’’ and ‘‘smoke management 

program.’’ 

C. Changes to Definitions and 

Terminology Related to How Days Are 

Selected for Tracking Progress 

Section 51.308(d) of the existing 

Regional Haze Rule requires states to 

determine the visibility conditions (in 

deciviews) for the average of the 20 

percent least impaired and 20 percent 

most impaired visibility days over a 

specified time period at each of their 

Class I areas. Section 51.301 of the 

Regional Haze Rule defines visibility 

impairment as the humanly perceptible 

change in visibility from that which 

would have existed under natural 

conditions. This definition of visibility 

impairment suggests that only visibility 

impacts from anthropogenic sources 

should be included when considering 

the degree of visibility impairment. 

However, the preamble to the 1999 final 

rule stated that the least and most 

impaired days were to be selected as the 

monitored days with the lowest and 

highest actual deciview levels, 

respectively. 64 FR 35728 (July 1, 1999). 

The interpretation in the preamble was 

subsequently reflected in the EPA 

guidance on setting reasonable progress 

goals and tracking progress. In practice, 

in their SIPs for the first implementation 

period states followed the approach 

described in the 1999 preamble and the 

subsequent guidance, and the EPA 

approved the SIPs with respect to that 

aspect. However, as described later, 

experience now indicates that for the 

most impaired days an approach 

focusing on anthropogenic impairment 

in particular is more appropriate going 

forward. We are not proposing to change 

the approach of using the 20 percent of 

days with the best visibility to represent 

good visibility conditions for reasonable 

progress goal and tracking purposes, but 

we are proposing text changes to 

accurately describe how those days are 

to be selected. These days would be 

referred to as the 20 percent clearest 

days. 

Natural contributions to the total 

actual deciview levels vary from year to 

year. In order to minimize interannual 

variability, the Regional Haze Rule uses 

5-year averages for determining the 

baseline and current visibility 

conditions. Also, under the EPA’s 

modeling guidance for regional haze 

SIPs, reasonable progress goals are 

projected starting from the average of 

visibility conditions in a 5-year period 

that is centered around (or at least 

includes) the year of the base emission 

inventory used in the air quality 

modeling process. Now that many 

visibility monitoring sites have at least 

15 years of data, it is clear that in some 

locations 5-year averages are not long 

enough to dampen the visibility impacts 

of occasional extreme fire years. In their 

SIPs and SIP revisions for the first 

implementation period, some states 

explained that the 20 percent most 

impaired days in certain Class I areas 

can be dominated by uncontrollable 

visibility impacts. Many states, 

particularly western states, have urged 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 26955 

27We are not proposing to remove the definition 

of least impaired days because it will still apply to 

the first implementation period (including the SIPs 

and progress reports covering the first 

implementation period). 

28We note that the very definition of ‘‘regional 

haze’’ refers to ‘‘impairment,’’ making it confusing 

to use ‘‘haze’’ to refer to the actual level or degree 

of visibility considering the effects of both natural 

and anthropogenic sources. Our proposed edits are 

aimed at avoiding any inconsistent use of the term 

‘‘haze.’’ 

the EPA to make rule changes that 

would allow them to track visibility 

progress in Class I areas using a method 

that is more closely linked with 

visibility impacts from controllable 

emissions. 

To help states minimize the impacts 

of uncontrollable emissions on visibility 

tracking, the EPA proposes to more 

explicitly (and consistently) address this 

issue for future implementation periods. 

In general, the proposed changes related 

to the selection of days for visibility 

tracking are intended to accomplish the 

following for future implementation 

periods: (1) Clarify that ‘‘visibility 

impairment’’ means the deviation from 

natural visibility and therefore is due to 

anthropogenic impacts, (2) revise 

definitions in § 51.301 to make clear 

that the 20 percent most impaired days 

should be selected based on 

anthropogenic visibility impairment 

rather than based on the days with 

highest deciview values due to impacts 

from all types of sources, and (3) 

continue to use the 20 percent of days 

with the lowest total deciviews (i.e., 

‘‘clearest days’’) rather than the 20 

percent least impaired days for purposes 

of tracking any adverse trend in 

visibility on clear days. 

The definitions in § 51.301 for several 

terms and phrases related to the 

selection of days for visibility tracking 

have been clarified in the proposed 

revisions of the rule text. Definitions 

that are proposed to be changed slightly 

to provide more clear explanations of 

their meanings include the following: 

Deciview, most impaired days, and 

visibility impairment. 

Additionally, we propose definitions 

for the following previously undefined 

terms be included in § 51.301: Clearest 

days, the deciview index (the term was 

deciview haze index in the 1999 

Regional Haze Rule), natural visibility 

conditions and visibility. We propose 

the addition of the term clearest days to 

unambiguously describe the days with 

the lowest actual deciview values, for 

which there is to be no degradation in 

visibility.27 We propose changing the 

deciview haze index to the deciview 

index to remove the word haze, since 

the deciview index can be used for 

visibility impairment as well as for the 

total effect of all sources.28 Visibility was 

previously undefined although used in 

the definitions of several other 

important terms, and so we have added 

a proposed definition to describe that 

visibility is the change in optical clarity 

when viewing objects at a distance. We 

also propose adding a definition for 

natural visibility conditions to clarify 

that natural visibility conditions cannot 

be measured and must be inferred or 

estimated, and to distinguish the 

visibility conditions that occur due to 

natural conditions from natural 

conditions themselves such as 

humidity, emissions from natural 

sources, etc. 

Given the current Regional Haze 

Rule’s definitions of most impaired days 

and visibility impairment, the 

regulations could be read to direct states 

and the EPA to use the days with the 

most perceptible anthropogenic 

impairment as the 20 percent most 

impaired days. The proposed changes to 

these definitions in § 51.301 do not 

change this direction. The EPA solicits 

comments on a first proposal, fully 

reflected in the proposed rule text, 

which would require that states select 

the 20 percent most impaired days 

based on anthropogenic impairment, 

rather than based on the highest 

deciview values due to all sources 

affecting visibility. If this approach is 

finalized, states would still have the 

option to also present the visibility data 

using the current approach based on the 

days with the highest overall deciview 

index values (i.e., the 20 percent haziest 

days). Including this information in the 

SIP may help communicate to the 

public the magnitude of impacts from 

natural sources including wildland 

wildfires and dust storms, and thus the 

utility of the change in approach. Under 

this first proposal, the reasonable 

progress goals and URP line that are 

calculated using anthropogenic 

impairment to select the most impaired 

days will be the glidepath that is used 

to trigger the requirement for a state to 

show that it is not reasonable for the SIP 

to provide for the rate of progress that 

would be needed to reach natural 

visibility conditions in 2064 (see 

Section IV.B of this document). 

The EPA seeks comment also on a 

second, alternative proposal under 

which the final rule would allow each 

state with a Class I area to choose 

between using the revised approach 

described earlier (using the 20 percent 

most anthropogenically impaired days) 

and using the 20 percent haziest days 

(whether dominated by natural or 

anthropogenic impacts) to track 

visibility as all states with Class I areas 

did in the first regional haze SIPs. (This 

alternative approach is not laid out in 

proposed rule text revisions, but only 

minor edits would be required to 

implement it in the final rule.) If the 

final rule takes this approach, states 

would still have the option to also 

present the visibility data using the 

other approach. 

In summary, the EPA seeks comment 

on two approaches for selecting the 20 

percent ‘‘worst’’ days from the 

IMPROVE monitoring data. In the first 

approach, states would be required to 

select the 20 percent most impaired 

days, i.e., the days with the most 

impairment from anthropogenic 

sources. This first approach would be a 

change from the approach states used in 

the first implementation period. This 

first approach would also mean that all 

states would use a framework that is 

consistent on this aspect. In the second 

approach, states would be allowed to 

choose whether to select the 20 percent 

of days with the highest overall haze 

(i.e., the approach used in the first 

implementation period) or to select the 

20 percent of days with the most 

impairment from anthropogenic 

sources. EPA also solicits comments on 

additional approaches. The EPA will 

consider comments received on these 

two options or additional options 

offered by commenters. 

If the 20 percent most 

anthropogenically impaired days are 

used to estimate natural visibility 

conditions, current visibility conditions 

and the URP, they must also be used in 

setting reasonable progress goals and in 

progress reports. Conforming edits are 

being proposed to the provisions related 

to each of these, for that purpose. If the 

final rule requires the revised approach 

described earlier in the first proposal, it 

would apply starting with the second 

and subsequent periodic comprehensive 

SIP revisions and then to progress 

reports submitted after the second SIP 

revision. There would be no change 

with respect to the EPA action on SIP 

revisions for the first implementation 

period. 

In order to select the 20 percent most 

impaired days based on the days with 

the most anthropogenic impairment, 

natural contributions to daily deciview 

values must be estimated by some 

method. This in turn requires measured 

concentration values for PM 

components to be allocated to natural 

versus anthropogenic sources. The EPA 

is not proposing that any particular 

method for determining natural 

contributions to daily haze and thus the 

degree of visibility impairment for each 

monitored day be codified in the rule 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
26956 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

29As another possible approach to accounting for 

international impacts, the analysis of IMPROVE 

monitoring data to develop the estimates of 2000– 

2004 baseline visibility conditions could include 

steps to remove the influence of emissions from 

anthropogenic sources outside the U.S. The 

calculation of the URP would be based on this 

adjusted estimate of baseline visibility conditions 

(see ‘‘The uniform rate of progress line starts at 

2000–2004, for every implementation period’’ in 

Section IV.B of this document) and the true value 

of natural visibility conditions. Also, for 

consistency, the values for current visibility 

conditions and for the projected RPG would 

exclude the influence of international emissions. 

We invite comment on this alternative approach, 

which we may include in the final rule as the only 

allowed approach or as another allowed approach. 

30Contributing states may be affected because 

under proposed § 51.308(f)(3)(iv)(B), a contributing 

state may have an additional analytical requirement 

if the RPG does not provide for the URP at an 

affected Class I area in another state. 

text. The EPA plans to issue guidance 

describing a recommended approach 

along with a process for routinely 

providing relevant datasets for use by 

states when they develop their SIPs and 

progress reports. Because no particular 

method would be prescribed by rule, 

states could develop, justify and use 

another method in their SIPs, if the final 

rule requires (or allows) the 20 percent 

most impaired days based on 

anthropogenic impairment to be used. 

D. Impacts on Visibility From 

Anthropogenic Sources Outside the U.S. 

The EPA acknowledges that emissions 

(natural and anthropogenic) from other 

countries (and from marine vessel 

activity in non-U.S. waters) may impact 

Class I areas, especially those areas near 

borders and coastlines. We have had 

requests from states with such Class I 

areas that given these emissions are 

beyond states’ control, the states should 

be allowed to account for international 

impacts when preparing SIPs and 

progress reports. For example, states 

have requested that they be allowed to 

consider impacts from international 

emissions when comparing their 

reasonable progress goals to the URP 

line. This comparison matters because 

(as described in Section IV.C of this 

document) it may trigger an additional 

analytical requirement by the state. 

Impacts from international emissions 

can also affect whether a progress report 

will conclude that actual visibility 

conditions are approaching the 

reasonable progress goals for the end of 

the implementation period. It has been 

suggested to the EPA that estimated 

impacts from international emissions 

might be added to the 2064 end point 

of the URP line. It has also been 

suggested that estimated impacts from 

international emissions be subtracted 

from baseline and current visibility 

conditions. 

On this issue, we first wish to clarify 

that it has never been the intention of 

the EPA that states be obligated to in 

any way compensate for haze impacts 

from anthropogenic international 

emissions by adopting more stringent 

emission controls on their own sources. 

We also wish to note that impacts from 

natural sources in other countries 

should be considered part of natural 

visibility conditions. States have the 

flexibility under the Regional Haze Rule 

to justify and use values for natural 

visibility conditions that include such 

effects. We believe the proposed 

changes regarding which days in a year 

are used for tracking progress (see 

Section IV.C of this document), when 

supplemented by our planned guidance 

on this topic, will adequately address 

international impacts related to 

significant wildland wildfires in Canada 

and Mexico and dust storms in Mexico 

(and perhaps also dust storms in 

northern Africa). 

The EPA has further considered 

possible approaches regarding the 

impacts from anthropogenic sources in 

other countries, including border 

countries as well as more distant 

countries such as China. It is the role of 

the federal government, much more 

than of the states, to work with other 

countries to make such reasonable 

progress. The EPA is, in fact, actively 

engaged with other countries to help 

them reduce their anthropogenic 

emissions, particularly emissions in 

Mexico from sources near the U.S.- 

Mexico border. See http://

www2.epa.gov/border2020. 

We believe that it may be appropriate 

to allow states to adjust the reasonable 

progress goal framework, including their 

progress reports, to explicitly take into 

account international impacts from 

anthropogenic sources, but only when 

and if these impacts can be estimated 

with sufficient accuracy. We do not 

believe that explicit consideration of 

impacts from anthropogenic sources 

outside the U.S. would actually affect 

the conclusions that states should make 

about what emission controls for their 

own sources are needed for reasonable 

progress. Even so, explicit 

quantification of international impacts, 

if accurate, could improve public 

understanding and effective 

participation in the development of 

regional haze SIPs. Also, taking 

international impacts into account in 

some cases may affect whether a state 

(and contributing states) are subject to 

the requirement of proposed 

§ 51.308(f)(3)(ii) regarding a 

demonstration that there are not 

additional emission reduction measures 

needed for reasonable progress. 

However, we are not convinced that 

such impacts can be estimated with 

sufficient accuracy at this time, in part 

due to great uncertainty about past, 

present and future emissions from 

sources in most other countries. 

However, it may be that by the time 

some future periodic comprehensive SIP 

revisions are to be prepared, for some 

states possibly as early as when they are 

preparing their second SIP, methods 

and data for estimating international 

impacts will be substantially more 

robust. 

Therefore, the EPA is requesting 

comment on a proposed provision that 

would allow states with Class I areas 

significantly impacted by international 

emissions to make an adjustment to the 

URP with specific approval by the 

Administrator. The adjustment would 

consist of adding to the value of natural 

visibility conditions an estimate of 

international impacts, only for the 

purpose of calculating the URP.29 We 

believe that this adjustment should be 

permitted only if the Administrator 

determines the international impacts 

from anthropogenic sources outside the 

United States were estimated using 

scientifically valid data and methods. 

We are proposing specific rule text for 

this purpose in § 51.308(f)(1)(vi). In 

addition, we are proposing small rule 

text changes in § 51.308(f)(1)(i) and (vi) 

(compared to their counterparts in 

§ 51.308(d)) to remove ‘‘needed to attain 

natural visibility conditions’’ from the 

reference to ‘‘uniform rate of progress,’’ 

because when adjusted to reflect 

international impacts the ‘‘uniform rate 

of progress’’ would not be the rate of 

progress that would reach true natural 

visibility conditions. Because the 

manner in which a state with a Class I 

area calculates the URP may affect other 

states with sources that contribute to 

visibility impairment at the Class I 

area,30 we recommend that a state 

seeking approval for such an adjustment 

first consult with contributing states. 

Such an adjustment would also be a 

topic for the required consultation with 

the FLM for the Class I area at issue. We 

welcome comments on this proposed 

rule text as well as comments in general 

support or opposition to this concept, 

noting that the EPA may or may not 

finalize this portion of the proposal. 

E. Impacts on Visibility From Wildland 

Fires Within the U.S. 

Fires on wildlands within the U.S. 

can significantly impact visibility in 

some Class I areas on some days and 

have lesser impacts on a greater number 

of days. Accordingly, we discuss here 

whether measures to reduce emissions 

from wildland wildfire and wildland 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 26957 

31We note that the determining factor for the 

applicability of proposed § 51.308(f)(2)(v)(E) would 

be the existence of a program and its elements, not 

whether the program has been incorporated into the 

SIP as an enforceable measure or described in the 

narrative portion of the SIP. 

32These plans could also include State Forest 

Action Plans, fire management plans, prescribed 

fire on wildland management plans, landscape 

management plans or equivalent public planning 

documents. 

prescribed fires may be needed for 

reasonable progress towards natural 

visibility conditions. We also discuss 

whether smoke from fires might cause 

the projected RPG to be above the URP 

line, thus triggering the additional 

analytical requirement (discussed in 

Section IV.B of this document) to show 

that there are no additional measures 

that are necessary for reasonable 

progress. We are proposing rule 

language to allow the Administrator to 

approve a state’s proposal to adjust the 

URP to avoid subjecting a state to this 

additional analytical requirement due 

only to the impacts of specific types of 

wildland fire. This section does not 

address and does not apply to fires of 

any type on lands other than wildland 

or to burning on wildland that is for 

purposes of commercial logging slash 

disposal rather than wildland ecosystem 

health and public safety. 

An extensive discussion of the 

background on wildland fire concepts, 

including actions that the manager of a 

prescribed fire can take to reduce the 

amount of smoke generated by a 

prescribed fire and/or to reduce public 

exposure to the smoke that is generated 

(i.e., basic smoke management 

practices), was presented in the recently 

proposed revisions to the Exceptional 

Events rule (80 FR 72840, November 20, 

2015) and is not repeated here. We do 

wish to note, however, that the term 

‘‘smoke management program’’ is not 

currently defined in the Regional Haze 

Rule. At the time of the 1999 Regional 

Haze Rule, the term was generally used 

to mean a framework that included (i) 

authorization to burn, (ii) minimizing 

air pollutant emissions, (iii) smoke 

management components of burn plans, 

(iv) public education and awareness, (v) 

surveillance and enforcement and (vi) 

program evaluation. We believe this 

usage of the term is still appropriate. By 

‘‘authorization to burn,’’ we mean that 

a government authority restricts where, 

when and/or by whom a prescribed fire 

may be conducted. The proposed 

§ 51.308(f)(2)(v)(E) would make a certain 

state obligation depend on whether a 

‘‘smoke management program’’ 

currently exists within a state. See 

‘‘Consideration of control measures for 

wildland prescribed fire’’ in this section 

for further discussion of this point. 

We do not consider the term smoke 

management program for the purposes 

of § 51.308(f)(2)(v)(E) to mean programs 

that include only seasonal restrictions 

on burning because of fire safety 

concerns, voluntary educational 

programs designed to raise air quality 

awareness of potential prescribed fire 

users, voluntary programs in which land 

managers agree to coordinate their 

prescribed fire activities but are free to 

withdraw from the program at any time 

or some combination of the above. The 

EPA supports these latter types of 

programs, but we do not believe it is 

appropriate to have the obligation in 

§ 51.308(f)(2)(v)(E) triggered by the 

existence of these types of programs.31

The recently proposed revisions to the 

Exceptional Events Rule would clarify 

that in the context of the regulatory 

programs for the protection of the 

NAAQS, (i) wildland wildfires are 

natural events and prescribed fires are 

anthropogenic events; (ii) a wildland 

wildfire is not controllable or 

preventable (in the sense that generally 

it would not be reasonable to expect 

efforts at prevention of occurrence and/ 

or control of emissions to have gone 

beyond the efforts actually made for a 

given wildfire by responsible land 

managers and fire safety officials); (iii) 

a prescribed fire is not reasonably 

controllable (in the sense that it would 

not have been reasonable to do more to 

control its emissions) if it was 

conducted in accordance with a statecertified smoke management plan or if 

the burn manager has employed 

appropriate basic smoke management 

practices; and (iv) a prescribed fire is 

presumptively not reasonably 

preventable (in the sense that it not 

would have been reasonable to not 

conduct it, because of the multiple 

important benefits that would have been 

foregone) if a multi-year land or 

resource management plan 32 for a 

wildland area has a stated objective to 

establish, restore and/or maintain a 

sustainable and resilient wildland 

ecosystem and/or to preserve 

endangered or threatened species 

through a program of prescribed fire and 

the use of prescribed fire in the area has 

not exceeded the frequency indicated in 

that plan. These proposed revisions to 

the Regional Haze Rule do not include 

language to these same four effects 

because the Regional Haze Rule does 

not contain this level of specificity with 

respect to any source type. However, we 

do believe these same propositions 

apply in the regional haze context, and 

the remainder of this section is based on 

these propositions. We invite comment 

on these propositions, and on whether 

it is appropriate to include in the final 

rule explicit language reflecting them. 

Wildland Wildfires 

As natural events, two issues are 

associated with wildfires on wildland. 

The first is whether and how a state is 

obligated to consider measures which 

could reduce emissions from these 

wildfires as part of a regional haze 

program. The second issue is the one 

identified at the start of this section, 

namely the possible impact of wildland 

wildfires on whether the RPG is above 

the URP line and thus whether a state 

is subject to the additional analytical 

requirement described Section IV.B of 

this document. 

Consideration of control measures for 

wildland wildfires. Because wildland 

wildfires are considered natural events, 

emissions from wildfires are natural 

emissions that contribute to natural 

visibility conditions. Thus, states are 

not obligated to consider whether 

measures to reduce emissions from 

wildfires are necessary for reasonable 

progress towards natural visibility 

conditions. However, states may 

consider how use of prescribed fire may 

reduce the frequency, geographic scale 

and intensity of natural wildfires, such 

that vistas in Class I areas will be clearer 

on more days of the year, to the 

enjoyment of visitors. States may also 

consider how the use of prescribed fire 

on wildland can benefit ecosystem 

health, protect public health from the 

air quality impacts of catastrophic 

wildfires and protect against other risks 

from catastrophic wildfires. Today’s 

proposals are intended to give states 

that have considered these factors, and 

other relevant factors, the flexibility to 

provide and plan for the use of 

prescribed fire, with basic smoke 

management practices applied, to an 

extent and in a manner that states 

believe appropriate. The EPA is 

committed to working with states, 

tribes, federal land managers, other 

stakeholders and other federal agencies 

concerning the use of prescribed fire, as 

appropriate, to reduce the impact of 

wildland fire emissions on visibility. 

Possible effect on the comparison of 

the RPG to the URP line. Because 

wildland wildfires are natural events, 

emissions from wildland wildfires do 

not contribute to ‘‘visibility 

impairment’’ given that this term refers 

only to reductions in visibility 

attributable to anthropogenic sources. 

Under the proposed approach of basing 

RPGs on the 20 percent most impaired 

days, we expect that days with large 

impacts from wildland wildfires will 

not be included in the set of days 

selected as the 20 percent most 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
26958 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

33We intend to recommend an approach to 

identifying the 20 percent most impaired days that 

uses the ambient concentration of carboncontaining material to separate total light extinction 

between natural sources, including wildfires, and 

anthropogenic sources. A day strongly affected by 

wildfire will have high concentrations of carboncontaining material and a very large fraction of light 

extinction will be attributed to natural causes, thus 

the day likely will not be one of the 20 percent most 

impaired days. 

34We interpret ‘‘currently exist’’ in both 

referenced sections of the Regional Haze Rule to 

refer to programs that are operational as of the SIP 

due date, not the date the Regional Haze Rule was 

promulgated. 

35See the prior discussion of an authorization to 

burn component being one of the six distinguishing 

features of a ‘‘smoke management program’’ in the 

context of the Regional Haze Rule. 

impaired days in each year.33 Thus, we 

expect that wildland wildfires with 

notable effects on visibility will not be 

a reason why a projected RPG for the 20 

percent most impaired days would be 

above the URP line, simply because the 

URP line will be about visibility on 

other types of days. Thus, we expect 

that wildland wildfires will not affect 

whether a state becomes subject to the 

additional analytical requirement to 

show that there are no additional 

measures that are necessary for 

reasonable progress. Also, we expect 

that the 20 percent clearest days 

(selection of which is based on visibility 

as affected by all types of sources) will 

not include any days with notable 

effects from wildland wildfires. Thus, 

we expect that wildland wildfires will 

not affect whether a state is able to 

demonstrate that there is no 

deterioration in visibility on the 20 

percent clearest days, which is a 

requirement for SIP approval. 

Wildland Prescribed Fires 

As anthropogenic events, two issues 

are associated with prescribed fires on 

wildland. The first is whether and how 

a state is obligated to consider measures 

that could reduce emissions from these 

prescribed fires as part of a regional 

required haze program. The second 

issue is the possible impact of wildland 

prescribed fires on whether the RPG is 

above the URP line. 

Consideration of control measures for 

wildland prescribed fire. Under existing 

§ 51.308(d)(2)(i) and proposed revised 

§ 51.308(f)(2)(v), a state is required to 

identify all anthropogenic sources of 

visibility impairment considered by the 

state in developing its long-term strategy 

and the criteria used to select the 

sources for which additional emission 

reduction measures were considered in 

light of the four reasonable progress 

factors. Existing § 51.308(d)(3)(v)(E) 

more specifically requires a state to 

consider ‘‘smoke management 

techniques for agricultural and forestry 

management purposes including plans 

as currently exist within the State for 

these purposes.’’ As explained in 

Section IV.B of this document, in 

carrying this paragraph forward into the 

revision of § 51.308(f) that will make it 

free standing, we are proposing to 

update some of the terminology and to 

require states to consider ‘‘basic smoke 

management practices for prescribed 

fire used for agricultural and wildland 

vegetation management purposes and 

smoke management programs as 

currently exist within the state for these 

purposes.’’ 

Taken together, we interpret these 

provisions to mean that every state must 

consider whether wildland prescribed 

fires contribute to impairment at their 

own Class I areas or Class I areas in 

other states. If they do not contribute to 

any meaningful degree, the SIP may take 

note of this and thereby satisfy both 

provisions. If prescribed fires in a state 

contribute meaningfully to impairment 

at a Class I area, the state is required to 

consider basic smoke management 

practices for prescribed fires in the 

development of its long-term strategy, 

regardless of whether or not those 

practices are currently being 

implemented, required by state law or 

mandated by an EPA-approved SIP. The 

state would be required to consider only 

smoke management programs as 

currently exist within the state.34 We 

believe that the state should in this 

situation give new consideration to the 

effectiveness of its smoke management 

programs in protecting air quality while 

also allowing appropriate prescribed fire 

for ecosystem health and to reduce the 

risk of catastrophic wildfires. The state 

could also consider the implementation 

of a new smoke management program. 

We would like to make clear that 

taken together, these two provisions do 

not necessarily require any state to 

‘‘select’’ wildland prescribed fire (under 

§ 51.308(f)(2)(v)) as an anthropogenic 

source of visibility impairment for 

which it must consider and analyze 

emission reduction measures (such as a 

smoke management program or basic 

smoke management practices) based on 

the four reasonable progress factors 

listed in § 51.308(f)(2)(i). Thus, a state is 

not necessarily required to develop cost 

estimates for smoke management 

programs or basic smoke management 

practices. However, if a state does not 

‘‘select’’ wildland prescribed fire as a 

source for four-factor analysis, it must 

explain why it has not. As previously 

stated, the explanation may be as simple 

as taking note that prescribed fires do 

not make a meaningful contribution to 

visibility impairment at in-state and 

nearby Class I areas. Where prescribed 

fires are more important, it may be 

sufficient for the SIP revision to explain 

the role of properly planned and 

managed wildland prescribed fire as 

described in this section, the state’s 

ongoing smoke management programs, 

if any, and the current and possibly 

increased future use of basic smoke 

management practices by federal, state, 

local and private land managers, but not 

to ‘‘select’’ wildland prescribed fire as a 

source category for four-factor analysis. 

If a state does ‘‘select’’ wildland 

prescribed fire as a source for four-factor 

analysis, the state must conclude this 

analysis by determining whether 

additional measures to reduce emissions 

from wildland prescribed fire are 

necessary for reasonable progress. Any 

such measures must be included in the 

long-term strategy. Because some of the 

basic smoke management practices are 

difficult to describe with the specificity 

needed to make them practically 

enforceable, it may not be appropriate to 

conclude that a SIP requirement for the 

use of each practice is necessary for 

reasonable progress. For example, one 

basic smoke management practice is to 

monitor the effects on air quality due to 

the smoke plume from a prescribed fire. 

‘‘Monitoring’’ could include groundbased visual observations, aircraft 

observations, meteorology-based 

modeling, fixed or portable air quality 

monitoring stations, hand-held 

monitors, etc. Because the most 

appropriate monitoring approach is 

often situation- and resource-specific, 

mandating a specific approach is 

inadvisable. Therefore, a SIP 

commitment for a state or local agency 

to include the use of basic smoke 

management practices could be more 

desirable than a SIP requirement for 

land managers to use each basic smoke 

management practice. 

Given the benefits of prescribed fires 

including the reduction they can 

achieve in visibility-obscuring smoke 

from wildfires that affect visitor’s 

experiences even though not intended 

to be reflected in the metrics for tracking 

progress towards natural visibility 

conditions, a state may determine that 

reasonable progress does not require 

implementation of a new or revised 

smoke management program that 

includes an authorization to burn 

component,35 or it may adopt or revise 

such a smoke management program. We 

recommend that a smoke management 

program be designed so that it does not 

inappropriately restrict prescribed fires 

with these benefits. If a state determines 

that compliance with a smoke 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 26959 

36See the discussion of climate change effects on 

wildfire trends in the preamble to the proposed 

revisions of the Exceptional Events Rule. 80 FR 

72866–72871, November 20, 2015. 

37Examples of these plans include federal land or 

resource management plans, State Forest Action 

Plans, fire management plans, prescribed fire on 

wildland management plans or landscape 

management plans. 

38The invitation, in the context of international 

impacts, for comment on alternative adjustment 

approaches also applies to this proposal regarding 

an adjustment to account for prescribed fire 

impacts. Our recommendation for consultation with 

other states and FLMs in the same context also 

applies to prescribed fire impacts. 

management program of a particular 

design is required for reasonable 

progress, then the state must include the 

smoke management program in the SIP 

as part of the long-term strategy. We 

believe that states can include 

sufficiently detailed, enforceable 

language in their smoke management 

programs to make them practicably 

enforceable for SIP purposes (as may not 

be the case for all basic smoke 

management practices). One of the 

distinguishing elements of a smoke 

management program is a provision for 

periodic program evaluation. We 

recommend that every smoke 

management program include a plan for 

this periodic assessment by the 

responsible authorities that provides for 

input from land managers, affected 

communities and stakeholders. This 

evaluation should include an 

assessment of whether the program is 

meeting its goals regarding improving 

ecosystem health and reducing the 

damaging effects of catastrophic 

wildfires. We are proposing to add to 

§ 51.308(g) a requirement for the 

periodic progress report on a state’s 

regional haze program to include a 

summary of the most recent periodic 

assessment of any smoke management 

program that is part of the long term 

strategy. 

While the Regional Haze Rule thus 

does not require regional haze SIPs to 

include measures to limit emissions 

from prescribed fire, it is not our 

intention to in any way discourage 

federal, state, local or tribal agencies or 

private land owners from taking 

situation-appropriate steps to minimize 

emissions from prescribed fires on 

wildland, or other types of land. The 

EPA encourages all land owners and 

managers to apply appropriate basic 

smoke management practices to reduce 

emissions from prescribed fires. The 

EPA understands that the FLMs apply 

these measures routinely and will be 

available to consult with other agencies 

and private parties interested in doing 

the same. 

Possible effect on the comparison of 

the RPG to the URP line. Prescribed fire 

on wildlands may contribute to 

impairment on some of the days that are 

among the 20 percent most impaired 

days. Therefore, the issue of whether 

prescribed fires might cause the 

projected RPG to be above the URP line 

is germane. 

Generally, as discussed earlier in this 

section, we do not expect the total 

acreage subject to prescribed fires on 

wildlands to decrease in the future 

because prescribed fire is needed for 

ecosystem health and to reduce the risk 

of catastrophic wildfires.36 Thus, the 

occurrence of prescribed fire generally 

will not be projected to decline towards 

zero by 2064, nor to decline over any 

one implementation period at the 

proportional rate inherently assumed in 

the URP line. In fact, in many areas 

there may be reason to adopt policies 

that facilitate, and accordingly to 

forecast for purposes of setting the RPG, 

more use of prescribed fire and thus 

higher contributions to impairment on 

the 20 percent most impaired days. At 

this time, we do not know whether or 

where such a projected trend may affect 

whether the RPG for a Class I area will 

be above the URP line. However, we 

expect that if this is an issue, western 

Class I areas would be more likely to be 

affected. 

If the projected RPG for a Class I area 

is above the URP line due only to the 

anticipated use of wildland prescribed 

fire needed for ecosystem health and to 

reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires, 

we do not believe that states should 

expend valuable analytical and decision 

making resources on additional analysis 

of measures necessary for reasonable 

progress if basic smoke management 

practices have been applied to 

prescribed fires and the states have 

otherwise satisfied the terms of the 

Regional Haze Rule. Therefore, we are 

requesting comment on a proposed 

provision in § 51.308(f)(1)(vi) that 

would allow states with Class I areas 

significantly impacted by emissions 

from wildland prescribed fires to make 

an adjustment to the URP with specific 

approval by the Administrator. The 

adjustment would consist of adding to 

the value of natural visibility conditions 

an estimate of wildland prescribed fire 

impacts, only for the purpose of 

calculating the URP and only for 

prescribed fires that were conducted 

with the objective to establish, restore 

and/or maintain sustainable and 

resilient wildland ecosystems, to reduce 

the risk of catastrophic wildfires and/or 

to preserve endangered or threatened 

species during which appropriate basic 

smoke management practices were 

applied. We would consider a plan for 

prescribed fire use on federal, state, 

tribal or private lands with this 

objective that has been reviewed and 

certified by the appropriate fire and/or 

resource management professionals and 

agreed to and followed by the land 

owner/manager to be sufficient to meet 

this restriction on the scope of the 

adjustment to the URP.37 Other 

evidence of the objective of a prescribed 

fire would be considered on a case-bycase basis. We believe that this 

adjustment should be permitted only if 

such prescribed fire impacts have been 

estimated with methods and data 

approved by the Administrator as 

scientifically valid.38

We are also proposing changes to firerelated definitions in § 51.301. One of 

the proposed changes is to remove the 

term ‘‘prescribed natural fire’’ from the 

definition of ‘‘fire’’ because we consider 

prescribed fires to be anthropogenic, 

although we recognize that some 

prescribed fires are intended to emulate 

and/or mitigate natural wildfires that 

would otherwise occur at some point in 

time. In addition, we are adding 

definitions for wildland, wildfire and 

prescribed fire. The proposed 

definitions are consistent with the 

definitions we recently proposed for 

inclusion in the Exceptional Events 

Rule. 

F. Clarification of and Changes to the 

Required Content of Progress Reports 

The EPA believes that additional 

amendments to § 51.308(g) are 

appropriate at this time in order to 

clarify the substance of the regional 

haze progress reports. In its current 

form, there is ambiguity in this section 

with respect to the period to be used for 

calculating current visibility conditions, 

as well as ambiguity with respect to 

whether forward-looking, quantitative 

modeling is required in the progress 

reports to assess whether reasonable 

progress goals will be met. The EPA 

wishes to clarify both of these and other 

issues, and so proposes to amend 

§ 51.308(g) in the following ways. The 

EPA seeks comment on these proposed 

amendments as well as alternative 

approaches. 

Section 51.308(g)(3)(ii) is proposed to 

be amended by adding a number of 

explanatory sentences to better indicate 

what ‘‘current visibility conditions’’ are 

and how to calculate them. Under the 

current version of the rule, it is not clear 

what ‘‘current visibility conditions’’ are, 

in part because the term is not defined 

in § 51.301. Although § 51.308(g)(3) 

makes reference to 5-year averages of 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
26960 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

39 In our guidance on the preparation of progress 

reports, the EPA has indicated that for ‘‘current 

visibility conditions,’’ the reports should include 

the 5-year average that includes the most recent 

quality assured public data available at the time the 

state submits its 5-year progress report for public 

review. See section II.C of General Principles for the 

5-Year Regional Haze Progress Reports for the 

Initial Regional Haze State Implementation Plans, 

April 2013. 

40Note that we are not proposing this 

specification of 6 months for the progress report 

aspects of a periodic comprehensive SIP revision 

(see Section IV.C of this document), in light of the 

longer time needed for administrative steps 

between completion of technical work and 

submission to the EPA. 

annual values for most impaired and 

least impaired days, and § 51.308(g)(3)(i) 

requires states to assess current 

visibility conditions for the most 

impaired and least impaired days, there 

is no clear indication as to which 5-year 

average the state should and can 

practicably use in a progress report for 

the current visibility conditions 

calculation. For example, the ‘‘current 

conditions’’ terminology does not 

explicitly allow for the time delay 

needed for the IMPROVE network 

manager to get quality assured data into 

its database so they are accessible to the 

states preparing progress reports. 

Practicality requires that ‘‘current 

conditions’’ should mean ‘‘conditions 

for the most recent period of available 

data.’’ 39 There is also an issue of 

whether this availability is to be 

determined based on the start of work 

on the progress report, the due date for 

the progress report, or the actual 

submission date of the progress report. 

The proposed text makes clear that the 

period for calculating current visibility 

conditions is the most recent rolling 5- 

year period for which IMPROVE data 

are available as of a date 6 months 

preceding the required date of the 

progress report. Because we are also 

proposing that progress reports no 

longer be submitted as SIP revisions, 

meaning that there would be a much 

simpler and expeditious state 

administrative process to submit a 

progress report once technical work on 

it is completed, we believe that this 6- 

month period would be sufficient for 

states to incorporate the most recent 

available data into their progress 

reports.40 The EPA invites comment on 

other specific timeframes as the amount 

of time necessary for states to 

incorporate the most recent available 

data into their progress reports, 

including 3 months, 9 months and 12 

months. 

Section 51.308(g)(3)(iii), as currently 

written, requires a progress report to 

contain the value of the change in 

visibility impairment for the most and 

least impaired days over the past 5 

years. This text fails to make clear what 

the ‘‘past 5 years’’ are for assessing the 

change in visibility impairment. 

Because of data reporting delays, the 

period covered by available monitoring 

data will not line up with the periods 

defined by the submission dates for 

progress reports. Moreover, it is 

important to ensure that each year of 

visibility information is included either 

in a periodic comprehensive SIP 

revision or the progress report that 

follows it. Therefore, the ‘‘past 5 years’’ 

text is proposed to be deleted and 

replaced with text indicating the change 

in visibility impairment is to be 

assessed over the period since the 

period addressed in the most recent 

periodic comprehensive SIP revision. 

The same change to existing ‘‘past 5 

years’’ text is proposed to be made to 

the first sentence of § 51.308(g)(4) for 

the purposes of reporting changes in 

emissions of pollutants contributing to 

visibility impairment, for similar 

reasons. Like monitoring trend 

summaries, available emissions trend 

summaries will not line up with the 

periods defined by the submission dates 

of progress reports. Therefore, the 

proposed language removes the ‘‘past 5 

years’’ text and replaces it with text 

indicating the change in emissions of 

pollutants contributing to visibility 

impairment is to be assessed over the 

period since the period addressed in the 

most recent periodic comprehensive SIP 

revision. 

The final sentence of § 51.308(g)(4) is 

proposed to be modified to revise and 

clarify the obligation of states regarding 

emissions inventories. The current rule 

text directs the analysis be based on the 

‘‘most recent updated emissions 

inventory,’’ with emissions estimates 

‘‘projected forward as necessary and 

appropriate to account for emissions 

changes during the applicable 5-year 

period.’’ States are otherwise required 

by 40 CFR part 51, subpart A (Air 

Emissions Reporting Requirements) to 

prepare complete emission inventories 

only for every third calendar year (2011, 

2014, etc.) and to submit these 

inventories to the EPA’s National 

Emissions Inventory (NEI). (After 

aggregating and quality assuring these 

submissions, the EPA then publicly 

provides summaries of the inventories 

that have been submitted.) The current 

text of § 51.308(g)(4) seemingly requires 

a state to ‘‘project’’ the most recent of 

these inventories to the end of the 

‘‘applicable 5-year period’’ whenever 

that end is not the year of a triennial 

inventory required by subpart A. 

Emissions projection is not a simple or 

low-resource task even if limited to a 

projection date that is in the recent past, 

as would be the case here. We do not 

think the informational value of such 

projections is in balance with the effort 

and time that would be required. At the 

same time, we believe that progress 

reports should present for each 

significant source sector the most 

recently available information, which 

may be newer for some sectors than for 

others. For most sectors, this will be the 

information for the triennial year of the 

most recent NEI submission. However, 

the EPA operates a data system that 

provides information on emissions from 

electric generating units (EGUs), which 

account for a significant percentage of 

visibility impairing pollution in many 

states, with only a few months lag time. 

This information comes from reports 

submitted by the EGU operators based 

on continuous emissions monitoring 

systems. Therefore, we are proposing 

text changes that explain clearly the 

most recent year through which the 

emissions analysis must be extended, by 

sector. States would be required to 

include in their progress reports 

emissions with respect to all sources 

and activities up to the triennial year for 

which information has already been 

submitted to the NEI. With regard to 

EGUs, states would need to include data 

up to the most recent year for which the 

EPA has provided a state-level summary 

of such EGU-reported data. Finally, the 

last sentence of the proposed text for 

this section makes clear that if emission 

estimation methods have changed from 

one reporting year to the next, states 

need not backcast, i.e., use the newest 

methods to repeat the estimation of 

emissions in earlier years, in order to 

create a consistent trend line over the 

whole period. The EPA has never 

expected states to backcast in this 

context, but some states have expressed 

concern that other parties may interpret 

the current Regional Haze Rule as 

requiring such backcasting. This final 

change would remove any uncertainty 

about the sufficiency of a state’s 

progress report. 

Section 51.308(g)(5) involves 

assessments of any significant changes 

in anthropogenic emissions that have 

occurred, and is proposed to be changed 

in a similar fashion to other sections, 

deleting the reference to the ‘‘past 5 

years’’ and instead directing that the 

period to be assessed involves that since 

the last periodic comprehensive SIP 

revision. Text is also proposed to be 

added that would require states to 

report whether these changes were 

anticipated in the most recent SIP. 

Having this explanation within the 

progress report should not be a 

significant burden on the state and will 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 26961 

41These changes, when finalized, would mean 

that those states with SIPs that commit them to 

periodically assess whether reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment is occurring at their Class I 

areas could remove that commitment from their 

SIPs. 

assist the FLMs, the public and the EPA 

in understanding the significance of any 

change in emissions for the adequacy of 

the SIP to achieve established visibility 

improvement goals. 

The existing § 51.308(g)(6) is 

proposed to be renumbered as 

§ 51.308(g)(7). Proposed changes to its 

provisions regarding assessment of 

progress toward meeting reasonable 

progress goals would clarify that the 

reasonable progress goals to be assessed 

are those established for the period 

covered by the most recent periodic 

comprehensive SIP revision. This does 

not change the intended meaning of this 

section, and only clarifies that in a 

progress report, a state is not required to 

look forward to visibility conditions 

beyond the end of the current 

implementation period. 

The new § 51.308(g)(6) is proposed to 

include a provision requiring a state 

whose long-term strategy includes a 

smoke management program for 

prescribed fires on wildland to include 

a summary of the most recent periodic 

assessment of the smoke management 

program including conclusions that 

were reached in the assessment as to 

whether the program is meeting its goals 

regarding improving ecosystem health 

and reducing the damaging effects of 

catastrophic wildfires. 

A final proposed change to § 51.308(g) 

is to remove the provisions of the 

existing § 51.308(g)(7) entirely, relieving 

the state of the need to review its 

visibility monitoring strategy within the 

context of the progress report. This 

change was requested by many states 

during our pre-proposal consultations, 

and is appropriate in our view. Because 

all states currently rely on their 

participation in the IMPROVE 

monitoring program and expect to 

continue to do so, continuing the 

requirement for every state to submit a 

distinct monitoring strategy element in 

each progress report would consume 

state and EPA resources with little or no 

practical value for visibility protection. 

As needed, the EPA will work with 

involved states and the IMPROVE 

Steering Committee to address any 

needed changes in the visibility 

monitoring program. 

It should be noted that minor changes 

are proposed to § 51.308(h) regarding 

actions the state is required to take 

based on the progress report. These 

changes merely remove the implication 

that all progress reports are to be 

submitted at 5-year intervals, and 

improve public understanding of the 

declaration that a state must make when 

it determines that no SIP revisions are 

required by removing the word 

‘‘negative.’’ Minor changes are also 

proposed to § 51.308(i) in order to create 

a stand-alone requirement that states 

must consult with FLMs regarding 

progress reports. This stand-alone 

requirement is needed if progress 

reports are not SIP revisions, because at 

present the FLM consultation 

requirements are applicable only to SIP 

revisions. 

G. Changes to Reasonably Attributable 

Visibility Impairment Provisions 

The EPA is proposing extensive 

changes to 40 CFR 51.300 through 

51.308 in regard to reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment. As 

discussed in Section III of this 

document, the reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment provisions were 

originally promulgated in 1980, when 

technology for evaluating visibility 

impairment and its causes was in its 

infancy and visual observation of 

‘‘plume blight’’ was the main method of 

determining whether a source was 

affecting a mandatory Class I area. Since 

that time, there have been many 

advances in ambient monitoring, 

emissions quantification, emission 

control technology and meteorological 

and air quality modeling. These 

advances have been built into the 

regional haze program, such that state 

compliance with the Regional Haze 

Rule’s requirements will largely ensure 

that progress is made towards the goal 

of natural visibility conditions. 

Therefore, it is likely that some aspects 

of the reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment provisions of the visibility 

regulations have less potential benefit 

than they did when they originally took 

effect over 3 decades ago. In addition, 

the reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment provisions have received 

few amendments over the years, 

including during amendments made by 

the Regional Haze Rule in 1999 where 

the changes to integrate the reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment 

assessment and mitigation provisions 

with the new regional haze program 

requirements were limited to putting the 

two separately designed programs on 

the same recurring schedule. This has 

left a substantial amount of confusing 

and outdated language within the 

current visibility regulations including 

seemingly overlapping and redundant 

requirements, particularly between 

§§ 51.302 and 51.306. Also, as noted in 

Section III.A of this document, in actual 

practice the portion of the reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment 

provisions mandating periodic 

assessment of reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment by states (or by the 

EPA in the case of states that do not 

have an approved reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment SIP) 

has not resulted in any additional 

emission control requirements being 

placed on emission sources. While there 

have historically been very few 

certifications of existing reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment by an 

FLM, in several situations a certification 

by an FLM has ultimately resulted in 

new controls or changes in source 

operation. 

The EPA therefore believes it is time 

to bring clarity to the reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment 

provisions of the rule and enhance the 

potential for environmental protection. 

In brief, our proposed changes would (1) 

eliminate recurring requirements on 

states that we believe have no 

significant benefit for visibility 

protection; 41 (2) clarify and strengthen 

the existing provisions under which 

states must address reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment when 

an FLM certifies that such impairment 

is occurring in a particular Class I area 

due to a single source or a small number 

of sources; (3) remove existing FIP 

provisions that require the EPA to 

periodically assess whether reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment is 

occurring and to respond to FLM 

certifications; and (4) edit various 

portions of §§ 51.300–308 to make them 

clearer and more compatible with each 

other. The substantive and clarifying 

changes are described in the following 

discussion in order of section number. 

The EPA seeks comment on each of the 

following proposed changes, as well as 

suggestions for alternative approaches to 

modernizing the reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment provisions. 

The EPA is proposing to amend 

§ 51.300, Purpose and applicability, to 

expand the reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment requirements to 

all states and territories, with the 

exceptions of Guam, Puerto Rico, 

American Samoa and the Northern 

Mariana Islands. These territories have 

no mandatory Class I areas and are 

sufficiently far from other Class I areas 

to have no anticipated impact on 

visibility in such areas. Under our 

proposal, the geographic coverage of the 

reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment provisions and the regional 

haze provisions would be the same. The 

EPA believes these changes would 

strengthen the visibility program and 

are appropriate in light of the evolved 

understanding that pollutants emitted 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
26962 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

42The existing rule text at § 51.302(c)(1) does not 

explicitly require the FLM to identify a particular 

source or small number of sources as responsible 

for the reasonably attributable impairment, but the 

EPA and the FLMs understand that such 

identification should be part of a certification. See 

45 FR 80086, ‘‘The Federal Land Manager may 

provide the State with a list of sources suspected 

of causing or contributing to visibility impairment 

in the mandatory Class I Federal area.’’ Under the 

proposed new language of § 51.302(b), if the FLM 

does not identify the source or small number of 

sources causing the impairment, the certification 

would not create any obligation on the state to 

respond with a SIP revision. 

43Although most of the BART requirements have 

been addressed in most states, there remain a 

handful of states with BART obligations. In 

addition, there is litigation over the BART element 

in some approved SIPs and promulgated FIPs. We 

expect that this situation may exist in one or more 

states at some time after the effective date of the 

final rule. 

from one or a small number of sources 

can affect Class I areas many miles 

away. In other words, emissions 

occurring in states without Class I areas 

can affect downwind states with Class I 

areas. This proposed change would 

provide these areas with additional 

protection from reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment. 

The EPA is proposing to amend 

§ 51.301, Definitions, to change the 

definition of reasonably attributable. 

The current definition of reasonably 

attributable is ‘‘attributable by visual 

observation or any other technique the 

State deems appropriate.’’ We are 

proposing to modify this definition to 

read ‘‘attributable by visual observation 

or any other appropriate technique.’’ 

This change would remove the current 

implication that only a state can 

determine what techniques are 

appropriate, even though the FLMs are 

charged with certifying reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment. The 

proposed change would make it clear 

that a state does not have complete 

discretion to determine what techniques 

are appropriate for attributing visibility 

impairment to specific sources. It is 

appropriate that the EPA be able to 

review the technique(s) that an FLM has 

relied upon to determine that 

reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment is occurring, in light of the 

views and supporting information 

provided by both the FLM and the state. 

While these views and supporting 

information, regardless of whether 

provided by the FLM or by the state, 

will not be presumptive in EPA’s 

ultimate determination as to whether 

any attribution technique used is 

appropriate, the universe of potentially 

appropriate attribution techniques is not 

limited to only those techniques that 

may have been utilized during past 

reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment certifications or that have 

been previously recommended or 

discussed via EPA guidance or actions. 

Rather, the aforementioned advances in 

ambient monitoring, emissions 

quantification, emission control 

technology and meteorological and air 

quality modeling that have occurred in 

the decades since 1980 make clear that 

modeling is one possible technique for 

determining that reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment is occurring. 

Due to the confusing, and in large part 

outdated, content of § 51.302, the EPA is 

proposing to delete the entire text of this 

section and replace it with new 

language. The new text clearly describes 

a state’s responsibilities upon receiving 

a FLM certification of reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment. 

The proposed § 51.302(a) involves 

FLM certification of reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment and 

reads much like the existing § 51.302(c), 

with the added language that FLMs 

would identify in the certification 

which single source or small number of 

sources is responsible for the reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment being 

certified.42 Further, the original 

reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment formulation did not 

anticipate a situation where one or a 

small number of sources in one state 

could create impairment of visibility in 

other state(s). Therefore, proposed 

language is included to explain that the 

FLMs would provide the certification to 

the state in which the source or small 

number of sources is located, which 

may not necessarily be the state where 

the visibility impairment occurs. The 

proposed language also addresses the 

possible situation that a ‘‘small number 

of sources’’ may be partially in one state 

and partially in another, such that a 

certification might be addressed to 

multiple states. 

The proposed § 51.302(b) describes 

the required state action in response to 

any FLM reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment certification, i.e., 

regardless of the type of source, namely 

that a state shall revise its regional haze 

implementation plan to include a 

determination, based on the four 

reasonable progress factors set forth in 

§ 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A), of any controls 

necessary on the certified source(s) to 

make reasonable progress toward 

natural visibility conditions in the 

affected Class I area. This preserves the 

current state obligation with much the 

same wording as in the current section, 

including the fact that a certification by 

an FLM would not create a definite state 

obligation to adopt a new control 

requirement, but rather only to submit 

a SIP revision that provides for any 

controls necessary for reasonable 

progress. In some cases, this SIP 

revision could be combined with an 

already required SIP revision. The EPA 

would review the responding SIP, and 

would be available to consult with the 

state and the certifying FLM as the state 

prepares its responding SIP. It would be 

the EPA, not the certifying FLM, that 

would determine whether the 

responding SIP is adequate and the 

response reasonable. The proposed 

section further maintains the current 

requirement that the state include 

emissions limitations and schedules for 

compliance, and adds the requirement 

that SIPs include monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements in order to enforce those 

emissions limitations. 

The proposed § 51.302(c) addresses 

those situations where an FLM certifies 

as a reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment source a BART-eligible 

source where there is at that time no SIP 

or FIP in place setting BART emission 

limits for that source or addressing 

BART requirements via a better-thanBART alternative program.43 In such an 

instance, the proposed rule requires the 

state to revise its regional haze SIP to 

meet the requirements of § 51.308(e), 

BART requirements for regional haze 

visibility impairment, and notes that 

this requirement exists in addition to 

the requirements of § 51.302(b) 

regarding imposition of controls for 

reasonable progress. The new version of 

§ 51.302(c) clarifies two aspects of the 

current rule to match the EPA’s past and 

current interpretations. First, a 

reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment certification for a BARTeligible source prior to the EPA’s 

approval of a state’s BART SIP for that 

source does not impose any substantive 

obligation on a state that is over and 

above the BART obligation imposed by 

§ 51.308. However, the state’s response 

to the reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment certification of a BARTeligible source must take into account 

current information. This may require a 

state to update an analysis prepared 

earlier in support of a BART SIP that 

has not been approved. Second, a 

reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment certification of a BARTeligible source after the state’s BART 

SIP for that source has been approved 

by the EPA does not trigger a 

requirement for a new BART 

determination based on the five 

statutory factors for BART. Rather, the 

state’s obligation with respect to that 

source is the same as for a non-BART 

eligible source, as stated in the 

paragraph immediately earlier. This is 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 26963 

44Under the third alternative proposed rule text, 

for a certification made between the 2021 and 2028 

SIP due dates, the state might have up to 6.5 years 

to respond, assuming the next bullet does not 

apply. For a certification made between the 2028 

and 2038 due dates, the state might have up to 9.5 

years to respond. 

45 If a certification is made not too long after a SIP 

due date, this parenthetical provision contained in 

the third alternative proposed rule text would 

operate to require the SIP revision needed to 

respond to the reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment certification to be due sooner than the 

6.5 or 9.5 year extreme noted in the previous 

footnote. 

true regardless of how the state’s SIP has 

addressed the BART requirement for the 

source, whether through source-specific 

emission limits, an alternative betterthan-BART analysis, or the special 

provisions of § 51.309, which may have 

not resulted in any new emission limit 

for the source. 

Regarding the time schedule for state 

response to an FLM certification of 

reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment, we are considering a 

number of possible approaches for the 

final rule, with proposed rule text 

provided for three alternative 

approaches referred to as options one, 

two and three. 

The first alternative proposed rule 

text at, option one, § 51.302(d) would 

retain the existing requirement for a 

state to respond to a reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment 

certification with a SIP revision within 

3 years regardless of when the 

certification is made in the cycle of 

periodic comprehensive SIP revisions. 

The second alternative proposed rule 

text, option two, at § 51.302(d) would 

require the state’s responsive SIP 

revision to be submitted on the due date 

of the next progress report (but not as 

part of the progress report, if the final 

rule does not require progress reports 

themselves to be submitted as SIP 

revisions) or the next periodic 

comprehensive SIP revision, whichever 

is earlier, provided the earlier date is at 

least 2 years after the RAVI certification. 

The third alternative proposed rule 

text, option three, at § 51.302(d) 

provides for different deadlines for the 

state response to the certification 

depending on when in the cycle of 

periodic comprehensive SIP revisions 

the reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment certification is made. Table 

1 provides specific examples of how 

application of the third alternative 

approach in the proposed rule text 

would determine due dates for the state 

response to a certification. 

• If the certification is made more 

than 2 years prior to the due date for 

any periodic comprehensive regional 

haze SIP revision required under 

§ 51.308(f) (but, with respect to the SIP 

due for the just-prior period, not so 

early as to be within the 6-month 

window described next), then a state 

must respond to the certification in that 

upcoming SIP revision. Failure to 

respond adequately would prevent full 

approval of that SIP revision. If the 

certification is made more than 2 years 

before the SIP due date, the state would 

have more than 2 years to respond, 

except as provided in the next bullet.44

• If the certification is made less than 

2 years prior to the due date for any 

periodic comprehensive SIP revision 

(but no more than 6 months subsequent 

to the submission date of that periodic 

comprehensive regional haze SIP 

revision or a SIP revision that amends 

a previous submission in a way that 

affects the emission limits applicable to 

the reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment-certified source),45 then the 

state must submit a revision to its 

regional haze SIP within 2 years from 

the date of certification. The EPA 

believes that in this second timing 

situation, when the state’s analytical 

infrastructure has been recently used to 

prepare a SIP revision and thus would 

not be in need of much, if any, 

refreshment, it is appropriate to require 

a responding SIP revision without 

waiting longer than 2 years for the next 

periodic comprehensive SIP revision. In 

this timing situation, the EPA would act 

on the state’s standard regional haze SIP 

without regard to the not-yet-due 

obligation for a reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment-response SIP 

revision. 

TABLE 1—EXAMPLE FLM REASONABLY ATTRIBUTABLE VISIBILITY IMPAIRMENT CERTIFICATION DATES AND CORRESPONDING DUE DATES FOR STATE RESPONSE UNDER THE THIRD ALTERNATIVE PROPOSED RULE TEXT (OPTION

THREE). 

[All assume submission of a SIP revision by July 31, 2021, unless otherwise noted.] 

Date of FLM certification Proposed due date for state response 

July 30, 2019 ............................................................................................................................................. July 31, 2021. 

August 1, 2019 ........................................................................................................................................... August 1, 2021. 

January 30, 2022 ....................................................................................................................................... January 30, 2024. 

February 1, 2022 ....................................................................................................................................... July 31, 2028. 

April 1, 2022, after late submission of a SIP on March 1, 2022 ............................................................... April 1, 2024. 

August 31, 2022, after revised SIP submission on July 31, 2021, affecting the source identified in the 

reasonably attributable visibility impairment certification.

August 31, 2024. 

The final rule may incorporate any 

one of these three proposals, or may 

combine features of these proposals. 

It is important to note that regardless 

how the final rule sets the deadline for 

the state’s responsive SIP revision, if the 

reasonable progress goals in the periodic 

comprehensive regional haze SIP for a 

state with a Class I area (and thus 

required to have reasonable progress 

goals in its SIP for that area) have been 

approved prior to the approval of its 

own or a contributing state’s separate 

reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment-response SIP, the state 

would not be required to revisit and 

revise its reasonable progress goals to 

take into account any additional 

emission reductions from the certified 

source until the next due date for a 

periodic comprehensive SIP revision. 

Proposed changes to § 51.303, 

Exemptions from control, are minor 

edits to paragraph (a) designed to 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
26964 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

46Section 51.301 states that ‘‘visibility in any 

mandatory Class I Federal area includes any 

integral vista associated with that area’’ but also 

that ‘‘adverse impact on visibility’’ does not include 

effects on integral vistas. Section 307(b) requires 

that SIPs provide for the review of any new major 

stationary source or major modification that may 

have an impact on any integral vista of a mandatory 

Class I Federal area. Other references to ‘‘integral 

vista’’ are merely definitional or relate to the 

procedure for identifying integral vistas. 

correctly refer to the new § 51.302(c) as 

well as to the BART provisions in 

§ 51.308(e). These proposed changes do 

not alter which existing facilities may 

apply to the Administrator for an 

exemption from BART. Rather, the 

proposed changes simply make the 

language more clear and direct the 

reader to the appropriate sections for 

reference information. 

Proposed changes to § 51.304, 

Identification of integral vistas, are more 

extensive. An integral vista is defined in 

§ 51.301 as a view perceived from 

within the Class I area of a specific 

landmark or panorama located outside 

the boundary of the Class I area. The 

current version of § 51.304 was written 

at a time when FLMs were still in the 

process of identifying integral vistas. We 

are proposing to remove antiquated 

language in § 51.304 in light of the fact 

that FLMs were required to identify any 

such integral vistas on or before 

December 31, 1985. The proposed 

language would explain this fact as well 

as list those few integral vistas that were 

properly identified during the 

applicable time period. States would 

continue to be subject to the 

requirement that these integral vistas be 

listed in their SIPs. The EPA notes that 

the current version of 40 CFR part 51, 

subpart P is not perfectly clear on how 

the existence of an identified integral 

vista affects obligations on states and 

sources, but we are not proposing any 

clarification as part of this rulemaking.46

We invite comment on whether all 

references to integral vistas should be 

removed from subpart P, and we may do 

so in the final rule. 

Proposed changes to § 51.305, 

Monitoring for reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment, involve adding 

language stating that the requirement for 

a state to include in a periodic 

comprehensive SIP revision a 

monitoring strategy specifically for 

evaluating reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment in Class I area(s) 

only applies in situations where the 

Administrator, Regional Administrator 

or FLM has advised the state of a need 

for it. In concept, special monitoring for 

reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment purposes might be 

appropriate for a Class I area without an 

IMPROVE monitoring station or when 

the impairment is from a relatively 

narrow plume such that the existing 

IMPROVE monitoring site is not 

affected. The nature of the special 

monitoring might be situation-specific, 

and might be the same as or different 

than the IMPROVE monitoring 

protocols. These proposed changes 

would reduce the paperwork that states 

are required to submit to the EPA on a 

recurring schedule, since under the 

proposed language a state containing 

one or more Class I areas and 

participating in the IMPROVE 

monitoring program would be relieved 

of the need to include information in its 

SIP regarding monitoring to specifically 

assess reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment absent being advised to do 

so. A strategy for monitoring for regional 

haze visibility impairment under 

§ 51.308(d)(4) is still required and any 

monitoring for reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment under § 51.305 

would be in addition to that 

requirement. 

Section 51.306, on long-term strategy 

requirements for reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment, is proposed to be 

completely removed and reserved. Like 

the current version of § 51.302, the 

language of this section is outdated. In 

this case, the EPA believes it makes 

sense to delete the entire text of this 

section and instead refer to long-term 

strategy requirements for reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment within 

the text of § 51.308, specifically in 

§ 51.308(f)(2). In this way, long-term 

strategy requirements for reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment would 

be retained in clearer form, and the 

visibility program would be more 

understandable to states and the public 

by listing the long-term strategy 

requirements for both regional haze and 

reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment in one place. Such a change 

would also reduce the planning burden 

on states by making clear in 

§ 51.308(f)(2) that a long-term strategy 

for reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment is not required without an 

FLM having made a reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment 

certification under § 51.302(a). 

Several proposed changes in § 51.308 

were discussed in Sections IV.A, B, C, 

D, E and F of this document. We are also 

proposing changes in § 51.308 related to 

reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment. The proposed addition of 

§ 51.308(c) (currently a reserved section) 

explains the relationship between 

regional haze and reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment and 

the state requirements for each, 

including that a state would not be 

required to address reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment unless 

triggered to do so by an FLM 

certification under § 51.302(a), and that 

a state would not be required to readdress its monitoring strategy for 

reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment unless advised to perform 

monitoring as described in the proposed 

§ 51.305. 

The EPA is also proposing changes to 

the language of § 51.308(f)(2) to describe 

when reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment must be addressed in the 

long-term strategy required for regional 

haze. Finally, proposed changes to 

§ 51.308(f)(6) regarding the monitoring 

strategy requirements for SIPs would 

remove references to § 51.305 that exist 

in the corresponding subsection in 

§ 51.308(d), namely, subsection (4) 

(again, regarding monitoring for 

reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment). 

Proposed changes to § 51.308(e), 

BART, relate to a state’s option to enact 

an emissions trading program or other 

alternative measure in lieu of sourcespecific BART. Under the proposed 

approach, if a source is already covered 

for BART by an approved emissions 

trading program or other alternative 

measure (or the program codified in 

§ 51.309), certification of that source by 

an FLM would not trigger a new BART 

determination. However, certification 

would still trigger the requirement for a 

reasonable progress analysis. Proposed 

changes to § 51.308(e)(4) are similar in 

nature and motivated by the same 

concerns. 

Consistent with our proposal to 

remove the requirement for states to 

periodically assess reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment, we 

are also proposing to amend many 

sections of 40 CFR part 52, to remove 

provisions that establish FIPs that 

require the EPA to periodically assess 

whether reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment exists at Class I 

areas in certain states and to address it 

if it does, and to respond to any 

reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment certification that may be 

directed to a state that does not have an 

approved reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment SIP. These 

changes include the removal of §§ 52.26 

and 52.29, which now contain the 

statement of the EPA’s obligations, and 

specific provisions for 30 states to 

establish that §§ 52.26 and 52.29 are 

applicable to those states. 

H. Consistency Revisions Related to 

Permitting of New and Modified Major 

Sources 

Proposed changes to § 51.307, New 

Source Review, involve a few proposed 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 26965 

47New Source Review Workshop Manual— 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration and 

Nonattainment Area Permitting (Draft), October 

1990, available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/

production/files/2015–07/documents/

1990wman.pdf; and Appendix A of Timely 

Processing of Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) Permits when EPA or a PSDDelegated Air Agency Issues the Permit, October 

2012, available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/

production/files/2015–07/documents/timely.pdf. 

48 77 FR 9304, February 16, 2012. 

49 75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010. 

50 78 FR 3086, January 15, 2013. 

51 80 FR 64,662, October 23, 2015. The 

compliance deadlines in the Clean Power Plan have 

been stayed by the Supreme Court. Order in 

Pending Case, West Virginia v. EPA, No. 15A773 

(Feb. 9, 2016). 

changes to maintain consistency with 

other sections of the Regional Haze Rule 

and with the CAA. The first change 

involves § 51.307(b)(1) concerning 

integral vistas, for which we are 

proposing deletion of obsolete language 

regarding the now-expired identification 

period for integral vistas. Instead, the 

newly proposed addition of a listing of 

integral vistas in § 51.304(b) will be 

referenced. In section § 51.307(b)(2), the 

deletion of a reference to specific 

sections of the CAA is proposed in order 

to remove unnecessary language, as the 

EPA believes a reference simply to 

section ‘‘107(d)(1)’’ is sufficient. 

I. Changes to FLM Consultation 

Requirements 

The EPA believes that state 

consultation with FLMs is a critical part 

of the creation of quality SIPs. As 

mentioned earlier, the EPA is proposing 

to extend the FLM consultation 

requirements of § 51.308(i)(2) to 

progress reports that are not SIP 

revisions. In addition, the EPA believes 

further edits to § 51.308(i)(2) are 

necessary because the current 

requirement for consultation at least 60 

days prior to a public hearing may not 

occur sufficiently early in the state’s 

planning process to meaningfully 

inform the state’s development of the 

long-term strategy. This proposed rule 

change would add a requirement that 

such consultation occur early enough to 

allow the state time for full 

consideration of FLM input, but no 

fewer than 60 days prior to a public 

hearing or other public comment 

opportunity. A consultation opportunity 

that takes place no less than 120 days 

prior to a public hearing or other public 

comment opportunity would be deemed 

to have been ‘‘early enough.’’ 

Finally, the EPA notes that pursuant 

to the existing provisions of § 51.307(a), 

the SIP for every state must require the 

new source permitting authority to 

consult with FLMs regarding new 

source review of any new major 

stationary source or major modification 

that would be constructed in an area 

that is designated attainment or 

unclassified that may affect visibility in 

any Class I Federal area. As required by 

the regulations, that consultation must 

include sharing with the FLMs a copy 

of all information relevant to the permit 

application for the proposed new 

stationary source or major modification. 

The regulations also specify that this 

material must be provided within 

particular time frames. Also, under 

§ 51.307(b)(2), a proposed new major 

source or major modification locating in 

a nonattainment area is subject to 

review if it may have an impact on 

visibility in any mandatory Class I area. 

Two EPA guidance documents interpret 

the consultation requirement, 

particularly with regard to evaluating 

whether a proposed new major source 

or major modification may affect 

visibility in a Class I area and thus 

consultation is required.47 The EPA 

regional offices can provide additional 

assistance to states in ensuring that their 

permitting programs meet the 

regulations and that the appropriate 

consultation is being conducted for 

affected permits. No changes are being 

proposed to these consultation 

requirements. 

J. Extension of Next Regional Haze SIP 

Deadline From 2018 to 2021 

The EPA is proposing to amend 

§ 51.308(f) to move the compliance 

deadline for the submission of the next 

periodic comprehensive SIP revisions 

from July 31, 2018, to July 31, 2021. 

Under this proposal, states would retain 

the option of submitting their SIP 

revisions before July 31, 2021. 

Regardless of the date on which a state 

chooses to submit its periodic 

comprehensive SIP revision, the EPA 

would evaluate that SIP using the same 

criteria. The EPA is proposing to leave 

the end date for the second 

implementation period at 2028, 

regardless of when SIP revisions are 

submitted. We are proposing this 

change as a one-time schedule 

adjustment. Periodic comprehensive SIP 

revisions for the third planning will be 

due on July 31, 2028, with future 

periodic comprehensive SIP revisions 

due every 10 years thereafter. 

We are proposing this extension of the 

due date for periodic comprehensive 

SIP revisions to allow states to 

coordinate regional haze planning with 

other regulatory programs, including but 

not limited to the Mercury and Air 

Toxics Standards,48 the 2010 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS,49 the 2012 annual PM2.5

NAAQS,50 and the Clean Power Plan.51

With this one-time extension, states 

would be able to gather more 

information on the effects of these 

programs and develop periodic 

comprehensive SIP revisions that are 

more integrated with state planning for 

these other programs, an advantage that 

was widely confirmed in our 

discussions with states. The Regional 

Haze Rule requires states to address the 

impacts of other regulatory programs 

when developing their regional haze 

SIPs. A number of other regulatory 

programs will be taking effect in the 

coming years, which presents an 

excellent opportunity for states to 

coordinate their strategies to address 

significant sources of emissions. The 

EPA expects this cross-program 

coordination to lead to better overall 

policies and enhanced environmental 

protection. 

K. Changes to Scheduling of Regional 

Haze Progress Reports 

The EPA is proposing to amend the 

requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 

(h) regarding the timing of submission 

of reports evaluating progress towards 

the natural visibility goal. Under the 

current rule, regional haze progress 

reports are required to be submitted 5 

years after submission of periodic 

comprehensive SIP revisions. Because 

states submitted these first SIP revisions 

on dates spread across about a 3-year 

period, many of the due dates for 

progress reports currently do not fall 

mid-way between the due dates for 

periodic comprehensive SIP revisions, 

as the EPA initially envisioned that they 

would. Looking forward, the current 

Regional Haze Rule would in many 

cases require a progress report shortly 

before or shortly after a periodic 

comprehensive SIP revision, at which 

time it could not be expected to have 

much utility as a mid-course review of 

environmental progress or much 

incremental informational value for the 

public compared to the data contained 

in that SIP revision. 

Complementing the proposed 

amendments to 40 CFR 51.308(f) 

regarding the deadlines for submittal of 

periodic comprehensive revisions, we 

propose to amend 40 CFR 51.308 (g) and 

(h) such that second and subsequent 

progress reports would be due by 

January 31, 2025, July 31, 2033, and 

every 10 years thereafter, placing one 

progress report mid-way between the 

due dates for periodic comprehensive 

SIP revisions. The EPA believes that this 

timing provides a good balance between 

allowing the implementation of the 

most recent SIP revision to have 

proceeded far enough since its adoption 

for a review to be possible and 

worthwhile and having enough time 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
26966 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

52See 40 CFR 58.10(a)(1) and (2). 

remaining before the next 

comprehensive SIP revision for state 

action to make changes in its rules or 

implementation efforts, if necessary, 

separately from the actions in that next 

SIP. 

Regarding the concept of a progress 

report also being useful at or near the 

time of submission of a periodic 

comprehensive SIP revision, as the EPA 

envisioned in the 1999 Regional Haze 

Rule, we note that although they are 

expressed with somewhat different 

terminology, in practical terms a 

progress report would provide little 

additional information beyond that 

required to be addressed in a periodic 

comprehensive SIP revision. The only 

significant additional information 

required in a progress report but not 

explicitly required in a periodic 

comprehensive SIP revision is the 

requirement to report on the trend in 

visibility over the whole period since 

the baseline period of 2000–2004. While 

the EPA believes that a state should be 

aware of, and share with the public, 

information on the trend in visibility 

over the whole period since the baseline 

period of 2000–2004, we believe it 

would be inefficient to require the 

preparation of a separate progress report 

for this purpose. Therefore, we are 

proposing to limit the requirement for 

separate progress reports to the one due 

mid-way between periodic 

comprehensive SIP revisions, and to 

add to the requirement for periodic 

comprehensive SIP revisions a 

requirement to include this trend 

information. The EPA believes this 

approach would substantially reduce 

administrative burdens and make 

progress reports of more informational 

use to the public, with no attendant 

reduction in environmental protection. 

The EPA solicits comment on this and 

any alternative approaches to progress 

report scheduling. 

L. Changes to the Requirement That 

Regional Haze Progress Reports Be SIP 

Revisions 

The EPA is proposing to amend 40 

CFR 51.308(g) regarding the 

requirements for the form of progress 

reports. Under the current regulations, 

progress reports must take the form of 

SIP revisions that comply with the 

procedural requirements of 40 CFR 

51.102, 40 CFR 51.103 and Appendix V 

to Part 51—Criteria for Determining the 

Completeness of Plan Submissions. The 

EPA included the requirements for 

progress reports in the Regional Haze 

Rule primarily with an emphasis toward 

ensuring that the states remain on track 

during the 10 years between periodic 

comprehensive SIP revisions. By 

requiring progress reports to be in the 

form of SIP revisions, the 1999 Regional 

Haze Rule ensured an opportunity for 

public input on the progress reports, 

while specifically pointing out that the 

EPA ‘‘intends for progress reports to 

involve significantly less effort than a 

comprehensive SIP revision.’’ 64 FR 

35747 (July 1, 1999). For all SIP 

revisions, however, the state must 

provide public notice and a public 

hearing if requested, and it must 

conform to certain administrative 

procedural requirements and provide 

various administrative material. Also, 

the submission must be made by an 

official who is authorized by state law 

to submit a SIP revision. As a required 

SIP revision, a finding by the EPA that 

a state has not submitted a complete 

progress report by the deadline would 

start a ‘‘clock’’ for the EPA to prepare, 

take public comment on, and issue a 

progress report like the state was 

required to submit. 

We are proposing that progress 

reports need not be in the form of SIP 

revisions, but that states must consult 

with FLMs and obtain public comment 

on their progress reports before 

submission to the EPA. We are also 

proposing that the SIP revision that 

would be due in 2021 must include a 

commitment to prepare and submit 

these progress reports to the EPA 

according to the proposed revised 

schedule (see previous section). These 

progress reports would be 

acknowledged and assessed by the EPA, 

but our review of these reports would 

not result in a formal approval or 

disapproval of them. 

The EPA is proposing these changes 

because it believes these reports are not 

the kind of state submissions for which 

the formality of a SIP revision, and the 

accompanying requirement for the EPA 

to have to prepare the report within 2 

years of finding that a state has failed to 

do so, are warranted. It is important to 

note that as part of the EPA’s review of 

the report, we will follow up with the 

state on any appropriate next steps. 

There are also additional remedies, such 

as undertaking a less formal assessment 

of the results of the implementation of 

the previously submitted SIP, that are 

available to the EPA in the event a state 

fails to properly submit a progress 

report. These changes have been widely 

supported by state air agencies in our 

pre-proposal consultations because they 

would allow more efficient use of state 

resources. This option would relieve 

states of the obligation to follow the 

procedural requirements of 40 CFR 

51.102 and 51.103. States have 

expressed concern that these procedural 

requirements are resource-intensive, 

and increase the burden on states by 

requiring formal procedures be followed 

when submitting progress reports. By 

avoiding the specific formal steps 

required for a SIP revision, including 

requirements imposed by state law that 

may involve time-consuming steps 

beyond those required by the EPA, this 

proposal may also reduce the time 

between the completion of the technical 

analysis in the progress report and when 

the final report becomes available to the 

EPA and the public. Thus, progress 

reports could contain fresher 

information on the environmental 

progress being made by a state. 

Removing the requirement that progress 

reports be submitted as SIP revisions is 

consistent with regulatory requirements 

for similar reports from states for 

progress reporting or planning purposes 

where control requirements are not 

imposed, such as annual monitoring 

plans required for planning and 

maintenance of state monitoring 

networks.52

The EPA invites comment on whether 

it should finalize this proposed change. 

Also, the EPA invites comment on 

changing the progress report scheduling 

as described in the previous section 

without making any change to the 

requirement that progress reports take 

the form of SIP revisions, and vice 

versa. 

It is important to note that under this 

option, states would still be required to 

include the required progress report 

elements listed in 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) 

through (g)(6). Also, § 51.308(h) would 

continue to require that at the same time 

the state is required to submit a progress 

report, it must also take one of four 

listed actions concerning whether the 

SIP is adequate to achieve established 

goals for visibility improvement. Where 

a state determines that its own SIP is or 

may be inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress due to emissions from sources 

within the state, the state will continue 

to have an obligation to revise its SIP to 

address the plan’s deficiencies within 1 

year of its submission of such a 

determination. 

Upon receipt of such progress reports, 

the EPA would review the reports. In 

addition, the EPA intends to create a 

system of logging progress reports as 

they are received, and making them 

available to the public. In addition to 

putting the public on notice that a 

progress report was received by the 

EPA, this system would provide the 

public an opportunity to view the 

contents of the progress report. 

Although the EPA would not formally 

approve or disapprove a progress report, 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 26967 

the EPA would still have discretion to 

assess the adequacy of the SIP, relying 

in part on the information in the 

progress report. Under the CAA, a 

discretionary determination that the SIP 

is inadequate would create a nondiscretionary duty for the EPA to issue 

a SIP call requiring the state to correct 

the inadequacy. A failure by the state to 

submit a progress report could be 

determined by the EPA to constitute 

failure to implement the regional haze 

SIP, given that we are proposing that 

every regional haze SIP include a 

commitment to submit the required 

progress reports (see next paragraph). 

We are proposing that the next 

periodic comprehensive SIP revisions 

(currently due in 2018 but proposed to 

be due in 2021) would need to include 

a commitment for states to provide 

progress reports. The 1999 Regional 

Haze Rule does not require such a 

commitment because the current 

requirement for progress reports to be 

submitted in the form of SIP revisions 

makes such a commitment superfluous. 

The EPA solicits comment on this or 

alternative approaches to ensuring that 

states continue to provide progress 

reports. 

M. Changes to Requirements Related to 

the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport 

Commission 

Section 51.309 has limited 

applicability going forward because its 

provisions apply only to 16 Class I areas 

covered by the Grand Canyon Visibility 

Transport Commission Report, and only 

to the first regional haze 

implementation period (i.e., through 

2018). Nevertheless, certain conforming 

amendments at this time are appropriate 

to avoid confusion going forward. 

Section 51.309(d)(4)(v) is proposed to be 

amended to correctly refer to the new 

§ 51.302(b) (in lieu of (e), which no 

longer exists in the proposed section 

§ 51.302) and to delete the reference to 

BART since it does not appear in 

§ 51.302(b). The title of § 51.309(c)(10), 

Periodic implementation plan revisions, 

is proposed to be amended to include 

‘‘and progress reports’’ at the end. This 

insertion would complement the 

proposed amendments that will no 

longer require progress reports be 

considered SIP revisions by making 

clear from the title of the section that it 

applies to both SIP revisions and 

progress reports. Within § 51.309(c)(10), 

amendments are proposed that would 

preserve the existing requirement that 

the progress reports due in 2013 were to 

take the form of SIP revisions, but direct 

the reader to the provisions of 

§ 51.308(g) for subsequent progress 

reports. In similar fashion, 

§ 51.309(c)(10)(i) and (ii) would be 

amended to specifically refer to the 

2013 progress reports, while 

§ 51.309(c)(10)(iii) would point to 

§ 51.308(g) for subsequent progress 

reports. Section 51.309(c)(10)(iv) is 

proposed to be added to indicate that 

subsequent progress reports are subject 

to the requirements of § 51.308(h) 

regarding determinations of adequacy of 

existing SIPs. 

A final change in section 51.309 

appears in § 51.309(g)(2)(iii). This 

change is purely to correct a 

typographical error and the EPA will 

therefore not consider comments on this 

subsection. 

V. Environmental Justice 

Considerations 

The EPA believes this action would 

not have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health, well-being or 

environmental effects on minority, lowincome or indigenous populations 

because it would not negatively affect 

the level of protection provided to 

human health, well-being or the 

environment under the CAA’s visibility 

protection program. When promulgated, 

these proposed regulations will revise 

procedural and timing aspects of the SIP 

requirements for visibility protection 

but will not substantively change the 

requirement that SIPs provide for 

reasonable progress towards the goal of 

natural visibility conditions. These SIP 

requirements are designed to protect all 

segments of the general population. 

The EPA acknowledges that the 

proposed delay in submitting SIP 

revisions from 2018 to 2021 might cause 

delays in when sources must comply 

with any new requirements. However, 

because neither the CAA nor the 

existing Regional Haze Rule set specific 

deadlines for when sources must 

comply with any new requirements in a 

state’s next periodic comprehensive SIP 

revision, states have substantial 

discretion in establishing reasonable 

compliance deadlines for measures in 

their SIPs. Given this, we expect to see 

a range of compliance deadlines in the 

next round of regional haze SIPs from 

early in the second implementation 

period to 2028, depending on the types 

of measures adopted, whether or not 

these proposed rule changes are 

finalized. Thus, the EPA believes the 

delay in the periodic comprehensive SIP 

revision submission deadline from 2018 

to 2021 will not meaningfully reduce 

the overall progress towards better 

visibility made by the end of 2028 and 

will not meaningfully adversely affect 

environmental protection for all general 

segments of the population. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is a significant regulatory 

action that was submitted to the OMB 

for review because it raises novel policy 

issues. Any changes made in response 

to OMB recommendations have been 

documented in the docket. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

The information collection activities 

in this proposed rule have been 

submitted for approval to the OMB 

under the PRA. The ICR document that 

the EPA prepared has been assigned the 

EPA ICR number 2540.01. OMB has 

previously approved the information 

collection activities contained in the 

existing regulations and has assigned 

OMB control number 2060–0421. You 

can find a copy of the ICR in the docket 

for this rule, and it is briefly 

summarized here. 

The EPA is proposing these 

amendments to requirements for state 

regional haze planning to change the 

requirements that must be met by states 

in developing regional haze SIPs, 

periodic comprehensive SIP revisions, 

and progress reports for regional haze. 

The main intended effects of this 

rulemaking are to provide states with 

additional time to submit regional haze 

plans for the second implementation 

period and to provide states with an 

improved schedule and process for 

progress report submission. Further 

reductions in burden on states include 

this proposal’s removal of the 

requirement for progress reports to be 

SIP revisions, clarifying that states are 

not required to project emissions 

inventories as part of preparing a 

progress report, and relieving the state 

of the need to review its visibility 

monitoring strategy within the context 

of the progress report. With all of these 

proposed changes considered, the 

overall burden on states would 

represent a reduction compared to what 

would otherwise occur if the provisions 

of the current rule were to stay in place. 

Total estimated burden is estimated to 

be reduced from 10,307 hours (per year) 

to 5,974 hours (per year), and total 

estimated cost is expected to be reduced 

from $510,498 (per year) to $295,876 

(per year). All states are required to 

submit regional haze SIPs and progress 

reports under this rule. 

Respondents/affected entities: All 

state air agencies. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: 

Mandatory, in accordance with the 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
26968 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

provisions of the 1999 Regional Haze 

Rule. 

Estimated number of respondents: 52: 

50 states, District of Columbia and U.S. 

Virgin Islands. 

Frequency of response: 

Approximately every 10 years (SIP) and 

approximately every 10 years (progress 

report). 

Total estimated burden: 5,974 hours 

(per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 

1320.3(b). 

Total estimated cost: $295,876 (per 

year), includes $0 annualized capital or 

operation & maintenance costs. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

Submit your comments on the 

agency’s need for this information, the 

accuracy of the provided burden 

estimates and any suggested methods 

for minimizing respondent burden to 

the EPA using the docket identified at 

the beginning of this rule. You may also 

send your ICR-related comments to 

OMB’s Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs via email to oira_

submissions@omb.eop.gov, Attention: 

Desk Officer for the EPA. Since OMB is 

required to make a decision concerning 

the ICR between 30 and 60 days after 

receipt, OMB must receive comments no 

later than June 3, 2016. The EPA will 

respond to any ICR-related comments in 

the final rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities. Entities potentially affected 

directly by this proposal include state 

governments, and for the purposes of 

the RFA, state governments are not 

considered small government. Tribes 

may choose to follow the provisions of 

the Regional Haze Rule but are not 

required to do so. Other types of small 

entities are not directly subject to the 

requirements of this rule. The EPA 

continues to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed rule 

on small entities and welcomes 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. This action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any state, local or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

The CAA imposes the obligation for 

states to submit regional haze SIPs. In 

this rule, the EPA is proposing to revise 

those requirements in a manner that 

would not increase the obligation of any 

state, local or tribal governments or the 

private sector. In this rule, the EPA is 

also proposing to extend the reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment 

certification provisions to some 

additional states, but these states are not 

small governments and any mandate on 

the private sector would be indirect 

since this rule does not mandate how an 

affected state should address such a 

certification. Therefore, this action is 

not subject to the requirements of 

sections 202, 203 and 205 of the UMRA. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. The requirement 

to submit regional haze SIPs is 

mandated by the CAA. Thus, Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to these 

proposed regulations. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 

and consistent with the EPA policy to 

promote communications between the 

EPA and state and local governments, 

the EPA has already consulted 

extensively with state air agency 

officials prior to this proposal. The EPA 

specifically solicits comments on this 

proposed action from state and local 

officials. In addition, the EPA intends to 

meet with organizations representing 

state and local officials during the 

comment period for this action. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This proposed action does not have 

tribal implications as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. It would not 

have a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes. Furthermore, these 

proposed regulation revisions do not 

affect the relationship or distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

federal government and Indian tribes. 

The CAA and the TAR establish the 

relationship of the federal government 

and tribes in characterizing air quality 

and developing plans to protect 

visibility in Class I areas. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this action. 

Although Executive Order 13175 does 

not apply to this action, the EPA solicits 

comment on this proposed action from 

tribal officials. The EPA also intends to 

offer to consult with any tribal 

government to discuss this proposal. 

See also Section III.B.5 of this document 

for further discussion regarding the role 

of tribes in visibility protection. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not concern an 

environmental health risk or safety risk. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ because it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution or use of energy. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes the human health or 

environmental risk addressed by this 

action will not have disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority, lowincome or indigenous populations. The 

results of our evaluation are contained 

in Section V of this document. 

VII. Statutory Authority 

The statutory authority for this action 

is provided by 42 U.S.C. 7403, 7407, 

7410 and 7601. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 51 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, 

Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides, 

Transportation, Volatile organic 

compounds. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 26969 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Sulfur oxides, Transportation, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: April 25, 2016. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, Title 40, Chapter I of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 51—REQUIREMENTS FOR 

PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND 

SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION 

PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 51 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401– 

7671q. 

■ 2. In § 51.300, revise paragraph (b) to 

read as follows: 

§ 51.300 Purpose and applicability. 

* * * * * 

(b) Applicability—The provisions of 

this subpart are applicable to all States 

as defined in section 302(d) of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) except Guam, Puerto 

Rico, American Samoa, and the 

Northern Mariana Islands. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 51.301: 

■ a. Add a definition for ‘‘Clearest 

days;’’ 

■ b. Revise the definition of 

‘‘Deciview;’’ 

■ c. Add definitions for ‘‘Deciview 

index’’ and ‘‘End of the applicable 

implementation period;’’ 

■ d. Revise the definitions of ‘‘Federal 

Class I area,’’ ‘‘Least impaired days,’’ 

‘‘Mandatory Class I Federal Area,’’ and 

‘‘Most impaired days;’’ 

■ e. Add definitions for ’’ ‘‘Natural 

visibility conditions’’ and ‘‘Prescribed 

fire;’’ 

■ f. Revise the definition of ‘‘Reasonably 

attributable;’’ 

■ g. Add a definition for ‘‘Visibility;’’ 

■ h. Revise the definitions of ‘‘Visibility 

impairment;’’ and 

■ i. Add definitions for ‘‘Wildfire,’’ and 

‘‘Wildland.’’ 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 51.301 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Clearest days means the twenty 

percent of monitored days in a calendar 

year with the lowest values of the 

deciview index. 

Deciview is the unit of measurement 

on the deciview index scale for 

quantifying in a standard manner 

human perceptions of visibility. 

Deciview index means a value for a 

day that is derived from calculated or 

measured light extinction, such that 

uniform increments of the index 

correspond to uniform incremental 

changes in perception across the entire 

range of conditions, from pristine to 

very obscured. The deciview index is 

calculated based on the following 

equation (for the purposes of calculating 

deciview using IMPROVE data, the 

atmospheric light extinction coefficient 

must be calculated from aerosol 

measurements and an estimate of 

Rayleigh scattering): 

Deciview index=10 ln (bext/10 Mm¥1). 

bext=the atmospheric light extinction 

coefficient, expressed in inverse 

megameters (Mm¥1). 

End of the applicable implementation 

period means December 31 of the year 

in which the next periodic 

comprehensive implementation plan 

revision is due under § 51.308(f). 

* * * * * 

Federal Class I area or Class I Federal 

area means any Federal land that is 

classified or reclassified Class I. 

Mandatory Federal Class I areas are 

identified in part 81, subpart D. Other 

Federal Class I areas are identified in 

part 52 of this title. 

* * * * * 

Least impaired days means the twenty 

percent of monitored days in a calendar 

year with the lowest amounts of 

visibility impairment. 

* * * * * 

Mandatory Class I Federal Area or 

Mandatory Federal Class I Area means 

any area identified in part 81, subpart D 

of this title. 

Most impaired days means the twenty 

percent of monitored days in a calendar 

year with the highest amounts of 

visibility impairment. 

* * * * * 

Natural visibility conditions means 

visibility (contrast, coloration, and 

texture) that would have existed under 

natural conditions. Natural visibility 

conditions vary with time and location, 

and are estimated or inferred rather than 

directly measured. 

* * * * * 

Prescribed fire means any fire 

intentionally ignited by management 

actions in accordance with applicable 

laws, policies, and regulations to meet 

specific land or resource management 

objectives. 

* * * * * 

Reasonably attributable means 

attributable by visual observation or any 

other appropriate technique. 

* * * * * 

Visibility means the degree of 

perceived clarity when viewing objects 

at a distance. Visibility includes 

perceived changes in contrast, 

coloration, and texture of elements in a 

scene. 

Visibility impairment means any 

humanly perceptible difference between 

actual visibility conditions and natural 

visibility conditions. Because natural 

visibility conditions can only be 

estimated or inferred, visibility 

impairment also is estimated or inferred 

rather than directly measured. 

* * * * * 

Wildfire means any fire started by an 

unplanned ignition caused by lightning; 

volcanoes; other acts of nature; 

unauthorized activity; or accidental, 

human-caused actions, or a prescribed 

fire that has been declared to be a 

wildfire. A wildfire that predominantly 

occurs on wildland is a natural event. 

Wildland means an area in which 

human activity and development is 

essentially non-existent, except for 

roads, railroads, power lines, and 

similar transportation facilities. 

Structures, if any, are widely scattered. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Revise § 51.302, to read as follows: 

§ 51.302 Reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment. 

(a) The affected Federal Land Manager 

may certify, at any time, that there exists 

reasonably attributable impairment of 

visibility in any mandatory Class I 

Federal area and identify which single 

source or small number of sources is 

responsible for such impairment. The 

affected Federal Land Manager will 

provide the certification to the State in 

which the impairment occurs and the 

State(s) in which the source(s) is 

located. 

(b) The State(s) in which the source(s) 

is located shall revise its regional haze 

implementation plan, in accordance 

with the schedules set forth in 

paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section, 

to include for each source or small 

number of sources that the Federal Land 

Manager has identified in whole or in 

part for reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment as part of a certification 

under paragraph (a) of this section: 

(1) A determination, based on the 

factors set forth in § 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A), 

of the control measures, if any, that are 

necessary with respect to the source or 

sources in order for the plan to make 

reasonable progress toward natural 

visibility conditions in the affected 

Class I Federal area; 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
26970 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

(2) Emission limitations that reflect 

the degree of emission reduction 

achievable by such control measures 

and schedules for compliance as 

expeditiously as practicable; and 

(3) Monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements sufficient to 

ensure the enforceability of the emission 

limitations. 

(c) If a source that the Federal Land 

Manager has identified as responsible in 

whole or in part for reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment as part 

of a certification under paragraph (a) of 

this section is a BART-eligible source, 

and if there is not in effect as of the date 

of the certification a fully or 

conditionally approved implementation 

plan addressing the BART requirement 

for that source (which existing plan may 

incorporate either source-specific 

emission limitations reflecting the 

emission control performance of BART, 

an alternative program to address the 

BART requirement under § 51.308(e)(2), 

(3), and (4), or for sources of SO2 a 

program approved under paragraph 

§ 51.309(d)(4)), then the State shall 

revise its regional haze implementation 

plan to meet the requirements of 

§ 51.308(e) with respect to that source, 

taking into account current conditions 

related to the factors listed in 

§ 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). This requirement is 

in addition to the requirement of 

paragraph (b) of this section. 

Proposed Paragraph (d): Option One 

(d) For any existing reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment the 

Federal Land Manager certifies to the 

State(s) under paragraph (a) of this 

section, the State(s) shall submit a 

revision to its regional haze 

implementation plan that includes the 

elements described in paragraph (b) and 

(c) no later than 3 years after the date 

of the certification. The State(s) is not 

required at that time to also revise its 

reasonable progress goals to reflect the 

additional emission reductions required 

from the source or sources.] 

Proposed Paragraph (d): Option Two 

(d) For any existing reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment the 

Federal Land Manager certifies to the 

State(s) under paragraph (a) of this 

section more than 2 years prior to the 

due date for a regional haze 

implementation plan revision required 

under § 51.308(f) or the due date for a 

regional haze progress report required 

under § 51.308(g), the State(s) shall 

include the elements described in 

paragraphs (b) and (c) in a plan revision 

by the due date for that implementation 

plan revision as part of such revision or 

by the due date for the progress report, 

whichever is due first, provided that the 

earlier date is at least 2 years after the 

certification. For plan revisions 

submitted by the due date for the 

progress report, the State(s) is not 

required at that time to also revise its 

reasonable progress goals to reflect the 

additional emission reductions required 

from the source or sources.] 

Proposed Paragraph (d): Option Three 

(d)(1) For any existing reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment the 

Federal Land Manager certifies to the 

State(s) under paragraph (a) of this 

section more than 2 years prior to the 

due date for a regional haze 

implementation plan revision required 

under § 51.308(f), the State(s) shall 

include the elements described in 

paragraphs (b) and (c) in such revision 

and such elements shall be considered 

a required part of such revision. 

(2) For any existing reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment the 

Federal Land Manager certifies to the 

State(s) under paragraph (a) of this 

section less than 2 years prior to the due 

date for a regional haze implementation 

plan revision required under § 51.308(f), 

but no more than 6 months subsequent 

to the submission date of that 

implementation plan revision or no 

more than 6 months subsequent to a 

further plan revision that changes the 

emission limitation for the subject 

source, the State(s) shall submit a 

revision to its regional haze 

implementation plan that includes the 

elements described in paragraph (b) and 

(c) no later than 2 years after the date 

of the certification. The State(s) is not 

required at that time to also revise its 

reasonable progress goals to reflect the 

additional emission reductions required 

from the source or sources.] 

■ 5. Revise § 51.304 to read as follows: 

§ 51.304 Identification of integral vistas. 

(a) Federal Land Managers were 

required to identify any integral vistas 

on or before December 31, 1985, 

according to criteria the Federal Land 

Managers developed. These criteria 

must have included, but were not 

limited to, whether the integral vista 

was important to the visitor’s visual 

experience of the mandatory Class I 

Federal area. 

(b) The following integral vistas were 

identified by Federal Land Managers: at 

Roosevelt Campobello International 

Park, from the observation point of 

Roosevelt cottage and beach area, the 

viewing angle from 244 to 256 degrees; 

and at Roosevelt Campobello 

International Park, from the observation 

point of Friar’s Head, the viewing angle 

from 154 to 194 degrees. 

(c) The State must list in its 

implementation plan any integral vista 

listed in paragraph (b) of this section. 

(d) [Reserved] 

■ 6. Section 51.305 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 51.305 Monitoring for reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment. 

For the purposes of addressing 

reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment, if the Administrator, 

Regional Administrator, or the affected 

Federal Land Manager has advised a 

State containing a mandatory Class I 

Federal area of a need for monitoring to 

assess reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment at a mandatory Class I 

Federal area in addition to the 

monitoring currently being conducted to 

meet the requirements of § 51.308(d)(4), 

the State must include in the next 

implementation plan revision to meet 

the requirement of § 51.308(f) an 

appropriate strategy for evaluating 

reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment in the mandatory Class I 

Federal area by visual observation or 

other appropriate monitoring 

techniques. Such strategy must take into 

account current and anticipated 

visibility monitoring research, the 

availability of appropriate monitoring 

techniques, and such guidance as is 

provided by the Agency. 

§ 51.306 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 7. Section 51.306 is removed and 

reserved. 

■ 8. In § 51.307, revise paragraphs (a) 

introductory text and (b)(1) and (2) to 

read as follows: 

§ 51.307 New source review. 

(a) For purposes of new source review 

of any new major stationary source or 

major modification that would be 

constructed in an area that is designated 

attainment or unclassified under section 

107(d) of the CAA, the State plan must, 

in any review under § 51.166 with 

respect to visibility protection and 

analyses, provide for: 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) That may have an impact on any 

integral vista of a mandatory Class I 

Federal area listed in § 51.304(b), or 

(2) That proposes to locate in an area 

classified as nonattainment under 

section 107(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act 

that may have an impact on visibility in 

any mandatory Class I Federal area. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. In § 51.308: 

■ a. Revise paragraph (b); 

■ b. Add paragraph (c); 

■ c. Revise paragraphs (d)(2)(iv), (d)(3), 

(e)(2)(v), (e)(4) and (5), and (f); 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 26971 

■ d. Revise paragraphs (g) introductory 

text, (g)(3) through (7), (h) introductory 

text, (h)(1), (i)(2) introductory text, and 

(i)(3) and (4). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 51.308 Regional haze program 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) When are the first implementation 

plans due under the regional haze 

program? Except as provided in 

§ 51.309(c), each State identified in 

§ 51.300(b) must submit, for the entire 

State, an implementation plan for 

regional haze meeting the requirements 

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

no later than December 17, 2007. 

(c) What is the relationship between 

requirements for regional haze and 

requirements for reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment? A State must 

address any reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment certified by a 

Federal Land Manager under § 51.302(a) 

in its regional haze implementation 

plan, as required by § 51.302(b)–(d). A 

State must also meet the requirements of 

§ 51.305 if the Administrator, Regional 

Administrator, or the Federal Land 

Manager has advised a State under 

§ 51.305 of a need for additional 

monitoring to assess reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment at a 

mandatory Class I Federal area. 

(d) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iv) For the first implementation plan 

addressing the requirements of 

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

the number of deciviews by which 

baseline conditions exceed natural 

visibility conditions for the most 

impaired and least impaired days. 

(3) Long-term strategy for regional 

haze. Each State listed in § 51.300(b) 

must submit a long-term strategy that 

addresses regional haze visibility 

impairment for each mandatory Class I 

Federal area within the State and for 

each mandatory Class I Federal area 

located outside the State that may be 

affected by emissions from the State. 

The long-term strategy must include 

enforceable emissions limitations, 

compliance schedules, and other 

measures as necessary to achieve the 

reasonable progress goals established by 

States having mandatory Class I Federal 

areas. In establishing its long-term 

strategy for regional haze, the State must 

meet the following requirements: 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(2) * * * 

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

that the emissions trading program or 

other alternative measure may include a 

geographic enhancement to the program 

to address the requirement under 

§ 51.302(b) related to reasonably 

attributable impairment from the 

pollutants covered under the emissions 

trading program or other alternative 

measure. 

* * * * * 

(4) A State subject to a trading 

program established in accordance with 

§ 52.38 or § 52.39 under a Transport 

Rule Federal Implementation Plan need 

not require BART-eligible fossil fuelfired steam electric plants in the State 

to install, operate, and maintain BART 

for the pollutant covered by such 

trading program in the State. A State 

that chooses to meet the emission 

reduction requirements of the Transport 

Rule by submitting a SIP revision that 

establishes a trading program and is 

approved as meeting the requirements 

of § 52.38 or § 52.39 also need not 

require BART-eligible fossil fuel-fired 

steam electric plants in the State to 

install, operate, and maintain BART for 

the pollutant covered by such trading 

program in the State. A State may adopt 

provisions, consistent with the 

requirements applicable to the State for 

a trading program established in 

accordance with § 52.38 or § 52.39 

under the Transport Rule Federal 

Implementation Plan or established 

under a SIP revision that is approved as 

meeting the requirements of § 52.38 or 

§ 52.39, for a geographic enhancement 

to the program to address any 

requirement under § 51.302(b) related to 

reasonably attributable impairment from 

the pollutant covered by such trading 

program in that State. 

(5) After a State has met the 

requirements for BART or implemented 

emissions trading program or other 

alternative measure that achieves more 

reasonable progress than the installation 

and operation of BART, BART-eligible 

sources will be subject to the 

requirements of paragraphs (d) and (f) of 

this section, as applicable, in the same 

manner as other sources. 

* * * * * 

(f) Requirements for periodic 

comprehensive revisions of 

implementation plans for regional haze. 

Each State identified in § 51.300(b) must 

revise and submit its regional haze 

implementation plan revision to EPA by 

July 31, 2021, July 31, 2028, and every 

10 years thereafter. The plan revision 

due on or before July 31, 2021 must 

include a commitment by the State to 

meet the requirements of paragraph (g). 

In each plan revision, the State must 

address regional haze in each 

mandatory Class I Federal area located 

within the State and in each mandatory 

Class I Federal area located outside the 

State that may be affected by emissions 

from within the State. To meet the core 

requirements for regional haze for these 

areas, the State must submit an 

implementation plan containing the 

following plan elements and supporting 

documentation for all required analyses: 

(1) Calculations of baseline, current, 

and natural visibility conditions; 

progress to date; and the uniform rate of 

progress. For each mandatory Class I 

Federal area located within the State, 

the State must determine the following: 

(i) Baseline visibility conditions for 

the most impaired and clearest days. 

The period for establishing baseline 

visibility conditions is 2000 to 2004. For 

purposes of calculating and displaying 

the uniform rate of progress, baseline 

visibility conditions must be associated 

with the last day of this period. Baseline 

visibility conditions must be calculated, 

using available monitoring data, by 

establishing the average deciview index 

for the most impaired and clearest days 

for each calendar year from 2000 to 

2004. The baseline visibility conditions 

are the average of these annual values. 

For mandatory Class I Federal areas 

without onsite monitoring data for 

2000–2004, the State must establish 

baseline values using the most 

representative available monitoring data 

for 2000–2004, in consultation with the 

Administrator or his or her designee. 

For mandatory Class I Federal areas 

with incomplete data availability for 

2000–2004, the State must establish 

baseline values using the closest 5 

complete years of monitoring data. 

(ii) Natural visibility conditions for 

the most impaired and clearest days. 

Natural visibility conditions must be 

calculated by estimating the deciview 

index existing under natural conditions 

for the most impaired and clearest days, 

based on available monitoring 

information and appropriate data 

analysis techniques; and 

(iii) Current visibility conditions for 

the most impaired and clearest days. 

The period for calculating current 

visibility conditions is the most recent 

5-year period for which data are 

available. Current visibility conditions 

must be calculated based on the annual 

average level of visibility impairment 

for the most impaired and clearest days 

for each of these 5 years. Current 

visibility conditions are the average of 

these annual values. 

(iv) Progress to date for the most 

impaired and clearest days. Actual 

progress made towards natural 

conditions since the baseline period, 

and actual progress made during the 

previous implementation period up to 

and including to the period for 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
26972 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

calculating current visibility conditions, 

for the most impaired and clearest days, 

must be calculated. 

(v) Difference between current 

visibility conditions and natural 

visibility conditions. The number of 

deciviews by which current visibility 

conditions exceed natural visibility 

conditions, for the most impaired and 

clearest days, must be calculated. 

(vi) Uniform rate of progress. (A) The 

uniform rate of progress for each 

mandatory Class I Federal area in the 

State must be calculated. To calculate 

this uniform rate of progress, the State 

must compare baseline visibility 

conditions to natural visibility 

conditions in the mandatory Class I 

Federal area and determine the uniform 

rate of visibility improvement 

(measured in deciviews of improvement 

per year) that would need to be 

maintained during each implementation 

period in order to attain natural 

visibility conditions by the end of 2064. 

(B) The State may submit a request to 

the Administrator seeking an 

adjustment to the uniform rate of 

progress for a mandatory Class I Federal 

area to account for impacts from (1) 

anthropogenic sources outside the 

United States and/or (2) wildland 

prescribed fires that were conducted 

with the objective to establish, restore, 

and/or maintain sustainable and 

resilient wildland ecosystems, to reduce 

the risk of catastrophic wildfires, and/or 

to preserve endangered or threatened 

species during which appropriate basic 

smoke management practices were 

applied. To calculate the proposed 

adjustment, the State must add the 

estimated impacts to natural visibility 

conditions and compare the resulting 

value to baseline visibility conditions. If 

the Administrator determines that the 

State has estimated the impacts from 

anthropogenic sources outside the 

United States or wildland prescribed 

fires using scientifically valid data and 

methods, the Administrator may 

approve the proposed adjustment to the 

uniform rate of progress for use in the 

State’s implementation plan. 

(2) Long-term strategy for regional 

haze and reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment. Each State must 

submit a long-term strategy that 

addresses regional haze visibility 

impairment, and if necessary any 

reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment certified by the Federal 

Land Manager under § 51.302(a), for 

each mandatory Class I Federal area 

within the State and for each mandatory 

Class I Federal area located outside the 

State that may be affected by emissions 

from the State. The long-term strategy 

must include the enforceable emissions 

limitations, compliance schedules, and 

other measures that are necessary to 

achieve reasonable progress, as 

determined pursuant to (f)(2)(i) through 

(vi). In establishing its long-term 

strategy for regional haze, the State must 

meet the following requirements: 

(i) The State must consider and 

analyze emission reduction measures 

based on the costs of compliance, the 

time necessary for compliance, the 

energy and non-air quality 

environmental impacts of compliance, 

and the remaining useful life of any 

potentially affected major or minor 

stationary source or group of sources. 

The State must document the criteria 

used to determine which sources or 

groups of sources were evaluated, and 

how these four factors were taken into 

consideration in selecting the measures 

for inclusion in its long-term strategy. 

(ii) The State must consider the 

uniform rate of improvement in 

visibility, the emission reduction 

measures identified in (f)(2)(i), and 

additional measures being adopted by 

other contributing states in (f)(2)(iii) as 

needed to make reasonable progress 

towards natural visibility conditions for 

the period covered by the 

implementation plan. 

(iii) The State must consult with those 

States which may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment in the mandatory 

Class I Federal area. 

(A) Contributing States. Where the 

State has emissions that are reasonably 

anticipated to contribute to visibility 

impairment in any mandatory Class I 

Federal area located in another State or 

States, the State must consult with the 

other State(s) in order to develop 

coordinated emission management 

strategies. The State must demonstrate 

that it has included in its 

implementation plan all measures 

necessary to obtain its share of the 

emission reductions needed to provide 

for reasonable progress towards natural 

visibility conditions in the mandatory 

Class I Federal area located in the other 

State or States. If the State has 

participated in a regional planning 

process, the State must also ensure that 

it has included all measures needed to 

achieve its apportionment of emission 

reduction obligations agreed upon 

through that process. 

(B) States affected by contributing 

States. A State with a mandatory Class 

I Federal area must consult with any 

other State having emissions that are 

reasonably anticipated to contribute to 

visibility impairment in that area 

regarding the emission reductions 

needed in each State to provide for 

reasonable progress towards natural 

visibility conditions in that area. If the 

State has participated in a regional 

planning process, the State must ensure 

it has included all measures needed to 

achieve its apportionment of emission 

reduction obligations agreed upon 

through that process. 

(C) In any situation in which a State 

cannot agree with another State or group 

of States on the emission reductions 

needed for reasonable progress towards 

natural visibility conditions in any 

mandatory Class I Federal area, each 

involved State must describe in its 

submittal the actions taken to resolve 

the disagreement. In reviewing the 

State’s implementation plan submittal, 

the Administrator will take this 

information into account in determining 

whether the State’s implementation 

plan provides for reasonable progress 

towards natural visibility conditions at 

each mandatory Class I Federal area that 

is located in the State or that may be 

affected by emissions from the State. All 

substantive interstate consultations 

must be documented. 

(iv) As part of the demonstration 

required by (f)(2)(i), the State must 

document the technical basis, including 

information on the factors listed in 

(f)(2)(i) and modeling, monitoring, and 

emissions information, on which the 

State is relying to determine the 

emission reductions from anthropogenic 

sources in the State that are necessary 

for achieving reasonable progress 

towards natural visibility conditions in 

each mandatory Class I Federal area it 

affects. The State may meet this 

requirement by relying on technical 

analyses developed by a regional 

planning process and approved by all 

State participants. The State must 

identify the baseline emissions 

inventory on which its strategies are 

based. The baseline emissions inventory 

year shall be the most recent year for 

which the State has submitted emission 

inventory information to the 

Administrator in compliance with the 

triennial reporting requirements of 

subpart A of this part unless the State 

adequately justifies the use of another 

inventory year. 

(v) The State must identify all 

anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment considered by the State in 

developing its long-term strategy and 

the criteria used to select the sources 

considered. The State should consider 

major and minor stationary sources, 

mobile sources, and area sources. 

(vi) The State must consider, at a 

minimum, the following factors in 

developing its long-term strategy: 

(A) Emission reductions due to 

ongoing air pollution control programs, 

including measures to address 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 26973 

reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment; 

(B) Measures to mitigate the impacts 

of construction activities; 

(C) Emissions limitations and 

schedules for compliance to achieve the 

reasonable progress goal; 

(D) Source retirement and 

replacement schedules; 

(E) Basic smoke management 

practices for prescribed fire used for 

agricultural and wildland vegetation 

management purposes and smoke 

management programs as currently exist 

within the State for these purposes; 

(F) Enforceability of emissions 

limitations and control measures; and 

(G) The anticipated net effect on 

visibility due to projected changes in 

point, area, and mobile source 

emissions over the period addressed by 

the long-term strategy. 

(3) Reasonable progress goals. (i) A 

state in which a mandatory Class I 

Federal area is located must establish 

reasonable progress goals (expressed in 

deciviews) that reflect the visibility 

conditions that are projected to be 

achieved by the end of the applicable 

implementation period as a result of all 

enforceable emissions limitations, 

compliance schedules, and other 

measures required under paragraph 

(f)(2) and the implementation of other 

requirements of the CAA. The long-term 

strategy and the reasonable progress 

goals must provide for an improvement 

in visibility for the most impaired days 

and ensure no degradation in visibility 

for the clearest days since the baseline 

period. 

(ii)(A) If a State in which a mandatory 

Class I Federal area is located 

establishes a reasonable progress goal 

for the most impaired days that provides 

for a slower rate of improvement in 

visibility than the uniform rate of 

progress calculated under paragraph 

(f)(1)(vi) of this section, the State must 

demonstrate, based on the analysis 

required by paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this 

section, that there are no additional 

emission reduction measures for 

anthropogenic sources or groups of 

sources in the State that may reasonably 

be anticipated to contribute to visibility 

impairment in the Class I area that 

would be reasonable to include in the 

long-term strategy. The State must 

provide a robust demonstration, 

including documenting the criteria used 

to determine which sources or groups of 

sources were evaluated and how the 

four factors required by paragraph 

(f)(2)(i) were taken into consideration in 

selecting the measures for inclusion in 

its long-term strategy. The State must 

provide to the public for review as part 

of its implementation plan an 

assessment of the number of years it 

would take to attain natural visibility 

conditions if visibility improvement 

were to continue at the rate of progress 

selected by the State as reasonable for 

the implementation period. 

(B) If a State contains sources which 

are reasonably anticipated to contribute 

to visibility impairment in a mandatory 

Class I Federal area in another State for 

which a demonstration by the other 

State is required under (f)(3)(ii)(A), the 

State must demonstrate that there are no 

additional emission reduction measures 

for anthropogenic sources or groups of 

sources in the State that may reasonably 

be anticipated to contribute to visibility 

impairment in the Class I area that 

would be reasonable to include in its 

own long-term strategy. 

(iii) The reasonable progress goals 

established by the State are not directly 

enforceable but will be considered by 

the Administrator in evaluating the 

adequacy of the measures in the 

implementation plan in providing for 

reasonable progress towards achieving 

natural visibility conditions at that area. 

(iv) In determining whether the 

State’s goal for visibility improvement 

provides for reasonable progress 

towards natural visibility conditions, 

the Administrator will also evaluate the 

demonstrations developed by the State 

pursuant to paragraphs (f)(2) and 

(f)(3)(ii)(A) of this section and the 

demonstrations provided by other States 

pursuant to paragraphs (f)(2) and 

(f)(3)(ii)(B) of this section. 

(4) If the Administrator, Regional 

Administrator, or the affected Federal 

Land Manager has advised a State of a 

need for additional monitoring to assess 

reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment at a mandatory Class I 

Federal area in addition to the 

monitoring currently being conducted, 

the State must include in the plan 

revision an appropriate strategy for 

evaluating reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment in the mandatory 

Class I Federal area by visual 

observation or other appropriate 

monitoring techniques. 

(5) So that the plan revision will serve 

also as a progress report, the State must 

address in the plan revision the 

requirements of paragraphs (g)(1) 

through (5) of this section. However, the 

period to be addressed for these 

elements shall be the period since the 

past progress report. 

(6) Monitoring strategy and other 

implementation plan requirements. The 

State must submit with the 

implementation plan a monitoring 

strategy for measuring, characterizing, 

and reporting of regional haze visibility 

impairment that is representative of all 

mandatory Class I Federal areas within 

the State. Compliance with this 

requirement may be met through 

participation in the Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments network. The 

implementation plan must also provide 

for the following: 

(i) The establishment of any 

additional monitoring sites or 

equipment needed to assess whether 

reasonable progress goals to address 

regional haze for all mandatory Class I 

Federal areas within the State are being 

achieved. 

(ii) Procedures by which monitoring 

data and other information are used in 

determining the contribution of 

emissions from within the State to 

regional haze visibility impairment at 

mandatory Class I Federal areas both 

within and outside the State. 

(iii) For a State with no mandatory 

Class I Federal areas, procedures by 

which monitoring data and other 

information are used in determining the 

contribution of emissions from within 

the State to regional haze visibility 

impairment at mandatory Class I 

Federal areas in other States. 

(iv) The implementation plan must 

provide for the reporting of all visibility 

monitoring data to the Administrator at 

least annually for each mandatory Class 

I Federal area in the State. To the extent 

possible, the State should report 

visibility monitoring data electronically. 

(v) A statewide inventory of emissions 

of pollutants that are reasonably 

anticipated to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment in any mandatory 

Class I Federal area. The inventory must 

include emissions for a baseline year, 

emissions for the most recent year for 

which data are available, and estimates 

of future projected emissions. The State 

must also include a commitment to 

update the inventory periodically. 

(vi) Other elements, including 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

measures, necessary to assess and report 

on visibility. 

(g) Requirements for periodic reports 

describing progress towards the 

reasonable progress goals. Each State 

identified in § 51.300(b) must 

periodically submit a report to the 

Administrator evaluating progress 

towards the reasonable progress goal for 

each mandatory Class I Federal area 

located within the State and in each 

mandatory Class I Federal area located 

outside the State that may be affected by 

emissions from within the State. The 

first progress report is due 5 years from 

submittal of the initial implementation 

plan addressing paragraphs (d) and (e) 

of this section. The first progress reports 

must be in the form of implementation 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
26974 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

plan revisions that comply with the 

procedural requirements of § 51.102 and 

§ 51.103. Subsequent progress reports 

are due by January 31, 2025, July 31, 

2033, and every 10 years thereafter. 

Subsequent progress reports must be 

made available for public inspection 

and comment for at least 60 days prior 

to submission to EPA and all comments 

received from the public must be 

submitted to EPA along with the 

subsequent progress report, along with 

an explanation of any changes to the 

progress report made in response to 

these comments. Periodic progress 

reports must contain at a minimum the 

following elements: 

* * * * * 

(3) For each mandatory Class I Federal 

area within the State, the State must 

assess the following visibility 

conditions and changes, with values for 

most impaired, least impaired and/or 

clearest days as applicable expressed in 

terms of 5-year averages of these annual 

values. The period for calculating 

current visibility conditions is the most 

recent 5-year period preceding the 

required date of the progress report for 

which data are available as of a date 6 

months preceding the required date of 

the progress report. 

(i)(A) Progress reports due before 

January 31, 2025. The current visibility 

conditions for the most impaired and 

least impaired days. 

(B) Progress reports due on and after 

January 31, 2025. The current visibility 

conditions for the most impaired and 

clearest days; 

(ii)(A) Progress reports due before 

January 31, 2025. The difference 

between current visibility conditions for 

the most impaired and least impaired 

days and baseline visibility conditions. 

(B) Progress reports due on and after 

January 31, 2025. The difference 

between current visibility conditions for 

the most impaired and clearest days and 

baseline visibility conditions. 

(iii)(A) Progress reports due before 

January 31, 2025. The change in 

visibility impairment for the most 

impaired and least impaired days over 

the period since the period addressed in 

the most recent plan required under 

paragraph (f) of this section. 

(B) Progress reports due on and after 

January 31, 2025. The change in 

visibility impairment for the most 

impaired and clearest days over the 

period since the period addressed in the 

most recent plan required under 

paragraph (f) of this section. 

(4) An analysis tracking the change 

over the period since the period 

addressed in the most recent plan 

required under paragraph (f) of this 

section in emissions of pollutants 

contributing to visibility impairment 

from all sources and activities within 

the State. Emissions changes should be 

identified by type of source or activity. 

With respect to all sources and 

activities, the analysis must extend at 

least through the most recent year for 

which the state has submitted emission 

inventory information to the 

Administrator in compliance with the 

triennial reporting requirements of 

subpart A of this part. With respect to 

sources that report directly to a 

centralized emissions data system 

operated by the Administrator, the 

analysis must extend through the most 

recent year for which the Administrator 

has provided a State-level summary of 

such reported data or an internet-based 

tool by which the State may obtain such 

a summary. The State is not required to 

backcast previously reported emissions 

to be consistent with more recent 

emissions estimation procedures, and 

may draw attention to actual or possible 

inconsistencies created by changes in 

estimation procedures. 

(5) An assessment of any significant 

changes in anthropogenic emissions 

within or outside the State that have 

occurred since the period addressed in 

the most recent plan required under 

paragraph (f) of this section including 

whether or not these changes in 

anthropogenic emissions were 

anticipated in that most recent plan and 

whether they have limited or impeded 

progress in reducing pollutant 

emissions and improving visibility. 

(6) For a state with a long-term 

strategy that includes a smoke 

management program for prescribed 

fires on wildland, a summary of the 

most recent periodic assessment of the 

smoke management program including 

conclusions that were reached in the 

assessment as to whether the program is 

meeting its goals regarding improving 

ecosystem health and reducing the 

damaging effects of catastrophic 

wildfires. 

(7) An assessment of whether the 

current implementation plan elements 

and strategies are sufficient to enable 

the State, or other States with 

mandatory Class I Federal areas affected 

by emissions from the State, to meet all 

established reasonable progress goals for 

the period covered by the most recent 

plan required under paragraph (f) of this 

section. 

(h) Determination of the adequacy of 

existing implementation plan. At the 

same time the State is required to 

submit any progress report to EPA in 

accordance with paragraph (g) of this 

section, the State must also take one of 

the following actions based upon the 

information presented in the progress 

report: 

(1) If the State determines that the 

existing implementation plan requires 

no further substantive revision at this 

time in order to achieve established 

goals for visibility improvement and 

emissions reductions, the State must 

provide to the Administrator a 

declaration that revision of the existing 

implementation plan is not needed at 

this time. 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(2) The State must provide the Federal 

Land Manager with an opportunity for 

consultation, in person at a point early 

enough in the State’s technical and 

policy analyses of its long-term strategy 

emission reduction obligation and prior 

to development of reasonable progress 

goals so that information and 

recommendations provided by the 

Federal Land Manager can meaningfully 

inform the State’s development of the 

long-term strategy. The opportunity for 

consultation will be deemed to have 

been early enough if the consultation 

has taken place at least 120 days prior 

to holding any public hearing or other 

public comment opportunity on an 

implementation plan (or plan revision) 

or progress report for regional haze 

required by this subpart. The 

opportunity for consultation must be 

provided no less than 60 days prior to 

said public hearing or public comment 

opportunity. This consultation must 

include the opportunity for the affected 

Federal Land Managers to discuss their: 

* * * * * 

(3) In developing any implementation 

plan (or plan revision) or progress 

report, the State must include a 

description of how it addressed any 

comments provided by the Federal Land 

Managers. 

(4) The plan (or plan revision) must 

provide procedures for continuing 

consultation between the State and 

Federal Land Manager on the 

implementation of the visibility 

protection program required by this 

subpart, including development and 

review of implementation plan revisions 

and progress reports, and on the 

implementation of other programs 

having the potential to contribute to 

impairment of visibility in mandatory 

Class I Federal areas. 

■ 10. In § 51.309, revise paragraphs 

(d)(4)(v), (d)(10) introductory text, 

(d)(10)(i) introductory text, (d)(10)(ii) 

introductory text, add paragraphs 

(d)(10)(iii) and(iv), and revise paragraph 

(g)(2)(iii) to read as follows: 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 26975 

§ 51.309 Requirements related to the 

Grand Canyon Visibility Transport 

Commission. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(v) Market Trading Program. The 

implementation plan must include 

requirements for a market trading 

program to be implemented in the event 

that a milestone is not achieved. The 

plan shall require that the market 

trading program be activated beginning 

no later than 15 months after the end of 

the first year in which the milestone is 

not achieved. The plan shall also 

require that sources comply, as soon as 

practicable, with the requirement to 

hold allowances covering their 

emissions. Such market trading program 

must be sufficient to achieve the 

milestones in paragraph (d)(4)(i) of this 

section, and must be consistent with the 

elements for such programs outlined in 

§ 51.308(e)(2)(vi). Such a program may 

include a geographic enhancement to 

the program to address the requirement 

under § 51.302(b) related to reasonably 

attributable impairment from the 

pollutants covered under the program. 

* * * * * 

(10) Periodic implementation plan 

revisions and progress reports. Each 

Transport Region State must submit to 

the Administrator periodic reports in 

the years 2013 and as specified for 

subsequent progress reports in 

§ 51.308(g). The progress report due in 

2013 must be in the form of an 

implementation plan revision that 

complies with the procedural 

requirements of §§ 51.102 and 51.103. 

(i) The report due in 2013 will assess 

the area for reasonable progress as 

provided in this section for mandatory 

Class I Federal area(s) located within the 

State and for mandatory Class I Federal 

area(s) located outside the State that 

may be affected by emissions from 

within the State. This demonstration 

may be based on assessments conducted 

by the States and/or a regional planning 

body. The progress report due in 2013 

must contain at a minimum the 

following elements: 

* * * * * 

(ii) At the same time the State is 

required to submit the 5-year progress 

report due in 2013 to EPA in accordance 

with paragraph (d)(10)(i) of this section, 

the State must also take one of the 

following actions based upon the 

information presented in the progress 

report: 

* * * * * 

(iii) The requirements of § 51.308(g) 

regarding requirements for periodic 

reports describing progress towards the 

reasonable progress goals apply to States 

submitting plans under this section, 

with respect to subsequent progress 

reports due after 2013. 

(iv) The requirements of § 51.308(h) 

regarding determinations of the 

adequacy of existing implementation 

plans apply to States submitting plans 

under this section, with respect to 

subsequent progress reports due after 

2013. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iii) The Transport Region State may 

consider whether any strategies 

necessary to achieve the reasonable 

progress goals required by paragraph 

(g)(2) of this section are incompatible 

with the strategies implemented under 

paragraph (d) of this section to the 

extent the State adequately 

demonstrates that the incompatibility is 

related to the costs of the compliance, 

the time necessary for compliance, the 

energy and non air quality 

environmental impacts of compliance, 

or the remaining useful life of any 

existing source subject to such 

requirements. 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 11. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

§ 52.26 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 12. Section 52.26 is removed and 

reserved. 

§ 52.29 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 13. Section 52.29 is removed and 

reserved. 

§ 52.61 [Amended] 

■ 14. In § 52.61, remove and reserve 

paragraph (b). 

■ 15. In § 52.145, revise paragraph (b) 

and remove and reserve paragraph (c). 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 52.145 Visibility protection. 

* * * * * 

(b) Regulations for visibility 

monitoring and new source review. The 

provisions of §§ 52.27 and 52.28 are 

hereby incorporated and made part of 

the applicable plan for the State of 

Arizona. 

* * * * * 

§ 52.281 [Amended] 

■ 16. In § 52.281, remove and reserve 

paragraphs (b) and (e). 

■ 17. In § 52.344, revise paragraph (b) to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.344 Visibility protection. 

* * * * * 

(b) The Visibility NSR regulations are 

approved for industrial source 

categories regulated by the NSR and 

PSD regulations which have previously 

been approved by EPA. However, 

Colorado’s NSR and PSD regulations 

have been disapproved for certain 

sources as listed in 40 CFR 52.343(a)(1). 

The provisions of 40 CFR 52.28 are 

hereby incorporated and made a part of 

the applicable plan for the State of 

Colorado for these sources. 

■ 18. In § 52.633, revise paragraph (b) 

and remove and reserve paragraph (c). 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 52.633 Visibility protection. 

* * * * * 

(b) Regulations for visibility 

monitoring and new source review. The 

provisions of §§ 52.27 and 52.28 are 

hereby incorporated and made part of 

the applicable plan for the State of 

Hawaii. 

* * * * * 

§ 52.690 [Amended] 

■ 19. In § 52.690, remove and reserve 

paragraphs (b) and (c). 

§ 52.1033 [Amended] 

■ 20. In § 52.1033, remove and reserve 

paragraphs (a) and (c). 

■ 21. In § 52.1183, revise paragraph (b) 

and remove and reserve paragraphs (a) 

and (c). 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 52.1183 Visibility protection. 

* * * * * 

(b) Regulation for visibility 

monitoring and new source review. The 

provisions of § 52.28 are hereby 

incorporated and made a part of the 

applicable plan for the State of 

Michigan. 

* * * * * 

■ 22. In § 52.1236, revise paragraph (b) 

remove and reserve paragraph (c). 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 52.1236 Visibility protection. 

* * * * * 

(b) Regulation for visibility 

monitoring and new source review. The 

provisions of § 52.28 are hereby 

incorporated and made a part of the 

applicable plan for the State of 

Minnesota. 

* * * * * 

§ 52.1339 [Amended] 

■ 23. In § 52.1339, remove and reserve 

paragraph (b). 

§ 52.1387 [Amended] 

■ 24. In § 52.1387, remove and reserve 

paragraph (b). 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
26976 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

■ 25. In § 52.1488, revise paragraph (b) 

and remove and reserve paragraph (c). 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 52.1488 Visibility protection. 

* * * * * 

(b) Regulation for visibility 

monitoring and new source review. The 

provisions of § 52.28 are hereby 

incorporated and made a part of the 

applicable plan for the State of Nevada 

except for that portion applicable to the 

Clark County Department of Air Quality 

and Environmental Management. 

* * * * * 

■ 26. In § 52.1531, revise paragraph (b) 

and remove and reserve paragraph (c). 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 52.1531 Visibility protection. 

* * * * * 

(b) Regulation for visibility 

monitoring and new source review. The 

provisions of § 52.28 are hereby 

incorporated and made a part of the 

applicable plan for the State of New 

Hampshire. 

* * * * * 

§ 52.2132 [Amended] 

■ 27. In § 52.2132, remove and reserve 

paragraphs (b) and (c). 

■ 28. In § 52.2179, revise paragraph (b) 

and remove and reserve paragraph (c). 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 52.2179 Visibility protection. 

* * * * * 

(b) Regulation for visibility 

monitoring and new source review. The 

provisions of § 52.28 are hereby 

incorporated and made a part of the 

applicable plan for the State of South 

Dakota. 

* * * * * 

§ 52.2304 [Amended] 

■ 29. In § 52.2304, remove and reserve 

paragraph (b). 

■ 30. In § 52.2383, revise paragraph (b) 

to read as follows: 

§ 52.2383 Visibility protection. 

* * * * * 

(b) Regulations for visibility 

monitoring and new source review. The 

provisions of § 52.27 are hereby 

incorporated and made part of the 

applicable plan for the State of Vermont. 

■ 31. In § 52.2452, revise paragraph (a) 

and remove and reserve paragraphs (b) 

and (c). 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 52.2452 Visibility protection. 

(a) Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment. The requirements of 

section 169A of the Clean Air Act are 

not met because the plan does not 

include approvable measures for 

meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.305 for protection of visibility in 

mandatory Class I Federal areas. 

* * * * * 

■ 32. In § 52.2533, revise paragraphs (a) 

and (b) and remove and reserve 

paragraph (c). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 52.2533 Visibility protection. 

(a) Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment. The requirements of 

section 169A of the Clean Air Act are 

not met because the plan does not 

include approvable measures for 

meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.305 and 51.307 for protection of 

visibility in mandatory Class I Federal 

areas. 

(b) Regulation for visibility 

monitoring and new source review. The 

provisions of § 52.28 are hereby 

incorporated and made a part of the 

applicable plan for the State of West 

Virginia. 

* * * * * 

§ 52.2781 [Amended] 

■ 33. In § 52.2781, remove and reserve 

paragraphs (b) and (c). 

[FR Doc. 2016–10228 Filed 5–3–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS