### Summary of Interagency Working Comments With EPA Responses on Draft

Language under EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. S ubject to Further Policy Review.

1 | P a g e Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Proposed Rul e

Protection of Visibility: Amendments to Requirement s for State Plans

RIN 2060-AS55

General Comments:

1) Reviewer recommends adding two sections into the pr eamble on the following topics: (1) documents related to this regulatory activity and ( 2) issues on which EPA seeks comments. The first topic should provide a list of all EPA documents referenced within the preamble (or important documents not referenced ) with citations for where the information can be found. The second topic should provide a list of issues that EPA has specifically requested comment throughout the pream ble. EPA could provide identification numbers and request that commenters refer to the identification number to ease the burden on EPA staff when reviewing public comments. By including these two lists, the reviewer believes that this will enhance transparency and provide clarity for members of the public to know where to find other r elated documents and what issues EPA specifically is taking comment on outside of th e issues proposed. EPA’s response: No edit has been made in response t o this comment. 2) Reviewer recommends revising the term “wildfire” to the term “wildland fire” throughout the document except for reference to int ernational fires for example on page 51. The reviewer believes that this change will ma ke the proposed rule more consistent with other recent and ongoing rulemaking at the nex us of air quality, land management,
and wildland fire risk. The term “wildland fire” b roadly depicts all types of fire that may represent a natural visibility contributing event. EPA’s response: An extensive insertion has been mad e to the preamble (new section IV.E) to fully address the complex topic of fire im pacts on visibility and how SIPs should address fire-related issues. In addition, a smaller fire-related insertion has been made to section IV.B. Rule text changes have b een made to reflect these preamble changes. New definitions have been added f or some fire-related terms that would be newly used in the rule text. EPA is still considering how to condense the added regulatory text while preserving the substanc e that appears in this version. 3) Reviewer recommends clarifying how reasonable progr ess requirements under § 51.308(f) will be addressed for sources on tribal lands. EPA’s response: Text has been added to footnote 1 o n page 4 1 in response to this

comment. 4) Reviewer recommends removing the need for a separat e reassessment of BART-eligible sources for reasonable further progress. EPA indic ates in the preamble (pages 20-21) that the BART requirement is a one-time requirement that was applied, for the most part, during the first implementation phase. Nonetheless , EPA states that “BART-eligible sources may be reassessed for additional control me asures in later implementation periods as part of the requirement for additional c ontrol measures in later implementation

1 Page citations refer to the redline-strikeout vers ion of the referenced documents.

### Summary of Interagency Working Comments With EPA Responses on Draft

Language under EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. S ubject to Further Policy Review.

2 | P a g e periods as part of the requirement to provide for r easonable progress.” (page 22) The regional haze rule sets out criteria that states mu st consider in establishing a reasonable progress goal for affected sources. See 40 CFR § 5 1.308(d)(1)(i). In establishing this goal, a State must consider “the costs of complianc e, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remain ing useful life of any potentially affected source.” Id. At § 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). The se criteria are similar to those included
in the definition of “best available retrofit techn ology.” See 40 CFR § 51.301. EPA’s response: The existing rule provides that BAR T sources should be reassessed under reasonable progress. EPA is not proposing to change this. However, explanatory text has been added on page 22 in respo nse to this comment. 5) Reviewer recommends that any dispute between an FLM and the State as to the validity of the certification should be resolved by EPA, con sistent with Section 169B(d) of the CAA, which requires States to consult with FLMs in promulgating an implementation plan. EPA’s response: Explanatory text has been added on page 80 in response to this

comment. 6) Reviewer recommends clarifying whether the delay of the planning process would affect the pace of emission reductions. EPA’s response: Explanatory text has been added on page 12 in response to this comment. Note also that section V (Environmental Ju stice Considerations) of the preamble already addresses this question.

a. Reviewer recommends clarifying on page 11 how the c hange in the planning timeframe is anticipated to result in greater envir onmental progress than in the
status quo. EPA’s response: No edit has been made in response t o this comment.
b. Reviewer recommends providing additional explanatio n on page 12 of the implications of the “as needed” approach for the fr equency of state planning efforts to address visibility impairments and why i t is expected to improve visibility projection. EPA’s response: Explanatory text has been added on page 13 in response to
this comment. 7) Reviewer recommends providing specific number of st ates that have submitted SIPs when discussing them as this would provide the read er additional granularity and clarity and the number of states affected. For example, on page 17, the sentence states “Few states submitted a regional haze SIP by the Decembe r 17, 20007, deadline [. . .]”. EPA’s response: Explanatory text has been added on page 18 (in text as well as in footnote 7) in response to this comment. 8) Reviewer recommends providing additional clarity on the number of additional states that EPA estimates would be required to take additional action due to this rule change. The reviewer recommends providing this both in the prea mble and more explicitly within the Paperwork Reduction Act section with a more clear d iscussion of the before and after paperwork burden from this proposed rulemaking.

### Summary of Interagency Working Comments With EPA Responses on Draft

Language under EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. S ubject to Further Policy Review.

3 | P a g e EPA’s response: Explanatory text has been added wit hin the PRA section on pages 98-99 in response to this comment. 9) Reviewer recommends providing additional informatio n for when the guidance document is planned to go out related to this rulemaking and general timelines for the draft and final version of the guidance. Is it possible to align t he draft guidance with the proposed rule or to have overlap within the comment periods? EPA’s response: An edit has been made on this subje ct on page 13 of the preamble. 10) Reviewer recommends providing additional clarificat ion on international impacts and
their effect on states with Class I areas and state s with sources contributing to Class I

areas.

a. Reviewer recommends proposing that international im pacts not be included with respect to the visibility assessment and be treated the same as other background visibility with a condition that to include interna tional impacts that the state must be able to accurately show emissions from sources i nternationally. This could be addressed through guidance in the future. Another potential alternative could be to treat all non-source as background, regardless o f whether it was international and remove that from the analysis. EPA’s response: Text has been added on pages 55 and 56 to propose that the Administrator may approve “adjustments to the frame work” rather than only taking comment, as well as proposed new rule t ext within section 51.308(f)(3)(v), in response to this comment.
b. Reviewer recommends clearly defining in the upcomin g guidance the techniques that would be considered acceptable to account for international contributions. If a state sets reasonable progress goals that are not meeting the Uniform Rate of Progress (URP), the state could use estimates of in ternational contribution as evidence to defend why additional emissions reducti ons are not reasonable. EPA’s response: No edit has been made in response t o this comment. 11) Reviewer recommends taking comment on other specifi c time-frames other than 6 months as the amount of time necessary for states t o incorporate the most recent available data into their progress reports, including 12-mont hs, 9-months and 3-months. EPA’s response: Text has been added on page 71 in r esponse to this comment. 12) Reviewer recommends adding in the rule, preamble, o r guidance that the most recently available information for each significant source, which may be newer for some sectors than for others, be used. Considering that there is typically a significant lag between the
state's submittal of data to the National Emissions Inventory (NEI) and EPA's publication of that data, the reviewer recommends that the stat es use the most recent data they have submitted and not wait for EPA’s approved version o f the NEI. EPA’s response: This will be addressed in the upcom ing guidance. 13) Reviewer recommends adding “wildland fire” to the l ist of previously undefined terms in § 51.301 and within the preamble to state:

a. Wildland fire means, for the purposes of this rule, an event and its resulting emissions, which may recur, that originates form wi ldfire or prescribed fire, meeting specific requirements as to contribute to t he natural visibility condition.

### Summary of Interagency Working Comments With EPA Responses on Draft

Language under EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. S ubject to Further Policy Review.

4 | P a g e EPA’s response: Definitions of wildland, wildfire a nd prescribed fire have

been added to the proposed rule text, because these terms are used in the proposed rule and preamble text that has been added in response to general
comment number 2. 14) Reviewer does not believe that you need to make thi s distinction between haze and impairment; haze is a relatively uniform distributi on of pollutants that affects visibility. Contributions to haze are both natural and anthropo genic. Impairment is the relative contribution of anthropogenic haze to total haze. When expressed as a change in deciview levels, “impairment” is defined as the dif ference between total haze and natural
haze. EPA’s response: See response to specific comment #2 1. 15) Reviewer recommends retaining the original requirem ent for a state to respond to a certification within three years. This could coinci de with a required SIP revision or could be a separate action for the certified source(s). T his is a much simpler construction to understand and avoids the possibility of extending a state’s response up to nine and half

years. EPA’s response: Text has been added on page 84 in r esponse to this comment.

a. Regarding the timing of a state response to a Feder al Land Manager (FLM)’s RAVI certification, the reviewer notes that the exi sting 1980 portions of the visibility regulations considered a three year wind ow after any certification to be sufficient time for a state to address reasonably a ttributable visibility impairment. Under proposed §51.302(d), the state must address t he certification if made earlier than 2 years before SIP submittal through 6 months after SIP submittal. If the FLM certifies after that window, the state’s action on the certification could be as long as nine and a half years, after certification (Preamble, p. 64). The reviewer finds this proposal to be unnecessarily complex and the latter scenario to be “unreasonable” with respect to reasonable progress. EPA’s response: EPA is inviting comment on keeping the existing approach, using the approach recommended by this interagency review comment, and using any other approach the public may propose.
b. If EPA determines to coordinate the timing for stat e action with the next state implementation plan (SIP) revision, then the review er recommends that EPA also require a state to respond to certification through the midterm Regional Haze Progress Reports if that is closer to the timing of certification. In that case, the progress report would need to be submitted in the f orm of a SIP revision. A FLM RAVI certification has been and is projected to rem ain a rare event, but one that underscores a serious deficiency in a state’s strat egy for abating haze causing pollution. EPA’s response: Text has been added on page 84 in r esponse to this

comment. 16) Reviewer notes a discrepancy between the language o n page 65 and the matching language on page 91. Therefore, the reviewer recom mends the language which references actions to “submission” times as they ar e more relevant to active State SIP

### Summary of Interagency Working Comments With EPA Responses on Draft

Language under EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. S ubject to Further Policy Review.

5 | P a g e engagement and FLM review. The reviewer believes th at the text in question in § 51.302(d)(2) should read the same as it is discus sed here on page 65. EPA’s response: The proposed text of §51.302(d)(2) has been changed to match the language of preamble. 17) Reviewer recommends clarifying the process for non- Class I states that have sources that
affect downwind states with Class I areas. EPA’s response: The proposed text of §51.308(f)(3)( ii)(B) has been edited in response to this comment. 18) Reviewer recommends clarifying what happens if a st ate and a FLM do not agree on appropriate techniques. Specifically, page 61 stat es that the current implication is that only the state can determine what technique is appr opriate; therefore, this implies that FLMs may use a technique that the state does not de em appropriate. EPA should clarify whether a state can challenge a technique that they do not deem appropriate that an FLM wishes to use and, if so, how reconciliation could occur. EPA’s response: Text has been added on page 78 in r esponse to this comment. 19) Reviewer recommends taking comment on specific time frames such 120 days, to consult the FLM prior to a public hearing that would be de facto enough time for FLM input. It is unclear what enough time would be for a state to provide an FLM. EPA’s response: See response to specific comment #3 4. 20) Reviewer recommends providing timeframes for how lo ng the assessment by EPA on progress reports would take and what the procedures would be for the assessment. Also, reviewer recommends providing a negative informal c onsent that any modifications or additional steps by the state would not be required after a certain date after submittal of the progress report. EPA’s response: Text has been added on page 95 rega rding EPA’s intention to create a logging system for progress reports. 21) Reviewer recommends revising the rule language to r eflect that the preamble explicitly states that there is no intention to change the app roach to selecting the days and that they will be referred to as “20 percent clearest days” r elated to “least impaired” days. See below for some additional examples:

a. In the definitions on page 88, least impaired days should be deleted or explained as operationally identical to clearest days.
b. “Least impaired days” is used in the Rule language in the following locations:
i. Near bottom of p 86
ii. Top of p 88
iii. Middle of p 94
iv. Three occurrences on p 105

v. Top of page 106 EPA’s response: We have added the term clearest days to the rule language to unambiguously identify that the days with the lowes t overall deciview values are the days that should be used when determining whether t here is visibility degradation. However, as the reviewer noted, we have retained th e term least impaired days in the
definitions section and have continued to use it oc casionally in the rule language.

### Summary of Interagency Working Comments With EPA Responses on Draft

Language under EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. S ubject to Further Policy Review.

6 | P a g e This is because we propose to use clearest days in the second and subsequent planning periods, but in order to maintain consiste nt terminology with SIPs (and progress reports) prepared for the first implementa tion period, we maintain the use
of least impaired days in 51.308(d) (section covering SIPs for the first implementation period) and also use least impaired days when discussing the progress reports that cover the first implementatio n period (51.308(g)). We have added a footnote to the NPRM (footnote 25, page 50) to explain why we have not entirely removed least impaired days from the rule language. 22) Reviewer understands EPA’s focus on revising 40 CFR 51.307 wording to only change what is needed to maintain consistency with revisio ns to other sections. Due to practical experience with visibility notification and consult ation between permit authorities and the federal land management agencies (FLMs), reviewer t hinks this would be a missed opportunity if the reviewer did not clarify two rel ated issues: 1.) that significant visibility impacts can result fro m anthropogenic emissions transported hundreds of kilometers (beyond 100km); and 2.) that meaningful consultation with the FLMs must in clude specific, complete, and timely information. The reviewer believes this add ed clarity as relevant to the revisions of other sections of this Regional Haze R ule. As further described in the Preamble, §51.307 clari fied that nonattainment area sources are subject to the visibility protection provisions , despite not being subject to the PSD requirements, thus addressing a potential unintende d consequence of the existing permitting construct.1 Similarly, the reviewer reco mmending that the full visibility impacts of sources undergoing major modifications a re adequately assessed and considered in permitting to avoid a state having to revisit the facility during the regional haze process. Incremental changes to a large stationary source ma y not cause or contribute to an adverse visibility impact when considered in isolat ion (i.e., when considering the net emission increase only), but the overall impact of the entire facility post-modification may be significant. It may be impossible to “preve nt any future impairment of visibility” if the scope of the visibility analysis for a major modification is limited to the net
emission increase from the modification alone. The reviewer believes this is also an unintended consequence of the existing regulatory l anguage and PSD construct. Our recommendation that visibility impacts from the ent ire facility post-modification be analyzed and accounted for is analogous to the requ ired NAAQS demonstration, which
ensures that the modified source as a whole will no t contribute to a NAAQS violation. The reviewer recommends the term “major modificatio n” be replaced with “modified major source,” as indicated below. The reviewer rec ommends retaining the term “major modification” in paragraph (a) and (a)(1) to specif y that it is a major modification that triggers PSD/NSR applicability. Lastly, the reviewer recommends additions regarding the FLM notification requirement to correct a long-standing, again unintended, probl em. While FLMs receive from most states the draft permit and staff analysis well in advance of the beginning of their public review process, some states maintain that our revie w clock starts when we receive an

### Summary of Interagency Working Comments With EPA Responses on Draft

Language under EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. S ubject to Further Policy Review.

7 | P a g e application, regardless of whether it is complete, is ultimately revised, or it ever proceeds to public comment. This has resulted in a lot of wa sted effort and uncertainty. EPA’s response: No edit has been made in response t o this comment.

Specific Comments:

1) Page 13 – Reviewer recommends revising the followin g as provided below and to use the standard language “Class I national parks and wilde rness areas” as national forests are
not Class I areas:

a. 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
, national
forests and other Class I areas due to their “great scenic importance.” EPA’s response: Text has been changed in response t o this comment. 2) Page 16 – Reviewer recommends revising the sentence below to state:

a. However, in some areas, such as Sawtooth Wilderness area in Idaho, improvements
from reduced emissions from man-made sources have b een overwhelmed by
uncontrollable impacts from fire wildfire and/or dust events. EPA’s response: Text has been changed in response t o this comment. 3) Page 21 – Reviewer recommends revising the sentence below to state:

a. The Regional Haze Rule also provides an alternative to requiring source-specific BART controls; under EPA’s regulations, states have the flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative prog ram as long as the alternative provides greater or equivalent reasonable progress towards improving visibility than BART and meets certain other requirements set out in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). EPA’s response: No edit has been made in response t o this comment. The preamble accurately describes the requirements of t his section of the rule, which EPA is not proposing to change. This edit wou ld relax the requirements
of the rule. 4) Page 27 – Reviewer recommends revising the term “Th e CAA has the goal of natural
conditions” as the CAA does not reference “natural conditions,” but rather calls for “the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory class I Federal areas which impairment re sults from manmade air pollution.” Natural conditions are a logical offshoot of this s tatement in the CAA, but are manifest in the Regional Haze Rule, not the CAA. EPA’s response: Footnote 17 has been added to page 28 in response to this

comment. 5) Page 29 – Reviewer recommends revising the part of the sentence below to state (footnotes included as additions):

a. At a minimum, states must describe how each of the following seven factors are taken into account in developing their long-term st rategy: [. . .] (5) smoke management techniques, including the use of Basic Smoke Management

### Summary of Interagency Working Comments With EPA Responses on Draft

Language under EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. S ubject to Further Policy Review.

8 | P a g e Practices 2 and state smoke management programs for agricultural and forestry

wildland vegetation management purposes including plans as currently e xist within the state for these purposes 3 [. . . .] EPA’s response: The edits made in response to gener al comment number 2 are responsive to this suggestion also. 6) Page 37-38 – Reviewer recommends revising the follo wing sentence to state:

a. We are proposing to revise §51.307 only as needed t o maintain consistency with revisions to other sections of 40 CFR part 50 subpa rt P, to remedy some unintended consequences of the existing regulations and clarify FLM notification requirements. EPA’s response: No edit has been made in response t o this comment. 7) Page 43, footnote 22 – Reviewer recommends clarifyi ng the sentence or the footnote as
the footnote references IMPROVE data from 2000 – 20 05 but is referring to the URP
baseline which is 2000 – 2004. EPA’s response: The footnote was in error, and we h ave made an edit to correct the
mistake. 8) Page 49 – Reviewer recommends providing additional clarity on how the second alternative approach that EPA is seeking comment on differs from the proposed approach. As written, there does not appear to be a difference in approaches. EPA’s response: We are proposing to either require states to select the most impaired days based on anthropogenic impairment OR to allow states to choose between selecting the most impaired days based on a nthropogenic impairment or continue to use total haze. We have added a summary paragraph to page 52 of the NPRM to clarify the two approaches. 9) Page 50 – Reviewer recommends explaining the criter ia that would be used to evaluate the proposed state methods [for selecting the 20 percent most impaired days] understanding that further guidance will provide ad ditional information. EPA’s response: No change has been made in response to this comment. 10) Page 51 – Reviewer recommends clarifying whether ef fects from China would be considered within this rulemaking. EPA’s response: Edit has been made on pages 54-55 i n response to this comment. 11) Page 53, footnote 24 – Reviewer recommends removing the concept of adjusting the data because adjusting data could corrupt the integrity of the long term monitoring. EPA’s response: We have edited the footnote (which now is numbered as footnote 27 on page 57) to remove any implication of “adjust ing” the actual IMPROVE data.

2 USDA Forest Service and Natural Resources Conserva tion Service, Basic Smoke Management Practices Tech Note, October 2011/ http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Intern et/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1046311.pdf

3 Consistent with recent and ongoing rulemaking by E PA for ozone and exceptional events, it is not the intent of EPA to preclude prescribed fire as a wildland veget ation management tool. The EPA understands the imp ortance of prescribed fire which mimics a natural process nece ssary to manage and maintain fire-adapted ecosystem s and climate change adaptation, while reducing risk of u ncontrolled emissions from catastrophic wildfires, and is committed to working with all land managers (federa l land managers, tribes, states and private) to ef fectively utilize prescribed fire to reduce the impact of catastrophi c wildfire related emissions including particulate matter and contribution of precursors to ozone.

### Summary of Interagency Working Comments With EPA Responses on Draft

Language under EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. S ubject to Further Policy Review.

9 | P a g e The footnote now is phrased in terms of using IMPRO VE data to estimate “current conditions” in a way that removes international ant hropogenic impacts. 12) Page 57 – Reviewer recommends providing additional clarification what “significant changes” means within § 51.308(g)(5). EPA’s response: No edit has been made in response t o this comment. The current rule uses the term “significant changes” and the pr oposed rule does not change this. 13) Page 57 – Reviewer recommends removing the followin g sentence:

a. The EPA was encouraged in pre-proposal consultation s with FLMs to add this requirement. EPA’s response: Sentence has been removed in respon se to this comment. 14) Page 66 – Reviewer recommends proposing that all RA VI certifications be resolved within a 3 year time period as RAVI certification i s considered a last resort by FLM agencies and is not taken lightly. EPA’s response: Text has been added on page 84 in r esponse to this comment. 15) Page 71 – Reviewer recommends adding the following sentence at the end of the first full paragraph before section H.

a. We are also proposing changing “major modification” to “modified major source” to better implement the intent of the CAA with respect to the connection between Regional Haze and PSD. Lastly, we are clarifying th e FLM notification requirements. EPA’s response: No edit has been made in response t o this comment. 16) Page 75 – Reviewer recommends that if progress repo rts are not required to be SIP revisions, that EPA still be required to take actio n either to approve or disapprove the mid-term report in response to public comments. EPA’s response: No edit has been made in response t o this comment. 17) Page 76 – Reviewer recommends revising the paragrap h stating with “The EPA wishes to make clear that after considering comments” to spec ifically solicit comment on the section and to remove the negative connotation surr ounding the paragraph. EPA’s response: Text has been edited on pages 94-95 in response to this comment. 18) Page 77-78 – Reviewer recommends clarifying what th e 1 year deadline is from for revising a SIP to address the plan’s deficiencies. EPA’s response: Text has been edited on page 95 in response to this comment. 19) Page 77 – Reviewer recommends that EPA formally sig n progress reports to allow the State, FLM’s, and the general public, the appropria te opportunity to review and respond to EPA’s position. EPA’s response: No edit has been made in response t o this comment. 20) Page 80 – Reviewer recommends discussing the deltas numerically from the previously approved ICR to show the difference in number of re spondents, burden and cost, where applicable. EPA’s response: Text has been added on pages 98-99 in response to this comment. 21) Page 88, § 51.301 – Reviewer recommends revising th e language to state:

a. Haze Index Deciview index means a value, expressed in deciview (dv), for a day
that is derived from calculated or measured light extinction, such that uniform

### Summary of Interagency Working Comments With EPA Responses on Draft

Language under EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. S ubject to Further Policy Review.

10 | P a g e increments of the index correspond to uniform incre mental changes in perception

across the entire range of conditions, from pristin e to very obscured. The deciview
haze index is calculated based on the following equatio n (for the purposes of calculating deciview haze index using IMPROVE data , the atmospheric light
extinction coefficient must be calculated from aero sol measurements and an estimate of Rayleigh scattering ):
Deciview Haze index (dv) =10 ln e (b ext /10 Mm −1 ). EPA’s Response: This definition has been edited in section 51.301. 22) Page 89, § 51.301, Least impaired days – Reviewer recommends The definition of “least impaired days” as stated pertains to the original i nterpretation that the lowest amounts of visibility impairment occurs on the clearest days. That definition needs to state that this is a legacy term pertaining to the first planning p eriod and does not apply to the revised tracking metric using impairment. For the second p lanning period and beyond, this term should be replaced with “clearest days.” EPA’s Response: Edits made in response to general c omment 21 also address this

comment. 23) Page 90, § 51.301, Visibility – Reviewer recommends revising the language to sta te the following:

a. Visibility means the degree of perceived clarity when viewing objects at a distance. Visibility depends on light extinction, visual range includes perceived changes in

contrast, or coloration, and texture of elements in a scene

. EPA’s Response: This edit to the rule text has been made. 24) Page 90, § 51.301 – Reviewer recommends adding the following definition:

a. Wildland fire means Wildland fire means, for the purposes of this rule, an event and its resulting emissions, which may recur, that orig inates form wildfire or prescribed fire, meeting specific requirements as to contribut e to the natural visibility condition. EPA’s Response: The edits made in response to gener al comment number 2
address this comment also. 25) Page 94, § 51.307, New source review. – Reviewer re commends making the following modifications to the following section:

a. (a) For purposes of new source review of any new ma jor stationary source or major

modification that would be constructed in an area t hat is designated attainment or unclassified under section 107(d)(1)(D) or (E) of t he CAA, the State plan must, in any review under § 51.166 with respect to visibilit y protection and analyses, provide

for: (1) Written notification of all affected Federal La nd Managers of any proposed new major stationary source or major modification that may affect visibility in any

Federal Class I area. Such notification must be mad e in writing and include a copy of all information relevant to the permit application (including the complete application, staff analysis, and draft permit) with in 30 days of receipt. The State must also provide notification to all affected Fede ral Land Managers at least 30 days prior to publishing the notice of public comment and at least 60 days prior to public

### Summary of Interagency Working Comments With EPA Responses on Draft

Language under EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. S ubject to Further Policy Review.

11 | P a g e hearing by the State (or at least 30 days prior to the public notice if there is no public

hearing) on the application for permit to construct. Such no tification must include the public notice, draft permit, staff analysis, co mplete application, and an analysis conducted by the State or applicant of the anticipated impacts from the source on visibility in any Federal Class I area . . . . (3) Consideration of any analysis performed by the Federal Land Manager, provided within 30 days of the notification and analysis req uired by paragraph (a)(1) of this section, that such proposed new major stationary so urce or major modification modified major source may have an adverse impact on visibility in any Fe deral Class I area. Where the State finds that such an analysis does not demonstrate to the satisfaction of the State that an adverse impact wi ll result in the Federal Class I area, the State must, in the notice of public hearing, ei ther explain its decision or give notice as to where the explanation can be obtained. (b) The plan shall also provide for the review of a ny new major stationary source or major modification modified major source

. . . . (c) Review of any major stationary source or major modification modified major source under paragraph (b) of this section , shall be conducted in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, and § 51.166(o), (p) (1) through (2), and (q). In conducting such reviews the State must ensure that the source’s emissions will be consistent with making reasonable progress toward t he national visibility goal referred to in § 51.300(a). The State may take into account the costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and n onair quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the useful life of the s ource. (d) The State may require monitoring of visibility in any Federal Class I area near the proposed new stationary source or major modification modified major source for such purposes and by such means as the State deems necessary and appropriate. EPA’s response: No edits have been made in response to these comments. 26) Page 98, § 51.308(f)(1)(i) – While the first senten ce is generally true, there were some monitoring sites that did not have complete data fo r that time period so they were adjusted to extend beyond that time frame. Therefo re, reviewer recommends EPA clarify this in the rule or guidance. EPA’s response: An edit has been made to this subse ction of the rule, along with explanatory text on pages 44-45 of the NPRM. 27) Page 99, § 51.308(f)(2)(iii)(A) – Reviewer recommen ds clarifying how “reasonably anticipated” emissions are determined and by whom. EPA’s response: No edit has been made in response t o this comment. 28) Page 101, § 51.308(f)(2)(iii)(C) – Reviewer recomme nds adding the following sentence at the end of the (C):

a. All substantive interstate consultations must be do cumented. EPA’s response: Edit has been made to this subsecti on, and explanatory text added to page 42 of the NPRM, in response to this comment

.

### Summary of Interagency Working Comments With EPA Responses on Draft

Language under EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. S ubject to Further Policy Review.

12 | P a g e 29) Page 101, §51.308(f)(2)(vi)(E) – Reviewer recommend s revising the sentence as follows:

a. Smoke management techniques for agricultural and fo restry management purposes including basic smoked management practices or State smoke ma nagement

programs plans as currently exist within the State for these purposes ; EPA’s Response: The edits made in response to gener al comment number 2
address this comment also. 30) Page 102, § 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A) – Reviewer recommen ds EPA more specifically state the analytical obligations when a state’s reasonable pr ogress goal for the 20 percent most impaired days is not on or below the URP line. EPA’s response: No edit has been made in response t o this comment. This will be addressed in the guidance. 31) Page 102, §51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A) – Reviewer recommen ds adding the sentence below between the sentence ending in “would be reasonable to include in the long-term strategy” and the sentence beginning “The State mus t provide to the public”:

a. The State must provide a robust demonstration, incl uding documenting the criteria used to determine which sources or groups or [sic] sources were evaluated, and how the four factors required by paragraph (f)(2)(i) we re taken into consideration in selecting the measures for inclusion in its long-te rm strategy. EPA’s response: The suggested text has been added t o this subsection verbatim (with the exception of changing the second “or” to “of”), and explanatory text has been added to page 42, in response to this comm ent. 32) Page 103, § 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) – Reviewer recommen ds clarifying what “same demonstration” means with respect to a State must m ake with respect to its long-term
strategy. EPA’s response: Edit has been made to this subsecti on in response to this comment. 33) Page 109, § 51.308(h)(1) – Reviewer recommends revi sing the sentence as follows:

a. If the State determines that the existing implement ation plan requires no further
substantive revision at this time in order to achie ve established goals for visibility improvement and emissions reductions, the State mus t provide to the Administrator

a negative declaration that revision of the existing implement ation plan is not needed
at this time. EPA’s response: Edit has been made to this subsecti on of the rule text in response to this comment. A short mention of this r ule text edit has been added to the preamble on page 75. 34) Page 109, § 51.308(i)(2) – Reviewer recommends revi sing the section as follows:

a. The State must provide the Federal Land Manager wit h 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 reducti on obligation and prior to development of reasonable progress goals planning the development of its longterm strategy so that information and recommendations provided by the Federal Land Manager can meaningfully inform the State’s de velopment of the long-term strategy and at least 60 120 days prior to holding any public hearing or other p ublic comment opportunity on an implementation plan (or p lan revision) or progress

### Summary of Interagency Working Comments With EPA Responses on Draft

Language under EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. S ubject to Further Policy Review.

13 | P a g e report for regional haze required by this subpart. This consultation must include the

opportunity for the affected Federal Land Managers to discuss their: EPA’s Response: An edit has been made to 51.308(i)( 2) in response to this suggestion.. The preamble has also been edited on p age 89.

Typographical Comments:

1) Page 42, footnote – Reviewer recommends that it sho uld read “2000-2004”. EPA’s response: This footnote (now numbered 24 and appearing on page 44) has been edited in response to this comment. 2) Page 48 – Reviewer recommends using “haze index” as the scale and “deciview” as the
units for the haze index. “Haze” includes natural light extinction and impairments. Impairment, total haze, and natural visibility can all be measured in deciview. EPA’s Response: See response to specific comment #2 1. 3) Page 52 – Reviewer recommends changing “if accrurat e” to “if accurate” EPA’s response: Text on page 55 has been edited in response to this comment. 4) Page 81 – Reviewer recommends modifying “ oria_submissions@omb.eop.gov ” to

“ oira_submissions@omb.eop.gov ”. EPA’s response: Text on page 99 has been edited in response to this comment. 5) Page 87, deciview equation – Reviewer recommends ch anging from “ln e ” to “ln” is natural logarithm, or “log e ”. EPA’s response: 51.301 (definitions) section has be en edited in response to this

comment. 6) Page 88 – Reviewer recommends changing “Visibility depends on light extinction, visual range, contrast, or coloration.” to “Visibility inc ludes perceived changes in contrast, coloration, and texture of elements in a scene.” EPA’s Response: This edit has been made.