[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 126 (Thursday, July 1, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35714-35774]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-13941]
[[Page 35713]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Part 51
Regional Haze Regulations; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 35714]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 51
[FRL-6353-4]
RIN 2060-AF32
[Docket No A-95-38]
Regional Haze Regulations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Section 169A of the Clean Air Act (CAA) sets forth a national
goal for visibility which is the ``prevention of any future, and the
remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in Class I areas
which impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' There are 156
Class I areas across the country, including many well-known national
parks and wilderness areas, such as the Grand Canyon, Great Smokies,
Shenandoah, Yellowstone, Yosemite, the Everglades, and the Boundary
Waters. Regional haze is visibility impairment caused by the cumulative
air pollutant emissions from numerous sources over a wide geographic
area. The EPA promulgated regulations in 1980 to address visibility
impairment that is ``reasonably attributable'' to one or a small group
of sources, but EPA deferred action on regional haze regulations until
monitoring, modeling, and scientific knowledge about the relationship
between pollutants and visibility effects improved. In 1993, the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) concluded that ``current scientific
knowledge is adequate and control technologies are available for taking
regulatory action to improve and protect visibility.''
On July 31, 1997 (62 FR 41138), EPA published proposed amendments
to the 1980 regulations to set forth a program to address regional haze
visibility impairment. The EPA also published a notice of availability
of additional information on the proposed regional haze regulation on
September 3, 1998. This notice took comment specifically on new
implementation plan timelines set forth in the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century, Public Law 105-178, and on a proposal from
the Western Governors' Association (WGA) for addressing the
recommendations of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission
(GCVTC) in the final rule. The EPA received more than 1300 comments
overall on the proposal and notice of availability.
Today's final rule calls for States to establish goals and emission
reduction strategies for improving visibility in all 156 mandatory
Class I national parks and wilderness areas. Specific provisions are
included in the rule allowing nine western States to implement the
recommendations of the GCVTC within the framework of the national
regional haze program. In addition, EPA encourages States to work
together in regional partnerships to develop and implement multistate
strategies to reduce emissions of visibility-impairing fine particle
pollution.
DATES: The regulatory amendments announced herein take effect on August
30, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Docket. The public docket for this action is available for
public inspection and copying between 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday excluding legal holidays, at the Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention: Docket A-95-38, Room
M-1500, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, phone 202-260-7548, fax
202-260-4400, email: A-and-R-Docket@epamail.epa.gov. A reasonable fee
for copying may be charged. The regional haze regulations are subject
to the rulemaking procedures under section 307(d) of the CAA. The
documents relied on to develop the regional haze regulations have been
placed in the docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general questions regarding this
notice, contact Richard Damberg, U.S. EPA, MD-15, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-5592, email: damberg.rich@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Availability
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, has been established under docket number A-95-38 (including
comments and data submitted electronically as described below). A
public version of this record, including printed, paper versions of
electronic comments, which does not include any information claimed as
Confidential Business Information, is available for inspection from
8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The official rulemaking record is located at the address in
ADDRESSES at the beginning of this document. World Wide Web sites have
been developed for overview information on visibility issues and
related programs. These web sites can be accessed from Uniform Resource
Locator (URL):
http://www.epa.gov/airlinks/.
Table of Contents
I. Overview of Today's Final Rule
II. Background Information on the Regional Haze Program
A. Regional Haze
B. How Today's Final Rule Responds to the CAA
C. The 1980 Visibility Regulation--Commitment to a Regional Haze
Program
D. Sources of Scientific Information and Policy Recommendations
on Regional Haze
E. Relationship to Secondary NAAQS for PM
F. Regional Planning and Integration with Programs to Implement
the NAAQS for Ozone and Particulate Matter
III. Discussion of National Program Requirements and Response to
Comments
A. Scope of Rule--Extending Coverage to All States
B. Timetable for Submitting the First Regional Haze SIP
C. Tracking Deciviews and Emissions Reductions
D. Regional Haze Implementation Plan Principles
E. Determination of ``Baseline,'' ``Natural'' and ``Current''
Visibility
F. Reasonable Progress Goals
G. Long-Term Strategy
H. Best Available Retrofit Technology(BART)
I. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
J. Periodic SIP Revisions and 5-Year Progress Reports
K. Coordination with Federal Land Managers
IV. Treatment of the GCVTC Recommendations
A. Background
B. General Requirements of Section 51.309
C. Elements of the GCVTC-Based State and Tribal Implementation
Plans
D. Requirements for States Electing Not To Follow All Provisions
of the Section 51.309(e)
E. Annex to the GCVTC Report
F. Additional Class I Areas
V. Implementation of the Regional Haze Program in Indian Country
A. Background on Tribal Air Quality Programs
B. Issues Related to the Regional Haze Program in Indian Country
VI. Miscellaneous Technical Amendments to the Existing Rule
VII. Administrative Requirements
A. Regulatory Planning and Review by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) (Executive Order 12866)
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Paperwork Reduction Act--Impact on Reporting Requirements
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Environmental Justice--Executive Order 12898
F. Congressional Review Act
G. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks--Executive Order 13045
H. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership-- Executive Order
12875
[[Page 35715]]
I. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
I. Overview of Today's Final Rule
This preamble provides the details and rationale for the final
regional haze rule. Unit II includes background information on regional
haze and on the legal and scientific basis for today's action. Unit III
describes the provisions of the national requirements for regional haze
and includes a discussion of the comments received on the July 1997
proposal. Unit IV discusses specific regional provisions for 16 western
Class I areas that were the subject of a 1996 report by the GCVTC. Unit
V is a discussion of issues related to implementation of the rule by
Indian tribes. Unit VI summarizes several technical amendments to
existing visibility regulations in order to coordinate those
requirements with the requirements of today's final rule. Unit VII
discusses how today's final rulemaking is in compliance with the
requirements of various executive orders and statutes.
II. Background Information on the Regional Haze Program
A. Regional Haze
Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of sources and activities which emit fine particles and their
precursors and which are located across a broad geographic
area.1 Twenty years ago, when initially adopting the
visibility protection provisions of the CAA, Congress specifically
recognized that the ``visibility problem is caused primarily by
emission into the atmosphere of SO2, oxides of nitrogen, and
particulate matter, especially fine particulate matter, from
inadequate[ly] controlled sources.'' 2 The fine particulate
matter (PM) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental
carbon, and soil dust) that impairs visibility by scattering and
absorbing light can cause serious health effects and mortality in
humans, and contribute to environmental effects such as acid deposition
and eutrophication. Data from the existing visibility monitoring
network show that visibility impairment caused by air pollution occurs
virtually all the time at most national park and wilderness area
monitoring stations.3 Average visual range in many Class I
areas 4 in the Western United States is 100-150 kilometers
(13.6-9.6 deciviews), 5 or about one-half to two-thirds of
the visual range that would exist without manmade air pollution. In
most of the east, the average visual range is less than 30 kilometers
(25 deciviews or more), or about one-fifth of the visual range that
would exist under estimated natural conditions. The role of regional
transport of fine particles in contributing to elevated PM levels and
regional haze impairment has been well documented by many researchers
6 and recognized as a significant issue by policymakers from
Federal, State and local agencies, industry and environmental
organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. EPA. Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter.
Office of Research and Development, National Center for
Environmental Assessment. EPA/600/P-95/001bF. Research Triangle
Park, NC. 1996.
\2\ H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at 204 (1977).
\3\ National Park Service. Air Quality in the National Parks: A
Summary of Findings from the National Park Service Air Quality
Research and Monitoring Program. Natural Resources Report 88-1.
Denver, CO, July 1988.
\4\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas are
those national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 areas, and all international
parks which were in existence on August 7, 1977. Visibility has been
identified as an important value in 156 of these areas. See 40 CFR
part 81, subpart D. The extent of a Class I area includes subsequent
changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. (CAA section
162(a)). States and tribes may designate additional areas as Class
I, but the requirements of the visibility program under section 169A
of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I Federal areas,'' and
they do not directly address any additional areas.
\5\ ``Deciview'' is a visibility metric discussed further in
unit III.C. of today's notice, and defined in section 51.301(bb) of
the rule. Higher deciview values indicate greater levels of
visibility impairment.
\6\ See National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program. Acid
Deposition: State of Science and Technology. Report 24, Visibility:
Existing and Historical Conditions--Causes and Effects, Table 24-6.
Washington, DC 1991. See also U.S. EPA. Air Quality Criteria for
Particulate Matter. Office of Research and Development, National
Center for Environmental Assessment. EPA/600/P-95/001bF. Research
Triangle Park, NC. 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. How Today's Final Rule Responds to the CAA
The visibility protection program under sections 169A, 169B, and
110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA is designed to protect Class I areas
7 from impairment due to manmade air pollution. Congress
adopted the visibility provisions in the CAA to protect visibility in
these ``areas of great scenic importance.'' 8 The current
regulatory program addresses visibility impairment in these areas that
is ``reasonably attributable'' 9 to a specific source or
small group of sources. In adopting section 169A, the core visibility
provisions adopted in the 1977 CAA Amendments, Congress also expressed
its concern with visibility problems caused by pollutants that
``emanate from a variety of sources.'' It noted the problem of
``hazes'' from ``regionally distributed sources,'' 10 and
concluded that additional provisions were needed to remedy ``the
growing visibility problem.'' The purpose of today's final rule is to
revise the existing visibility regulations 11 in order to
integrate provisions addressing regional haze impairment. Today's final
rule establishes a comprehensive visibility protection program for
Class I areas. Figure 1 is a map indicating the locations of the Class
I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For the purposes of this preamble, the term ``Class I area''
will be used to describe the 156 mandatory Class I Federal areas
identified in section 51.301(o) and in part 81, subpart D of this
title.
\8\ H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. at 205 (1977).
\9\ ``Reasonably attributable'' visibility impairment, as
defined in section 51.301(s), means ``attributable by visual
observation or any other technique the State deems appropriate.'' It
includes impacts to Class I areas caused by plumes or layered hazes
from a single source or small group of sources.
\10\ H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at 204 (1977).
\11\ 45 FR 80084 (December 2, 1980) and section 51.300-307.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U
[[Page 35716]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01JY99.000
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
[[Page 35717]]
C. The 1980 Visibility Regulation--Commitment to a Regional Haze
Program
Section 169A of the CAA, established in the 1977 Amendments, sets
forth a national visibility goal that calls for ``the prevention of any
future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in
Class I areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.''
The EPA's initial visibility regulations, developed in 1980, address
visibility impairment that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single
source or small group of sources. Under the 1980 rules, the 35 States
and 1 territory containing Class I areas 12 are required to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The States and one territory having at least one Class I
area are listed in section 51.300(b)(2). These States and one
territory are as follows: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas,
California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota,
Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,
Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Virgin Islands, Washington, West Virginia,
and Wyoming. For a specific list of Class I areas located in each
state or territory, see 40 CFR 81.401-437.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Revise their SIPs to assure reasonable progress toward the
national visibility goal;
(2) Determine which existing stationary facilities should install
the best available retrofit technology (BART) for controlling
pollutants which impair visibility;
(3) Develop, adopt, implement, and evaluate long-term strategies
for making reasonable progress toward remedying any existing and
preventing any future impairment in the Class I areas;
(4) Adopt certain measures to assess potential visibility impacts
due to new or modified major stationary sources, including measures to
notify Federal land managers (FLMs) of proposed new source permit
applications, and to consider visibility analyses conducted by FLMs in
their new source permitting decisions; and
(5) Conduct visibility monitoring in Class I areas.
The 1980 rules addressing ``reasonably attributable'' visibility
impairment were designed to be the first phase in EPA's overall program
to protect visibility. The EPA explicitly deferred national rules
addressing regional haze impairment until some future date:
* * * when improvement in monitoring techniques provides more data
on source-specific levels of visibility impairment, regional scale
models become refined, and our scientific knowledge about the
relationships between emitted air pollutants and visibility
impairment improves.13
\13\ 45 FR 80086.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA believes that the technical tools and our scientific
understanding of visibility impairment are now sufficiently refined to
move forward with a national program addressing regional haze in Class
I areas. The EPA's position is supported by the NAS 1993 report,
Protecting Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas. One of
the principal conclusions of this report is that ``current scientific
knowledge is adequate and control technologies are available for taking
regulatory action to improve and protect visibility.'' 14
Section II.D. describes a number of other studies and information now
available which provide the technical basis to move forward with a
regional haze program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ National Research Council Committee on Haze in National
Parks and Wilderness Areas, Protecting Visibility in National Parks
and Wilderness Areas, National Academy Press, 1993, p. 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, EPA finds the visibility protection provisions of the
CAA to be quite broad. Although EPA is addressing visibility protection
in phases, the national visibility goal in section 169A calls for
addressing visibility impairment generally, including regional
haze.15
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ State of Maine v. Thomas, 874 F.2d 883, 885 (1st Cir. 1989)
(``EPA's mandate to control the vexing problem of regional haze
emanates directly from the CAA, which `declares as a national goal
the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in Class I areas which impairment results
from manmade air pollution.' '') (citation omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, Congress added section 169B as part of the 1990 Amendments
to the CAA to focus attention on regional haze issues; it calls for EPA
to issue regional haze rules within 18 months of receipt of the final
report from the GCVTC. In addition, section 169B includes provisions
for EPA to conduct visibility research with the National Park Service
and other Federal agencies, to develop an interim findings report on
the visibility research,16 to develop a Report to Congress
on expected visibility improvements due to implementation of other air
pollution programs,17 and to provide periodic reports to
Congress on trends in visibility improvements. Section 169B also
provides the authority to the Administrator to establish visibility
transport commissions in response to a petition from two or more
States, or on her and/or his own motion. To date, EPA has not received
any petitions from groups of States requesting formation of a
visibility transport commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ U.S. EPA, Interim Findings on the Status of Visibility
Research, Office of Research and Development, EPA/600/R-95/021,
February 1995. See also 60 FR 8659 notice announcing the report
availability and how to obtain copies (Feb. 15, 1995.
\17\ U.S. EPA, Effects of the 1990 CAA Amendments on Visibility
in Class I Areas: An EPA Report to Congress, October 1993 (EPA-452/
R-93-014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 169B(f) called for EPA to establish a visibility transport
commission for the region affecting visibility of the Grand Canyon
National Park. The purpose of this commission was to assess scientific
and technical information pertaining to adverse impacts on visibility
at the Park from existing emissions and projected growth in emissions.
The statute specifically called for a report to EPA recommending
measures to remedy such impacts and to address long-term strategies for
addressing regional haze.18 In 1991, EPA established the
GCVTC,19 and the GCVTC issued its final report in June
1996.20 The recommendations of the GCVTC and their
incorporation as potential SIP requirements into the final rule, are
discussed in greater detail in unit IV of the preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ CAA section 169B(d)(2)(C).
\19\ 56 FR 57522, November 12, 1991.
\20\ Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission,
Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas, Report to the U.S.
EPA, June 10, 1996 (hereafter referred to as ``GCVTC Report'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, section 169B(e) calls for the Administrator to consider
past research and the recommendations of visibility transport
commissions in carrying out the ``regulatory responsibilities under
section 169A, including criteria for measuring `reasonable progress'
toward the national goal.'' 21 The EPA is required by the
CAA to meet these regulatory responsibilities within 18 months of
receiving the GCVTC report. Today's final rule fulfills EPA's
responsibility under section 169A, pending since 1980, to put in place
a national regulatory program that addresses both reasonably
attributable and regional haze visibility impairment. Today's action is
also EPA's response to the GCVTC report as anticipated by section 169B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ CAA section 169B(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Sources of Scientific Information and Policy Recommendations on
Regional Haze
In developing today's revisions to the visibility regulations, EPA
has taken into account a significant body of scientific information and
policy recommendations on visibility issues that have been developed
over more than 20 years. This unit highlights key sources of
information upon which the final regional haze rule is based.
For many years, visibility impairment has been considered the
``best understood and most easily measured
[[Page 35718]]
effect of air pollution.'' 22 Visibility degradation has
also been recognized as an indicator of multiple human-health effects
and environmental effects resulting from air pollution all over the
world.23 Visibility conditions have been monitored and
evaluated for many years, using airport visibility data collected from
the 1940's to the present.24
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Council on Environmental Quality, Visibility Protection for
Class I Areas: The Technical Basis, Washington, DC, 1978.
\23\ National Research Council, NAS Committee on Haze in
National Parks and Wilderness Areas, Protecting Visibility in
National Parks and Wilderness Areas, National Academy Press, 1993,
p. 23.
\24\ National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP),
Acid Deposition: State of Science and Technology. Report 24,
Visibility: Existing and Historical Conditions--Causes and Effects,
Washington, DC, 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In October 1979, EPA published a Report to Congress describing the
state of the science on visibility.25 The report, required
under section 169A(a)(3), described available methods for visibility
monitoring, modeling, and assessment of strategies to make progress
toward the national goal. This report was developed in advance of the
1980 visibility regulations. As noted above, EPA deferred action on
regional haze until monitoring techniques, modeling capabilities, and
the understanding of the pollutants affecting visibility were improved.
In 1986, the IMPROVE (Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments) visibility monitoring program was initiated in 30 Class I
areas. The IMPROVE program has been coordinated through a cooperative,
multiagency approach with participation by EPA, the FLMs, and States.
Through the IMPROVE program, significant progress has been made in
understanding the effect of various pollutants on current visibility
conditions and trends, in developing well-accepted monitoring
protocols, and in developing a sound approach for calculating light
extinction values from aerosol and humidity data. The IMPROVE program
has issued two major reviews of the monitoring data collected to
date,26 and numerous technical papers have been developed
using data collected by the network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ U.S. EPA, Protecting Visibility: An EPA Report to Congress;
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA-450/5-79-008,
October 1979.
\26\ Sisler, J. et al., Spatial and Seasonal Patters and Long-
Term Variability of the Chemical Composition of the Haze in the
U.S.: An Analysis of Data from the IMPROVE Network, Fort Collins,
CO, Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, Colorado
State University, 1996. See also Sisler, J., et al., Spatial and
Temporal Patters and the Chemical Composition of the Haze in the
United States: An Analysis of Data From the IMPROVE Network, 1988-
1991, Fort Callins, CO, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, in 1996 EPA began to include a chapter on visibility
trends, based on data collected throughout the IMPROVE network, in the
National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report in 1996.27
Data from 1988 to the present are analyzed for the best 20 percent,
middle 20 percent, and worst 20 percent days of the annual
distribution, and aggregated for eastern and western sites. Annual
summary data are also presented for each individual site in an
appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ U.S. EPA, National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report,
1996, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA 454/R-97-
013, January 1998. See also U.S. EPA, National Air Quality and
Emissions Trends Report, 1997, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, EPA 454/R-98-016, January 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility research continued throughout the 1980's and is
documented in many published articles and the proceedings of three
major visibility conferences.28 In addition, the NAPAP
completed a comprehensive review of the state of the science of
visibility in 1991.29 This peer-reviewed report reached a
number of important conclusions, including: (1) Light scattering is
dominated by fine particles; (2) sulfates are the dominant source of
light extinction in the east, and one of several major sources of
extinction in the west; (3) rural visibility varies significantly
between the east and west; (4) average natural visibility conditions
are 150 kilometers visual range (9.6 deciviews) in the east and 230
kilometers visual range (5.3 deciviews) in the west; and (5) haze
trends in the eastern United States have been dominated by sulfur
emission trends since the late 1940's.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Atmospheric Environment, Proceedings of EPA Symposium on
Plumes and Visibility--Measurements and Model Components, November
1980, Atmos. Environ., 15:1785-2646. See also Bhardwaja, P.J., ed.,
Visibility Protection: Research and Policy Aspects. Transactions of
APCA Specialty Conference, September 1986, Grand Tetons National
Park, WY. Air Pollution Control Assoc., Pittsburgh, PA, 1987. See
also Mathai, C.V., ed., Visibility and Fine Particles. Transactions
of AWMA specialty conference, October 1989, Estes Park, CO. Air and
Waste Management Assoc., Pittsburgh, PA, 1990.
\29\ National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP),
Acid Deposition: State of Science and Technology, Report 24,
Visibility: Existing and Historical Conditions--Causes and Effects,
Washington, DC, 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NAS formed a Committee on Haze in National Parks and Wilderness
Areas in 1990 to address a number of regional haze-related issues,
including methods for determining anthropogenic source contributions to
haze and methods for considering alternative source control measures.
The 1993 report by this Committee contributed significantly to the
state of the science regarding regional haze visibility
impairment.30 The Committee issued several important
conclusions in the report, including: (1) Current scientific knowledge
is adequate and control technologies are available for taking
regulatory action to address regional haze; (2) progress toward the
national goal will require regional programs that operate over large
geographic areas and limit emissions of pollutants that can cause
regional haze; (3) a program to address regional haze visibility
impairment that focuses solely on determining the contributions of
individual emission sources to such visibility impairment is likely to
fail, and instead, strategies should be adopted to consider
simultaneously the effect of many sources on a regional basis; (4)
visibility impairment can be attributed to emission sources on a
regional scale through the use of several kinds of models; (5)
visibility and control policies might need to be different in the west
than the east; (6) efforts to improve visibility within Class I areas
will benefit visibility outside these areas and could help alleviate
other types of air quality problems as well; (7) achieving the national
visibility goal will require a substantial, long-term program; and (8)
continued progress toward this goal will require a greater commitment
toward atmospheric research, monitoring, and emissions control research
and development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ National Research Council, NAS Committee on Haze in
National Parks and Wilderness Areas, Protecting Visibility in
National Parks and Wilderness Areas, National Academy Press,
Washington, DC, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also in 1993, EPA developed its Report to Congress on the projected
effects on visibility in Class I areas due to implementation of the
1990 CAA Amendments. 31 The report concluded that conditions
on the worst visibility days are expected to improve by approximately 3
deciviews by 2010 across the most impaired portions of the Eastern
United States. Most of this improvement is expected in the 1995-2005
timeframe due to sulfur dioxide reductions under the acid rain program.
In the Southwestern United States, the visibility change was predicted
to be less than 1 deciview in most Class I areas except San Gorgonio
Wilderness (which is located downwind of Los Angeles), for which a 1-2
deciview improvement is expected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ U.S. EPA, Effects of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments on
Visibility in Class I Areas: An EPA Report to Congress, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA-452/R-93-014, October 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 35719]]
As required by section 169B(a)(2) of the CAA, EPA issued a report
in 1995 on interim findings on the status of visibility research
completed since 1990.32 This report reviewed four major
visibility related reports published since 1990,33 provided
citations of published research papers, and summarized research under
way by the GCVTC, four Federal agencies, and the Electric Power
Research Institute. As noted above, the GCVTC issued a report in June
1996 containing recommendations for protecting visibility at 16 Class I
areas on the Colorado Plateau. Based on EPA's discretionary authority
under section 169B(c), it expanded the scope of the GCVTC:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ U.S. EPA, Interim Findings on the Status of Visibility
Research, Office of Research and Development, EPA/600/R-95/021,
February 1995.
\33\ These repdorts have already been mentioned in this section:
the 1993 NAS report, the 1993 IMPROVE report (Sisler et al.), the
1993 EPA Report to Congress, and the 1991 NAPAP Report to Congress.
* * * to include additional Class I areas in the vicinity of the
Grand Canyon National Park---what is sometimes referred to as the
``Golden Circle'' of parks and wilderness areas. This includes most
of the national parks and national wilderness areas of the Colorado
Plateau.34
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ 56 FR 57523
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The GCVTC was charged with assessing information about visibility
impacts in the region and making policy recommendations to EPA to
address such impacts. The CAA called for the GCVTC to assess studies
conducted under section 169B as well as other available information
``pertaining to adverse impacts on visibility from potential or
projected growth in emissions for sources located in the * * *
Region,'' and to issue a report to EPA recommending what measures, if
any, should be taken to protect visibility. 35 The CAA
specifically provided for the GCVTC's report to address the following
measures: (1) The establishment of clean air corridors, in which
additional restrictions on increases in emissions may be appropriate to
protect visibility in affected Class I areas; (2) the imposition of
additional new source review requirements in clean air corridors;
36 and (3) the promulgation of regulations addressing
regional haze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ CAA Section 169B(d).
\36\ A clean air corridor is defined as a region that generally
brings clear air to a receptor region, such as the Class I areas of
the Golden Circle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In unit IV of the proposal, EPA discusses the major recommendations
of the GCVTC. The GCVTC's recommendations have components that
contemplate implementation through a combination of actions by EPA,
other Federal agencies, States and tribes in the region, and voluntary
measures on the part of public and private entities throughout the
region. The GCVTC's recommendations also distinguish between
recommended actions and policy or strategy options for consideration.
Unit IV addresses how EPA took these recommendations, as well as the
body of technical information developed by the GCVTC, into account in
developing the final rule.
Response to comments. Some commenters on the regional haze proposal
suggested that EPA had not provided an adequate scientific or legal
justification for developing a regional haze program. The commenters
asserted that the science of regional haze is not understood well
enough to develop regulations at this time. In addition, some
commenters claimed that EPA has not provided adequate technical
guidance for implementation of the rule, and that providing such
guidance is a legal prerequisite to promulgating a regional haze rule.
The EPA does not agree with these claims.
First, EPA believes it has relied upon a substantial amount of
scientific evidence to support development of the regional haze
program. Many of the important studies, reports, and other scientific
and technical information on which the regional haze rule is based are
referenced earlier in this section. In particular, the NAS Committee on
Haze in National Parks and Wilderness Areas concluded that ``Current
scientific knowledge is adequate and control technologies are available
for taking regulatory action to improve and protect visibility.''
37 Thus, EPA believes that its decision to move forward with
promulgation of the regional haze program is reasonable, particularly
in light of the fact that the Agency's obligation to address regional
haze originated more than 20 years ago with passage of the 1977 CAA
Amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ National Research Council, NAS Committee on Haze in
National Parks and Wilderness Areas, Protecting Visibility in
National Parks and Wilderness Areas, National Academy Press,
Washington, DC, 1993, p. 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, as discussed in the response to comments, today's final
rule provides the States with the necessary guidelines to implement a
regional haze program. The EPA believes that the supposition that all
technical guidance associated with a program be developed before a rule
can be promulgated is unfounded. The EPA recognizes the importance of
timely implementation guidance and is committed to providing such
guidance, as appropriate, for the regional haze program.
The EPA does not interpret sections 169A and 169B as requiring all
technical guidance to be issued by the Agency before the rule is
finalized. The EPA is committed to working closely with the States and
other interested parties in developing effective guidance documents
within a reasonable period of time after promulgation of the final
regional haze rule.
E. Relationship to Secondary NAAQS for PM
Today's final rule is an important element in EPA's overall
approach to protecting visibility under the CAA. In July 1997, EPA
established national secondary ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
for particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a
nominal 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5) as part of its final
decision on revision of the existing NAAQS for particulate matter under
section 109(d) of the CAA.38 The secondary standards were
based on EPA's determination that the levels selected were ``requisite
to protect the public welfare'' against visibility impairment on a
nationally uniform basis as provided in section 109(b). Consistent with
the purposes of section 169A, however, EPA recognized that such
nationally uniform standards would not eliminate all visibility
impairment in all parts of the country.39 The visibility
impacts remaining in Class I areas are addressed by today's final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ 62 FR 38652 (July 18, 1997).
\39\ See section 160(1); H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at 205 (1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today's final rule has additional benefits, as EPA expects the
regional strategies implemented as part of the regional haze program to
improve visibility outside of Class I areas as well. Thus, the regional
haze program should contribute to the improvement of local visibility
impacts outside of Class I areas that may persist after attainment of
the secondary standards.
F. Regional Planning and Integration With Programs to Implement the
NAAQS for Ozone and Particulate Matter
The regional haze program is being promulgated in a manner that
facilitates integration of emission management strategies for regional
haze with the implementation of programs for new NAAQS for ozone and
PM. This is being done because of the existing scientific evidence that
these air quality problems have common precursor pollutants, emission
sources, atmospheric processes, spatial scales for transport, and
geographic areas of concern.
[[Page 35720]]
Because of the key role of regional pollutant transport in contributing
to haze at Class I areas, most of which are in remote locations, the
regional haze program recognizes the value of multistate coordination
for regional haze program planning and implementation. Consistent with
the recommendations of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee,
Subcommittee on Ozone, Particulate Matter, and Regional Haze
Implementation Programs,40 EPA strongly encourages States to
undertake multistate regional planning efforts addressing regional haze
in a way that coordinates technical analyses and strategy development
with the NAAQS to the maximum extent possible. Examples of ongoing
coordination among States to address visibility issues include the
Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) and the Southern Appalachian
Mountain Initiative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Subcommittee for Ozone, Particulate Matter, and Regional
Haze Implementation Programs, Final Report on Subcommittee
Discussions, May 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA believes that States (and tribes, at their discretion), in
partnership with other interested stakeholders, should consider
conducting future regional air quality planning efforts to address the
implementation of the ozone and PM NAAQS and regional haze program. We
encourage States to continue to work together to establish common
protocols and approaches for emissions inventory development, emissions
tracking, application of regional models, and development of effective
emission reduction strategies.
The EPA plans to participate early and actively in regional
planning efforts. The EPA recognizes that we must provide early input
on issues and to make our views known as issues arise. The EPA has a
responsibility to independently review the adequacy of implementation
plans in the public rulemaking process and to consider all public
comments received on a plan in determining if it meets applicable
requirements. However, it is equally important that EPA be open in
letting participants know of our views and concerns throughout the
process.
The EPA will soon issue final guidance on such regional planning
efforts for the purposes of implementing the ozone, particulate matter,
and regional haze implementation programs.41 Also, as a part
of EPA's 1999 fiscal year budget, Congress provided $4 million dollars
to support regional planning activities. EPA is currently involved with
the States in a process to define the appropriate size and composition
of regional planning bodies. The final planning guidance will provide a
discussion of several important issues related to regional planning
efforts. These issues include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See the November 17, 1998 draft of Implementation Guidance
for the Ozone and Particulate Matter NAAQS and Regional Haze
Program. EPA's internet site for an electronic version of this
guidance: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/tlpgm.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taking credit for emissions reductions in other States;
Important principles for future regional planning efforts;
The technical assessment process; and
The strategy development process.
Some important principles discussed in the guidance for conducting
regional planning efforts include the following points.
Regional planning efforts should be a product of State
(and, at the discretion of any tribe, tribal) leadership and, thus,
should be led by States (and tribes), not EPA. Representatives should
have the authority to speak for their organizations.
States (and tribes at their discretion) should be prepared
to make strong, early commitments to implementing the outcome of the
regional process to ensure that SIP submittal dates are met.
Participants in regional planning efforts should set up a
work plan to carry out their work. The work plan should contain clearly
stated products of the process, dates for completion of those products
and mechanisms for funding the needed analyses.
The technical assessment process should include steps for
problem definition, development of emissions inventories, and
development of tools to evaluate strategy alternatives.
In the strategy development process, participants should
strive to develop a consensus about (1) the set of regional emissions
reductions strategies needed to attain the NAAQS or make ``reasonable
progress'' toward the national visibility goal in Class I areas, and
(2) the degree to which each State and relevant source category should
be required to reduce emissions to implement the recommended
strategies.
III. Discussion of National Program Requirements and Response to
Comments
Scope of Rule--Extending Coverage to All States
Proposed rule. In the regional haze proposal, EPA proposed to amend
section 51.300(b)(3) to extend coverage to all States (excluding
certain territories) for the purpose of addressing regional haze
visibility impairment. This approach differed from the 1980 visibility
regulations for ``reasonably attributable'' impairment, which required
the 35 States and the Virgin Islands containing Class I areas to submit
SIP revisions and to revise them periodically to assure reasonable
progress toward the national visibility goal. Thus, under the proposal,
the following additional States and the District of Columbia would be
required to submit visibility SIPs: Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Wisconsin,
Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Mississippi, New York, Pennsylvania,
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Maryland. The territories
of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands
were not included because their distance from any Class I area
significantly exceed the distance that their emissions could be
expected to be transported in order to contribute to visibility
impairment in any Class I area. However, Hawaii, Alaska, and the Virgin
Islands would be subject to the regional haze provisions because of the
potential for emissions from sources within their borders to contribute
to regional haze impairment in Class I areas also located within their
own jurisdiction.
In the proposal, EPA also recommended that all States initially
participate in regional planning efforts to more precisely characterize
which States are contributing to visibility impairment in other States,
as well as the magnitude of such contributions. States could then
develop strategies for making reasonable progress in Class I areas
throughout the region. The EPA noted that as a result of this process,
all States may not have to adopt control strategies. At the same time,
EPA cited the 1993 NAS report, which observed that the requirement for
a State to revise its implementation plan if it ``may reasonably be
anticipated'' to contribute to visibility impairment indicates that
Congress intended that ``the philosophy of precautionary action should
apply to visibility protection as it applies to other areas [such as
the NAAQS].'' Thus, EPA proposed that, at a minimum, all States should
be required to develop visibility SIPs in order to ``prevent any future
impairment'' as called for by the national goal in section 169A(a)(1).
Contracts received. The EPA received a number of comments on the
proposed applicability provisions. Many commenters approved of EPA's
approach to require SIPs from all States. Those who did not agree with
the scope of the program provided a number of reasons for their
opposition. Some commenters recognized the need for a regional haze
program, but stated that EPA must first conduct or review
[[Page 35721]]
additional scientific analyses in order to provide justification for
requiring additional States to submit visibility SIPs. Other commenters
felt that in the proposed applicability provisions, EPA exceeded its
statutory authority by extending the regional haze program to States
that have not been demonstrated to ``cause or contribute'' to
visibility impairment. Some commenters suggested that EPA rely on
States with Class I areas to engage nearby States, as appropriate, in
regional planning efforts. Some commenters in States containing Class I
areas suggested that, for their particular Class I areas, there was no
demonstrated visibility problem. They asserted that because visibility
levels should already be deemed acceptable, there was no need for a
regional haze program in their States. Other commenters felt that EPA
should include specific criteria (e.g., distance, emissions, and
visibility impact cutoffs) for excluding States or geographic areas
from consideration as contributing to regional haze visibility
impairment.
Final rule. Consistent with the proposal, EPA has concluded in
today's final rule that all States contain sources whose emissions are
reasonably anticipated to contribute to regional haze in a Class I area
and, therefore, must submit regional haze SIPs. The rationale for this
finding is discussed in more detail below.
In making this finding, EPA considered three factors: (1) The
specific statutory language in the CAA; (2) the weight of evidence
demonstrating long-range transport of fine particulate pollution that
affects visibility in Class I areas; and (3) current monitored
conditions in Class I areas across the country. The EPA's consideration
of each of these factors is discussed below.
Two key provisions in section 169A support EPA's finding that all
States must develop SIPs for regional haze. Section 169A(b)(2) requires
EPA to promulgate regulations to require SIPs from those States where
the emissions ``may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to
any impairment of visibility'' in a mandatory Class I Federal area. The
EPA believes that this provision does not require the Agency to provide
absolute certainty regarding the effect of emissions from the State on
visibility in a particular Class I area.
The Ninth Circuit has interpreted the language, ``may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility,''
in a case involving identical language in section 169A(b)(2)(A)
relating to BART.42 The EPA believes that the court's
interpretation of this phrase may be appropriately used in regard to
program applicability as well. In its decision, the court found that
the language ``may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute''
establishes an ``extremely low triggering threshold'' for requiring a
source to control emissions, adding that ``the NAS correctly noted that
Congress has not required ironclad scientific certainty establishing
the precise relationship between a source's emission and resulting
visibility impairment. * * *'' 43 In considering whether
additional States should be subject to the visibility program, EPA
believes the court's reasoning supports adoption of the predicate
requirement that States develop the necessary provisions in their
implementation plans to determine whether and to what extent control of
emissions from sources is needed. That is, given that the court
believed this ``low triggering threshold'' was sufficient to require a
source to control its emissions under BART, EPA believes it is
reasonable that a similarly low or even lower threshold applies to
whether States should be required to engage in air quality planning and
analysis as a prerequisite to determining the need for control of
emissions from sources within their State. The EPA believes this is
particularly appropriate since the requirement for SIPs does not
mandate the actual control of emissions from any source without further
technical analysis by the State. Accordingly, EPA believes the concept
of an ``extremely low triggering threshold'' can also apply in
determining which States should submit SIPs for regional haze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Central Arizona Water Conservation District v. EPA, 990
F.2d 1531 (1993).
\43\ 990 F.2d at 1541.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 169A(a)(1) sets forth a national goal of ``the prevention
of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of
visibility in Class I areas which impairment results from manmade air
pollution.'' Thus, in addition to requiring a program to reduce
existing impairment, the CAA requires SIPs to be established in order
to prevent future impairment. This preventative component of the
national goal requires that States have the framework in place to
address future growth in emissions from new sources or other activities
that could impair visibility. For this reason, the EPA does not believe
that it is appropriate to establish criteria for excluding States or
geographic areas from consideration as potential contributors to
regional haze visibility impairment.
As noted in the proposal, EPA is not specifying in this final rule
what specific control measures a State must implement in its initial
SIP for regional haze. That determination can only be made by a State
once it has conducted the necessary technical analyses of emissions,
air quality, and the other factors that go into determining reasonable
progress. As discussed in section II(F), because of the regional,
multistate nature of visibility impairment in Class I
areas,44 EPA recommends that these analyses and the
determination of the extent of emissions reductions needed from
individual States be developed and refined through multistate planning
efforts using the best available technical tools, such as regional-
scale modeling. The EPA also recommends the coordination of resulting
strategies for regional haze with strategies needed to attain the
PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA anticipates that as a result of the
more refined analyses required by this rule, some States may conclude
that control strategies specifically for protection of visibility are
not needed at this time because the analyses may show that existing
measures are sufficient to meet reasonable progress goals. The EPA is
requiring States to document their analyses, including any
consultations with other States in support of their conclusions that
further controls are not needed at this time. The EPA believes that
there is more than sufficient evidence to support our conclusion that
emissions from each of the 48 contiguous States may be reasonably
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class
I area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Refer to unit II of this final rule for additional
background on the long-range transport of pollution contributing to
regional haze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in EPA's proposal, a large body of evidence demonstrates
that long-range transport of fine PM contributes to regional haze and
other related effects such as acid rain. In the preamble to the
proposal and in the relevant docket, EPA cited numerous studies that
contribute to this body of evidence.45 Indeed, EPA
recognized the role of long-range transport in relation to visibility
impairment 20 years ago in its 1979 Report to Congress on
visibility.46
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See Unit II, Background Information. See also July 29, 1997
memorandum to regional haze docket A-95-38, ``Supporting Information
for Proposed Applicability of Regional Haze Regulations,'' by
Richard Damberg, EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
\46\ U.S. EPA, Protecting Visibility: An EPA Report to Congress,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA-450/5-79-008,
October 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among the more important studies on which EPA relied are the 1991
report from the NAPAP, the 1993 NAS report Protecting Visibility in
National Parks
[[Page 35722]]
and Wilderness Areas, EPA studies using the regional acid deposition
model (RADM), the 1996 GCVTC report Recommendations for Improving
Western Vistas, and two contractor reports prepared for
EPA.47 All of these reports are available in the docket.
They were referenced and discussed in EPA's proposal and in an
additional memorandum to the docket. The NAPAP report included a
comprehensive technical review of historical visibility
trends.48 The NAS report found that the range of fine
particle transport is on the order of hundreds or thousands of
kilometers.49 Analyses using the RADM have estimated that
sulfate and nitrate deposition receptors are influenced by sources
located up to 600-800 kilometers away.50 In its
deliberations and in its final report, the GCVTC acknowledged the role
of long-range transport from sources and activities located across a
very large geographic area, and its effect on the Class I areas on the
Colorado Plateau.51
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See Latimer and Associates, Particulate Matter Source--
Receptor Relationships Between All Point and Area Sources in the
United States and PSD Class I Area Receptors, Report prepared for
EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, September 1996.
See also ENVIRON International Corporation, Development of Revised
Federal Class I Area Groups in Support of Regional Haze Regulations,
Report prepared for EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, September 1996.
\48\ National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program. Acid
Deposition: State of the Science and Technology. Report 24,
Visibility: Existing and Historical Conditions--Causes and Effects,
Washington, DC, 1991.
\49\ National Research Council, NAS Committee on Haze in
National Parks and Wilderness Areas, Protecting Visibility in
National Parks and Wilderness Areas, National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C., 1993.
\50\ Dennis, Robin L. ``Using the Regional Acid Deposition Model
to Determine the Nitrogen Deposition Airshed of the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed,'' in Atmospheric Deposition to the Great Lakes and
Coastal Waters, edited by Joel Baker, 1996.
\51\ GCVTC, Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas, Report
to the U.S. EPA, June 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, two contractor modeling reports prepared for EPA provided
information that preliminarily demonstrated that each State not having
a Class I area had emissions contributing to impairment in at least one
downwind Class I area. Some State commenters asserted that the
contractor reports referenced in the proposal show relatively low
contributions from all or part of their States toward visibility
impairment in a nearby Class I area. As a result, these commenters
suggested that EPA had sufficient information to reach a conclusion
that all or part of their States could be excluded from the regional
haze program. The EPA disagrees with these comments for two reasons.
First, the EPA did not base its proposed applicability provisions
only on the referenced contractor reports. The EPA based its decision
on the assessments provided by these reports as well as a number of
other studies and sources of information. Second, as explained above,
EPA believes that all States must have a visibility SIP to prevent, at
a minimum, future impairment of visibility. While EPA agrees that
portions of some States may not need to implement additional measures,
at this time, to improve visibility impairment in any Class I area, the
EPA believes that more refined future assessments will be needed to
support such a finding. Additionally, the EPA believes that a State
wishing to demonstrate that it does not contribute to visibility
impairment in any Class I area will need to provide information showing
that it has consulted with other potentially affected States to assist
EPA in assuring that the State's demonstration is not contradicted by
evidence presented by other States.
Current monitoring information for Class I areas shows that all of
the monitored sites in the central and eastern parts of the country
have visibility impairment levels exceeding estimated natural
conditions for the 20 percent most impaired days, some by more than 20
deciviews. Although the degree of impairment varies, the data
demonstrate that no existing site has reached the goal in section
169A(a)(1) of the CAA for ``remedying * * * any existing impairment of
visibility.'' \52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ Sisler, J. et al., Spatial and Seasonal Patterns and Long-
Term Variability of the Chemical Composition of the Haze in the
United States: An Analysis of Data from the IMPROVE Network, Fort
Collins, CO, Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere,
Colorado State University, 1996. See also Sisler, J., et al.,
Spatial and Temporal Patterns and the Chemical Composition of the
Haze in the United States: An Analysis of Data from the IMPROVE
Network, 1988-1991, Fort Collins, CO, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of this finding, EPA disagrees with the commenter who
asserted that because visibility levels in its State are already
``acceptable,'' there is no need for the State to implement a regional
haze program. The section 169A national goal of the visibility program,
a condition of no human-caused impairment, does not provide for
judgments of acceptable visibility levels which are poorer than natural
conditions in Class I areas. Through adoption of section 169A(a)(1),
Congress established natural visibility conditions as the overall goal.
The data also show that in the monitored locations in the central
and eastern United States, sulfate is the key contributor to visibility
impairment, responsible for between 45-90 percent of light extinction
due to aerosols on the 20 percent most impaired days. This fact is
significant because the broad, regional scale of long-range transport
of sulfate has already been acknowledged in many studies done for the
acid rain program. Based on these data, it appears that although the
acid rain program is expected to improve visibility by approximately 3
deciviews in the most impaired Class I areas in the Eastern United
States by 2005,\53\ further regional reductions in SO2
emissions may be needed after the acid rain program is complete to
assure continued visibility improvement toward the national goal. Thus,
EPA finds it is reasonable to require SIPs from the States without
Class I areas which are located in the central and eastern parts of the
United States since many, if not all, are expected to have sources
contributing to regional loadings of SO2 emissions, even
after implementation of the acid rain program is completed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ U.S. EPA, Effects of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments on
Visibility in Class I Areas: An EPA Report to Congress, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA-452/R-93-014, October 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For all of the reasons stated above, EPA has concluded in today's
final rule that EPA's statutory authority and scientific evidence are
sufficient to require all States to develop regional haze SIPs to
ensure the prevention of any future impairment of visibility, and to
conduct further analyses to determine whether additional emission
reduction measures are needed to ensure reasonable progress in
remedying existing impairment in downwind Class I areas.
B. Timetable for Submitting the First Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan (SIP)
This final rule establishes a schedule setting forth deadlines by
which the States must submit their first regional haze SIPs and
subsequent revisions to that first SIP. In this unit, we discuss the
deadlines for the first regional haze SIP, the concerns raised in
comments regarding these deadlines, and recent legislation affecting
the deadlines. The requirements for periodic revisions to this first
regional haze SIP are discussed below in unit III.J.
Proposed rule. The proposed rule, consistent with section
169B(e)(2) of the CAA, would have required States to submit revisions
to their SIP to address regional haze within 12 months of the effective
date of the rule. We had intended that these 12-month SIP
[[Page 35723]]
submittals serve as program planning SIPs in which the States would
review existing regulatory authorities and provide the framework for a
number of future actions.
Comments received. Commenters expressed the view that 12 months was
an insufficient time period to meet the proposed requirements for the
program planning SIP. Moreover, commenters were concerned that the 12-
month SIP requirement was not well coordinated with similar program
planning for the new PM2.5 standard.
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). After the
close of the comment period for the July 1997 proposal, Congress passed
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), Public Law
105-178. The TEA-21 superseded the statutory requirement for a 12-month
SIP deadline and established a specific schedule for regional haze SIP
submissions. In a September 3, 1998 notice of availability, EPA
provided the public with an opportunity to comment on how the regional
haze rule should address the TEA-21 requirements.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ 63 FR 46952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The TEA-21 provisions establish a timetable for the regional haze
SIPs by first creating certain deadlines for PM2.5
monitoring and area designations, and then by linking those deadlines
to further deadlines for the regional haze program. The TEA-21
amendments, in section 4102(a), require EPA to fund a PM2.5
monitoring network. In section 4102(b), EPA and States are required to
put this network in place by no later than December 31, 1999.
Section 4102(c)(1) of TEA-21 establishes deadlines for States to
use the data collected by the network for purposes of formally
designating areas as attaining the PM2.5 standard or as
nonattainment or unclassifiable. Section 4102(c)(1) states:
(1) The Governors shall be required to submit designations
referred to in section 107(d)(1) of the CAA for each area following
promulgation of the July 1997 PM2.5 national ambient air
quality standard within 1 year after receipt of 3 years of air
quality monitoring data performed in accordance with any applicable
Federal reference method for the relevant areas.
Section 4102(c)(2) of TEA-21 contains the following language which
links the timing requirements for the visibility program to the
PM2.5 designation process:
(2) For any area designated as nonattainment for the July 1997
PM2.5 national ambient air quality standard in accordance
with the schedule set forth in this section, notwithstanding the
time limit prescribed in paragraph (2) of section 169B(e) of the
CAA, the Administrator shall require State implementation plan
revisions referred to in such paragraph (2) to be submitted at the
same time as State implementation plan revisions referred to in
section 172 of the CAA implementing the revised national ambient air
quality standard for fine particulate matter are required to be
submitted. For any area designated as attainment or unclassifiable
for such standard, the Administrator shall require the State
implementation plan revisions referred to in such paragraph (2) to
be submitted 1 year after the area has been so designated. The
preceding provisions of this paragraph shall not preclude the
implementation of the agreements and recommendations set forth in
the GCVTC Report dated June 1996.
To accompany the statutory changes contained in the TEA-21 law,
Congress released a Conference Report. With respect to the visibility
provisions of TEA-21, the Conference Report states:
The Conferees recognize that the Regional Haze regulation has
not been finalized and the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is still considering the views of various
stakeholders. The Conferees agree with EPA's public statements that
the schedule for the State Implementation Plan due pursuant to
section 169B(e)(2) of the * * * [Clean Air] * * * CAA should be
harmonized with the Schedule for State Implementation Plan
submissions required for PM2.5 ambient air quality
standard promulgated in July, 1997.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 550, 105th Cong., 2d. Sess. 519 (1998),
reprinted in 1998 U.S.C.C.A.N., No. 6 at 196.
This new statutory language has two effects. First, it supersedes the
section 169B requirement for EPA to require States to submit SIPs
within 12 months of the promulgation of today's final rule. Second, it
spells out a timetable for SIP revisions that is linked to the dates of
attainment/nonattainment designations for PM2.5. It is
important to note that the timetable is based on the designation of
areas within a State. Thus, under the legislation, one State could have
multiple SIP submission deadlines depending on the dates of designation
of each area within the State. This issue, and how EPA intends to
address it, is further discussed later in this unit.
According to a Presidential memorandum dated July 16, 1997, the EPA
and States must collect 3 years of monitoring data in order to have a
sufficient basis for designations. This point is reiterated in TEA-
21.\56\ Routine collection of monitoring data begins in 1999. Hence, we
expect the requirements of TEA-21, section 4102(c)(1), to result in the
following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ See TEA-21, Section 4102(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submissions of designation requests by States. States must submit
designations within 1 year of the date that 3 years of PM2.5
data are available. Because widespread monitoring for PM2.5
is being implemented between January 1999 and December 31, 1999, we
expect 3 years of data to be collected by December 31, 2001 for most
areas and no later than December 31, 2002 for the remaining areas.
Taking into account additional time (not more than 6 months) for
quality assurance and certification of the data, we expect 3 years of
data to be available for States to use for designations between July
2002 and July 2003. In the TEA-21 amendments, States have up to 1 year
to submit designations. Thus, we expect that the required date for
submittal of designations generally will occur between July 2003 and
July 2004.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ We expect that some States will want to move expeditiously
with some designations, leading to submissions and final action on
some areas as early as late 2002 or early 2003. Where this is the
case, this would lead to earlier regional haze SIP submittal
deadlines as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA action on State designations. The EPA is required to act upon
the designations no later than 1 year after the date States are
required to submit the designations, but not later than December 31,
2005 in any case. If States submit their designations between July 2003
and July 2004, EPA would be required to designate areas between July
2004 and July 2005.
For areas designated as attainment or unclassifiable, the TEA-21
amendments require that States must submit SIPs for regional haze
within 1 year after EPA publishes the designations. As a result, for
these areas, regional haze SIPs are likely to be due generally between
July 2005 and July 2006.
For areas designated as nonattainment for fine particulate matter,
the TEA-21 amendments require States to submit SIP revisions addressing
regional haze ``at the same time as States submit SIPs as required by
section 172 of the CAA implementing the July 1997 revision to the
national ambient air quality standard for fine particulate matter.''
Section 172(b) of the CAA requires SIPs no later than 3 years after EPA
publishes the nonattainment designation. If EPA designates areas
nonattainment between July 2004 and July 2005, the regional haze SIPs
for areas designated as nonattainment and the PM2.5
nonattainment SIPs would both be due no later than the July 2007 to
July 2008 timeframe.
The date for startup of PM2.5 monitoring may vary in
different parts of a given State. Accordingly, the EPA expects that
States may not be able to submit designation requests at the same time
for the entire State. Rather, EPA
[[Page 35724]]
expects that it is possible that individual ``areas'' within a given
State may be designated at different times. Even if areas were all
designated at the same time, in many States some areas will likely be
designated attainment, with others designated nonattainment. In either
case, the TEA-21 deadlines would require separate regional haze SIPs
for each of these areas to be submitted at different times.
While the language in TEA-21 establishing the timetable for
submission of regional haze SIPs is generally clear, the transportation
legislation does not address the situation where States are
participating in a regional planning effort that incorporates numerous
areas. On its face, TEA-21 requires the submission of separate regional
haze SIPs on an area-by-area basis with varying deadlines that could
range over a period of several years. As noted above, however, regional
haze is the result of emissions from a number of sources located over a
broad geographic area. Because of the long-range transport of
pollutants causing regional haze, EPA believes that well-coordinated
regional planning efforts are needed to make progress toward natural
visibility conditions. As EPA noted in the September 3, 1998 notice of
availability, we do not believe that Congress intended to inhibit
regional planning efforts by requiring area-by-area submittals. In
light of this, EPA requested comment on incorporating an optional
approach into the final rule to facilitate regional planning.
Notice of availability of additional information. The optional
approach EPA described in the September 3, 1998 notice of availability
would allow States which commit to participating in regional planning
efforts to postpone addressing certain of the requirements of the
regional haze program. Under this approach, States would have the
option to first submit SIPs which contain commitments to specific
integrated regional planning efforts but which do not set forth control
strategies. States committing to regional planning would subsequently
submit SIP revisions containing control strategies for attainment,
unclassifiable, and nonattainment areas at the same time. This would
allow multiple areas within a single planning region to have
coordinated deadlines for regional haze control strategies. In the
supplemental notice, we noted that this approach could have the effect
of delaying control strategy plan submittal dates for some areas, but
we believe that such an option will support more effective coordination
between the PM2.5 and regional haze programs, will support
coordinated regional planning for both programs, and will be consistent
with the statement of congressional intent.
Comments received. Some commenters argued that TEA-21 does not
authorize EPA to defer implementation of the regional haze program in
this way. The basis for this argument is the claim that the 1-year
deadline in section 169B(e)(2) applies only to regulations promulgated
pursuant to the report of a visibility transport commission. These
commenters claim that EPA is obligated under section 169A to provide
for more expedited implementation of measures to assure reasonable
progress.
The final rule. The regulations made final today are issued under
the authority of CAA sections 169A and 169B. As discussed in unit II.C
above, EPA in 1980 explicitly deferred issuing regulations to address
regional haze until our scientific and technical knowledge was better
developed. In 1990, Congress amended the CAA by adding section 169B.
This section authorizes the establishment of visibility transport
commissions which, among other things, must issue a report addressing
``the promulgation of regulations under [section 169A] to address long
range strategies for addressing regional haze.'' Section 169B further
establishes explicit timeframes in which EPA must, taking into account
any reports of visibility transport commissions, issue regulations
under section 169A, and in which States must respond by submitting
revised SIPs. Congress modified the timeframe for SIP submission in
TEA-21 to ensure the ability of EPA to harmonize the implementation of
today's final rule with the requirements for the new PM2.5
NAAQS.\58\ Today's final rule carries out EPA's obligation under
sections 169A and 169B to issue regulations addressing regional haze
according to the timeframe as set forth in section 169B as modified by
TEA-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 550, 105th Cong., 2d. Sess. 517.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final rule includes the deadlines for SIP submittals set forth
in TEA-21 and incorporates an optional set of requirements for States
which commit to participate in regional planning. Commenters generally
agreed with EPA's view in the notice of availability that it is
important to ensure that the PM2.5 program and regional haze
program are fully integrated. The EPA believes that the approach taken
in the final rule supports effective coordination between these
programs, while also facilitating regional planning.
In the final rule, the timetable for SIP submittals is set forth in
section 51.308(b) and (c). Section 51.308(b) directly codifies the TEA-
21 timetable. Section 51.308(c) provides States that have committed to
participate with other States in a regional planning process the option
of choosing to defer submittal of a SIP which addresses the substantive
requirements of the regional haze program. States are not required to
exercise the option provided by section 51.308(c), but those which do
must meet the deadlines set forth in that section for submitting a SIP
which addresses the distinct requirements in section 51.308(c) and a
SIP revision which addresses the substantive requirements of the
regional haze program.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ The option for regional planning provided by section
51.308(c) is not available for Alaska, Hawaii, and the Virgin
Islands. Class I areas within their boundaries are not affected by
emissions from any other State. As a result, regional planning will
not be needed to develop regional haze SIPs for these areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a first step, States electing to participate in regional
planning must submit a SIP demonstrating the State's ongoing
participation in a regional planning process. This SIP must address all
areas in the State and is due on the earliest date by which an
implementation plan affecting any area within the State would be due
under the TEA-21 deadlines. Unless an entire State is designated as
nonattainment, this SIP will be due 1 year after EPA designates any
area within the State as attainment or unclassifiable. This SIP
submission must contain a number of specific elements to demonstrate
the State's commitment to the regional planning process and to ensure
that by the date of the SIP submittal, the States in the regional
planning body have taken the necessary steps to initiate the regional
planning process.
The following briefly summarizes the required elements of the first
SIP submittal called for under the optional approach for regional
planning:
Need for regional planning. In the SIP, the State must demonstrate
the need for regional planning. The State must make this demonstration
by showing that emissions from sources within the State contribute to
visibility impairment in Class I areas in another State, or by showing
that other States contribute to visibility impairment in the Class I
areas in the State. The EPA does not intend for this to be an overly
complex analysis.
Description of regional planning organization. The State must also
submit a detailed description of the regional planning process. In its
SIP, the State must show that the participating
[[Page 35725]]
States have a credible regional planning process in place which all
parties are committed to follow. We have outlined general principles
for regional planning organizations in a document entitled
Implementation Guidance for the Revised Ozone and Particulate Matter
(PM) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the Regional
Haze Program, which discusses features of effective regional planning
organizations, including a discussion of organization and
representation issues, issues related to developing workplans and
schedules, and issues related to ensuring that technical efforts are
consistent. This document is available on the internet at http://
www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html.
Enforceable commitment to submit coordinated control strategy by
2008. The regional planning SIP must include provisions requiring the
State to submit a SIP revision meeting all of the requirements of the
regional haze rule. This SIP revision is due by the latest date an area
within the planning region would be required to submit an
implementation plan under TEA-21, but in no event any later than
December 31, 2008. The SIP must require that the SIP revision is
developed in coordination with the other States in the regional
planning body and that it fully addresses the recommendations of that
body.
List of BART-eligible sources. The State must identify those
sources from one of 26 source categories and placed into operation
between 1962 and 1977 that are potentially subject to BART. This
information will enable the State and regional planning organization to
begin evaluating options for meeting the BART requirement or for
implementing an emissions trading program or alternative measure that
achieves greater reasonable progress.
Summary of timetable for submission of the first regional haze
SIPs. The following table is a summary of the deadlines for submitting
the first regional haze SIPs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . States must
submit the first . . . and the SIP
For this case . . . regional haze SIPs must meet . . .
no later than:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Areas designated as 1 year after EPA ALL requirements of
attainment or publishes the section 51.308(d)
unclassifiable for PM2.5. designation and (e).
(generally 2004-
2006).
Areas designated as At the same time as ALL requirements of
nonattainment for PM2.5. PM2.5 SIPs are due section 51.308(d)
under section 172 and (e).
of the CAA. (That
is, 3 years after
EPA publishes the
designation,
generally 2006-
2008).
States participating in Two phases:......... The regional
multistate regional Commitment to planning
planning efforts for regional planning requirements listed
combined attainment and due 1 year after in section
nonattainment areas. the EPA publishes 51.308(c).
the first
designation for any
area within the
State, and.
Complete The ``core
implementation plan requirements''
due at the same listed in section
time as PM2.5 SIPs 51.308(d) and BART
are due under requirements in
section 172 of the section 51.308(e).
CAA. (That is, 3
years after EPA
publishes the
designation).
States following the December 31, 2003... SIPs must meet the
recommendations of the specific provisions
GCVTC, as contained in for Grand Canyon
section 51.309 of the final Transport Region
rule. States listed in
section 51.309.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Tracking Deciviews and Emissions Reductions
Visibility impairment is caused by particles and gases in the
atmosphere. Some particles and gases scatter light, while others absorb
light. The net effect is called ``light extinction.'' The result of
these processes is a reduction of the amount of light from a scene that
is returned to the observer, creating a hazy condition.
Proposed rule. In the proposal, EPA established a regulatory
framework by which a State would establish a ``reasonable progress
target'' for each Class I area within its borders for the purpose of
improving visibility on the worst visibility days over the next 10 or
15 years. The States would implement emission management strategies to
improve visibility in these Class I areas. The proposal also called for
the States to monitor progress in improving visibility over time. The
EPA proposed that visibility targets and tracking of visibility changes
over time be expressed in terms of the ``deciview'' haze metric. The
proposal also called for the tracking of pollutant emissions to
supplement the tracking of monitored visibility changes for use in
periodically reviewing State progress in achieving visibility targets.
The proposal included the definition of the deciview metric for
tracking visibility. The proposal also called for a review of emissions
reductions achieved as part of the long-term strategy.
Deciview. The proposal explained that the deciview is an
atmospheric haze index that expresses changes in visibility. This
visibility metric expresses uniform changes in haziness in terms of
common increments across the entire range of visibility conditions,
from pristine to extremely hazy conditions.60 Because each
unit change in deciview represents a common change in perception, the
deciview scale is like the decibel scale for sound. The proposal also
stated that ``A one deciview change in haziness is a small but
noticeable change in haziness under most circumstances when viewing
scenes in Class I areas.'' 61
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ Pitchford, M. and Malm, W., ``Development and Applications
of a Standard Visual Index,'' Atmospheric Environment, v. 28, no. 5,
March 1994.
\61\ 62 FR 41145.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposal discussed that an advantage to using the deciview over
other scales is that it can be used to express changes in visibility
impairment in a way that corresponds to human perception in a linear,
or one for one, manner. For example, this metric is designed such that
a change of 3 deciviews in a highly impaired environment would be
perceived as roughly the same degree of change as a 3 deciview change
in a relatively clear environment. As noted in the preamble to the
proposed regulation, the deciview is mathematically related to other
common metrics used to describe visibility: the light extinction
coefficient and visual range. However, the deciview metric can be used
to compare changes in perception in a way that the other two metrics
cannot. This feature makes the deciview a more useful metric for
regulatory purposes. For example, a 5-
[[Page 35726]]
mile change in visual range can in some cases be very significant, such
as from 5 to 10 miles in an impaired environment (equal to a change of
6.9 deciviews), whereas a 5-mile change may not be perceptible in a
less impaired environment, such as from 95 to 100 miles (equal to a
change of 0.5 deciviews). The following sections discuss the comments
received on specific issues and how such issues are addressed in the
final rule.
Tracking emissions versus visibility. Many commenters supported the
use of the deciview metric to track changes in visibility improvement
as a key aspect of the program. These commenters agreed with EPA's
proposal that under a visibility-oriented program, progress in fact
should be tracked in terms of a visibility-based metric. Others felt
the program could be successfully implemented by tracking emissions
only because this approach would not be greatly affected by
meteorological variations as would an approach based on ambient
monitoring.
The final rule provides for the tracking of both visibility
improvement and emissions reductions.62 The final rule
presents visibility improvement and tracking of emissions as linked
elements of the program. The EPA has retained the use of the deciview
metric for tracking changes in visibility. The EPA believes the
tracking of actual visibility improvements is necessary to be
responsive to the goals of the CAA. Section 169A(a) of the CAA sets
forth the national goal of the ``prevention of any future, and the
remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in Class I areas
which impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' The CAA also
requires EPA to establish regulations to be implemented by the States
to ensure that `reasonable progress' is made toward the national goal.
In addition, section 169B(e) of the CAA calls for EPA to carry out its
``regulatory responsibilities under section 169A, including criteria
for measuring `reasonable progress' toward the national goal.''
63
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Tracking of visibility is addressed in section 51.308(d)
and 51.308(g). Tracking of emissions reductions is addressed in
section 51.308(g).
\63\ Section 169B(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA believes that tracking of emissions reductions is also an
important component of the regional haze program. The mechanism for
achieving improvements in visibility will be the implementation of
enforceable emissions reduction measures that have been adopted as part
of the SIP. Tracking emissions will provide a good indicator of whether
adopted measures are reducing emissions and is thus a useful indicator
of progress in reducing visibility impairment. The tracking of
emissions without concurrently tracking changes in visibility, however,
would be problematic because of the variable effect on visibility of
each of the principal constituents of PM, the more significant light
scattering efficiency of fine PM versus coarse PM, and the generally
greater effect of nearby versus distant sources on visibility
impairment.
Since the national goal is expressed in terms of air quality (i.e.,
visibility) rather than emissions, we believe that it is very important
to require the quantitative tracking of visibility impairment as an
integral element in measuring reasonable progress. Because ambient
monitoring data are subject to meteorological fluctuations, EPA designs
standards and requirements for analysis of monitoring data to limit the
effects of unusual meteorological events. For regional haze, we have
provided in this final rule for the tracking of visibility trends based
on 5-year averages of annual deciview values for the most impaired and
least impaired days. We believe that this approach responds to
commenters' concerns about significant unusual fluctuations in annual
average values for the best and worst days due to unusual
meteorological conditions in any particular year. However, it is also
important to note that EPA has long held that normal meteorological
variations should be explicitly accounted for in air quality analyses
and control strategy design. Air quality improvement plans should be
able to assure protection of public health and welfare under the normal
and foreseeable range of meteorological conditions.
Tracking visibility in deciviews. Some commenters disagreed with
the use of the deciview to measure changes in visibility, claiming that
the deciview metric has not been adequately reviewed for use in a
regulatory program. The EPA disagrees with this assertion. The EPA
believes the deciview metric has been adequately reviewed for use in
the regional haze program. The deciview concept was introduced in 1994
in an article appearing in the peer-reviewed journal Atmospheric
Environment.64 It was presented in the 1996 Criteria
Document for the PM NAAQS as a valid metric for characterizing
visibility impairment.65 The EPA also recognized the
deciview as an appropriate metric for regulatory purposes in chapter 8
of the 1996 Staff Paper for the PM NAAQS review.66 Both of
these documents were reviewed and accepted by the Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee. Visibility conditions at Class I areas have been
characterized in terms of deciview in summary reports on the IMPROVE
visibility monitoring network.67
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ Pitchford, M. and Malm, W., ``Development and Applications
of a Standard Visual Index,'' Atmospheric Environment, V. 28, no. 5,
March 1994.
\65\ U.S. EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter,
Research Triangle Park, NC, National Center for Environmental
Assessment. Office of Research and Development, July 1996.
\66\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Review of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter:
Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information. OAQPS
Staff Paper. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. July
1996.
\67\ Sisler, J., et al., Spatial and Seasonal Patterns and Long-
Term Variability of the Composition of the Haze in the United
States: An Analysis of Data from the IMPROVE Network. Cooperative
Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, Colorado State University,
1996. See also Sisler, J., et al., Spatial and Temporal Patterns and
the Chemical Composition of the Haze in the United States: An
Analysis of Data From the IMPROVE Network, 1988-1991, Fort Collins,
CO, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA also supports use of the deciview metric because it
satisfies one of the recommendations of the NAS Committee on Haze in
National Parks and Wilderness Areas. In its 1993 report on visibility,
the NAS recommended the development of an index that takes into account
both measurement of physical changes (i.e., changes in air quality)
with elements of human perception.68 Further, a report on
the regional haze proposal by the Congressional Research Service found
that the deciview index ``conforms closely'' 69 to the NAS
recommendation cited above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ National Research Council, Protecting Visibility in
National Parks and Wilderness Areas, 1993, p. 354.
\69\ Congressional Research Service, Regional Haze: EPA's
Proposal to Improve Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness
Areas, November 17, 1997, p. 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some commenters stated that the final rule should not suggest that
a one deciview change is the threshold of perception in all cases for
all scenes. The EPA agrees with the comment that a one deciview change
should not be considered the threshold of perception in all cases for
all scenes. The EPA believes that visibility changes of less than one
deciview are likely to be perceptible in some cases, especially where
the scene being viewed is highly sensitive to small amounts of
pollution. The EPA also acknowledges the technical point made by some
commenters that for other types of scenes with other site-specific
[[Page 35727]]
conditions,70 a change of more than 1 deciview might be
required in order for the change to be perceptible. However, EPA wishes
to emphasize that the overall goal of the regional haze program is not
to track changes in visibility for only certain vistas at a specific
Class I area. Rather, the program is designed to track changes in
regional visibility for the range of possible views of sky and terrain
found in any Class I area, and to assure progress toward the national
goal. For this purpose, EPA supports the use of the deciview metric as
calculated from ambient monitoring data for tracking changes in
regional visibility. The monitoring network is not designed to track
changes in visibility for specific views in each Class I area. Rather,
the network is designed to characterize visibility conditions that, for
each site, are representative of a fairly broad geographic region. The
EPA believes this approach is consistent with the nature of regional
haze, which is defined as a uniform haze caused by numerous sources
covering a broad area. Thus, although a 1 deciview change may not be
the threshold of perception in all situations, the fundamental
advantage of using the deciview remains: the deciview metric expresses
uniform changes in haziness in terms of common increments across the
entire range of visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy
conditions. The metric provides a useful means of expressing changes in
visibility caused by changes in air quality while also providing a
scale that relates visibility to perception. The final rule maintains
the deciview as the principle visibility metric used in establishing
reasonable progress goals, in defining baseline, current, and natural
conditions, and in tracking changes in visibility conditions over time.
States may choose to express visibility changes in terms of other
metrics, such as visual range or light extinction, as well as in terms
of deciview. The definition in the final rule was modified slightly to
provide additional clarity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ For example, where the sight path to a scenic feature is
less than the maximum visual range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light extinction calculated from aerosol data. Some other
commenters did not support EPA's proposed approach to calculating light
extinction based on monitored fine particle data (referred to as
``reconstructed light extinction'' in the proposal). These commenters
preferred other methods, such as direct measurement of light scattering
or light extinction with an optical device. While such methods are
desired in comprehensively monitoring visibility impairment, the EPA
supports the use of a common approach for calculating visibility
changes based on monitored fine particle data as the primary monitoring
method for tracking visual air quality.
Such an approach has been established and implemented for many
years by the IMPROVE Steering Committee. The IMPROVE approach uses a
set of standard assumptions,71 which have been tested and
found to be reasonable, in calculating light extinction and deciviews
from changes in air quality. Two important aspects of the approach are:
(1) Standard rates of light extinction per unit mass of visibility-
impairing pollutants (e.g., sulfate, nitrate, organic carbon, elemental
carbon, and crustal material); and (2) standard effects of humidity on
sulfate and nitrate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ See Sisler, et al., Spatial and Seasonal Patterns and Long-
Term Variability of the Composition of the Haze in the United
States: An Analysis of Data from the IMPROVE Network. Cooperative
Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, Colorado State University,
1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through extensive analysis of empirical data, a value (or ``dry
extinction coefficient'') has been developed for each aerosol component
which represents the amount of light extinction (expressed in inverse
megameters) caused by each microgram/m3 of that component. Light
extinction is calculated by multiplying the aerosol mass for each
component by its extinction coefficient and summing the products.
Because sulfates and nitrates become more efficient at scattering light
as humidity increases, the values for these two components are also
multiplied by a relative humidity adjustment factor. It has been shown
that annual and seasonal light extinction values developed according to
this method correlate well with averages of optical measurements of
light extinction for the same locations.\72\ The EPA plans to issue
future guidance describing the details of calculating visibility
changes in this manner and tracking visibility over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although light extinction can be measured directly by certain
optical devices (i.e., transmissometers and nephelometers), EPA
supports an approach based on the mass of PM components derived from
ambient monitoring for calculating light extinction for two main
reasons. First, this approach provides for the tracking of actual
changes in the components of air pollution, and the information
obtained from analysis of the chemical composition of PM is critical to
the air quality modeling and strategy development processes. By
understanding the chemical composition of particulate matter, we can
better define the manmade and natural components contributing to
overall light extinction. Second, direct measurements of visibility
from some optical instruments (e.g., transmissometer) are more
frequently disrupted by precipitation events (i.e., rain or snow) than
are aerosol measurements.
For all of the reasons discussed above, the final rule provides for
the tracking of visibility and emissions reductions. The deciview will
be the principal visibility metric for use in implementing the regional
haze program. The deciview will be used for expressing reasonable
progress goals, defining baseline, current, and natural conditions, and
tracking changes in visibility conditions over time. The definition of
deciview in the final rule in section 51.301(bb) was modified slightly
to provide additional clarity and state that deciview values are to be
derived from calculated light extinction based on aerosol measurements
in accordance with EPA guidance.
D. Regional Haze Implementation Plan Principles
Section 169A of the CAA calls for States to develop implementation
plans ensuring reasonable progress toward the national goal, including
emission limits, schedules of compliance and other measures as
necessary. At a minimum, the CAA calls for SIPs to include a long-term
strategy and provisions for BART for certain major stationary sources.
We would like to emphasize several overarching themes for the specific
implementation plan requirements in the final rule:
Regional haze regulations and State implementation plans
must address all of the statutory requirements outlined in 169A and
169B of the CAA. Regional haze requirements must address a number of
specific statutory requirements, including ``criteria for reasonable
progress,'' long-term strategies addressing all types of sources and
activities, and best available retrofit technology for certain
stationary sources. The implementation plan requirements in the final
rule are designed to ensure that all of these statutory requirements
will be met.
Tracking ``reasonable progress'' should involve the
tracking of both emissions and visibility improvement. Regional haze
implementation plans must include provisions for tracking the
implementation of enforceable emission management strategies designed
to make reasonable progress toward the national
[[Page 35728]]
visibility goal. Emission control measures will be the component that
will be enforceable to ensure reasonable progress. Measuring reasonable
progress should involve tracking the actual emissions achieved through
implementation of such strategies, and the tracking of visibility for
the most impaired and least impaired days using established monitoring
and data analysis techniques.
Strategies for improving visibility should address all
types of sources. Section 169A provides for State long-term strategies
to address all types of sources and activities emitting pollutants that
contribute to visibility impairment in Class I areas, including
stationary, mobile, and area sources. Implementation plans also must
give specific attention to certain stationary sources built between
1962 and 1977 and provide for meeting the BART provisions for these
sources.
Successful implementation of the regional haze program
will involve long-term regional coordination among States. Pollution
affecting the air quality in Class I areas can be transported long
distances, even hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, States will need to
develop strategies in coordination with one another, taking into
account the effect of emissions from one jurisdiction to air quality in
another. In addition, as noted by the NAS study, ``achieving the
national visibility goal will require a substantial, long-term
program.'' 73 Accordingly, the regional haze program
requires the periodic review by each State of whether ``reasonable
progress'' is being achieved and revisions of implementation plans as
needed to continue progress toward the national visibility goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ National Research Council, Committee on Haze in National
Parks and Wilderness Areas, Protecting Visibility in National Parks
and Wilderness Areas, National Academy Press, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Determination of ``Baseline,'' ``Natural'' and ``Current''
Visibility
Background. The fundamental goal of the visibility program, as
provided by Congress, is the prevention of future visibility impairment
and the remedying of existing impairment in Class I areas. Thus, the
regional haze program must track progress toward the national goal.
In order to facilitate this tracking process, the proposed rule
required each State having one or more Class I areas to establish, and
update as necessary, three important visibility parameters for the best
and worst visibility days at each Class I area within the State. Each
parameter is discussed in detail below.
Baseline conditions--Baseline conditions represent
visibility for the best and worst days at the time the regional haze
program is established. Baseline conditions are calculated using
multiyear averaging.
Natural conditions--As specified in the CAA, estimated
natural conditions, or the visibility conditions that would be
experienced in the absence of human-caused impairment, constitute the
ultimate goal of the program. Under the regional haze program, natural
conditions need to be estimated for the 20 percent best and worst days.
Current conditions--Current conditions for the best and
worst days are calculated from a multiyear average, based on the most
recent years of monitored data. This value would be revised at the time
of each periodic SIP revision, and would be used to illustrate: (1) The
amount of progress made since the last SIP revision, and (2) the amount
of progress made from the baseline period of the program.
Baseline Conditions
Proposed rule. The preamble to the proposal discussed an approach
for determining baseline visibility conditions for the haziest 20
percent and clearest 20 percent of days that would allow using a
minimum of 3 years of monitored data, and up to a maximum of 9 years of
data.
Comments received. The EPA received some comments suggesting that
it would be more equitable to use a standardized time period to
establish baseline values for all Class I areas across the country.
Other commenters supported the use of baseline values based on a
varying number of years from site to site. Some commenters also
supported the establishment of baseline conditions based on a period of
time longer than 3 years because a 3-year period could be significantly
influenced by unique meteorological circumstances.
Final rule. After considering public comments on the baseline
issue, EPA has determined that the most appropriate ``baseline period''
would be a fixed, 5-year period extending from calendar year 2000
through calendar year 2004. The EPA concluded that a standard baseline
period provides for greater national consistency in establishing this
important value, and therefore, is preferable to a provision allowing
the baseline period to be a variable number of years. Using a common
number of years and data points to calculate the baseline value for
each site is consistent with fundamental statistical principles and
will provide for easy comparison of data from multiple sites as the
program is implemented.
The EPA also concluded that it would be preferable to have a
baseline value based on more than 3 years in order to establish a more
robust baseline value. The EPA agrees with commenters that a 5-year
period, rather than a 3-year period, provides for a more stable
treatment of the inherent variability in emissions and meteorology.
This approach decreases the probability that the baseline period will
be unduly affected by unusual or nonrepresentative events.
In deciding upon the specific baseline period of 2000-2004, the
Agency took into account the fact that EPA has obtained funding to
provide several hundred monitors to the States for the purposes of
characterizing PM2.5 concentrations in urban and rural areas
nationally. In accordance with the part 58 monitoring provision
enabling IMPROVE protocol aerosol monitors to be used to characterize
PM2.5 conditions at background and transport sites, the
IMPROVE network will be expanding from 30 to more than 100 sites by the
end of 1999 in order to characterize both background PM2.5
levels and visibility impairment levels in Class I areas. Thus, EPA
concluded that the baseline period should begin in 2000, after
monitoring coverage for Class I areas is expanded significantly.
The approach to calculating baseline values will also provide for
more stable values because the frequency of monitoring samples in the
IMPROVE network will increase in 1999 to one sample every 3 days. In
this way, the frequency of sampling for IMPROVE will be consistent with
the PM2.5 monitoring approach. Thus, annual values should
become more robust since 17 percent more samples will be collected each
year. Baseline conditions must be determined in terms of deciviews for
the years 2000-2004 for the ``most impaired days'' and the ``least
impaired days.'' The final rule defines these values as the average of
the 20 percent of monitored days with the highest or lowest light
extinction values, expressed in deciviews. The EPA will issue guidance
for calculating baseline visibility conditions based on ambient
monitoring data. The baseline value is determined by calculating the
average deciview value for the 20 percent most (or least) impaired days
for each of the 5 years (2000 through 2004), and by averaging those
five values.
The final rule also calls for baseline conditions to be established
by the State for any Class I area without on-site monitoring by using
``representative'' monitoring data for the site. In the SIP, the State
will need to provide an adequate demonstration supporting the
[[Page 35729]]
use of any ``representative'' data. The EPA will issue guidance to help
the States address this issue. The IMPROVE Steering Committee
(comprised of representatives from EPA, States, and FLMs) is working to
develop acceptable criteria to configure the expanded visibility
monitoring network in such a way that virtually all Class I areas will
either have an aerosol monitor or will be characterized by a
``representative'' site. The IMPROVE Steering Committee, including
State representatives, will complete the process for identifying
representative sites before monitoring for the expanded network begins
in the year 2000. For this reason, it is expected that most States
needing to rely on representative data from another site will be able
to meet the requirement of section 51.308(d)(4) by referencing the
Visibility Monitoring Guidance Document, which will be released shortly
after promulgation of this rule, and other technical support materials
developed by the IMPROVE Steering Committee to support the
determination of representative sites.
Finally, States that submit SIPs for regional haze by 2003 under
section 51.309 (further discussion in unit IV) must determine baseline
conditions based on the most recent 5-year period for which monitoring
data are available for the Class I area. For an area without monitoring
data, the State may use data from another representative Class I area.
Natural Visibility Conditions
Proposal. The proposed rule called for each State having a Class I
area, in consultation with the appropriate FLMs, to: (1) Develop a
procedure to estimate natural conditions for the 20 percent most
impaired and least impaired days at each Class I area within the State;
and (2) provide this estimate with the State's first SIP revision for
regional haze (in the 2003-2005 timeframe as stated in the proposal).
The estimates for natural conditions would be expressed in deciviews.
The preamble cited as a default annual average, estimates of natural
visibility that were included in the 1991 NAPAP chapter on visibility.
When converted to deciview values, these annual average estimates are
9.6 deciviews in the Eastern United States and 5.3 deciviews in the
Western United States.
Comments received. A number of commenters noted that there are
several factors which can make the determination of natural conditions
difficult. For example, organic aerosols resulting from biogenic
sources, windblown dust, and natural causes of fire all contribute to
natural visibility conditions. Several commenters emphasized the
difficulty in determining the estimated contribution of naturally-
caused fire to natural conditions. Some commenters suggested that EPA
provide guidance on how to estimate natural conditions.
Final rule. The EPA understands that estimating natural visibility
conditions can involve many technically complex issues. The EPA is
committed to working with the States, tribes, and FLMs on this issue to
develop technical guidance on estimating natural visibility conditions.
The EPA expects that these estimates may be refined over time. In
addition, after the regional haze rule is promulgated, and in advance
of SIP due dates, EPA plans to revise the Interim Air Quality Policy on
Wildland and Prescribed Fires \74\ to address a number of issues,
including the contribution of fire to natural visibility conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed
Fires, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May
1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with the proposal, the final rule retains the
requirement that each State provide an adequate estimate of natural
visibility conditions for best and worst visibility days in each Class
I area within the State. These estimates will be due at the time the
State submits its initial control strategy SIP for regional haze.
However, because the requirement for a SIP revision within 12 months of
promulgation has been overridden by the provisions of TEA-21, there no
longer is a requirement for States to separately submit to EPA
recommended procedures for estimating natural conditions in advance of
their control strategy SIPs.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ See unit III.B. for a detailed discussion of the TEA-21
provisions and their affect on the timing for implementation of the
regional haze program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA recommends that the States work closely with the FLMs,
tribes, and EPA in developing and documenting in their SIPs appropriate
methods for estimating natural conditions. Estimates of natural
visibility conditions are needed to aid all interested parties,
including the general public, in understanding how ``close'' or ``far''
a particular Class I area is in relation to the ultimate goal of the
program. Understanding the estimated relative contributions of natural
PM constituents (such as organic carbon and crustal material) also can
help the States and tribes in understanding the extent of the
contribution from manmade components, and thus can help in designing
appropriate emission management strategies in the future. With each
subsequent SIP revision, the estimates of natural conditions for each
Class I area may be reviewed and revised as appropriate as the
technical basis for estimates of natural conditions improve.
The EPA believes that, as a starting point, it will be appropriate
to derive regional estimates of natural visibility conditions by using
estimates of natural levels of visibility-impairing pollutants \76\ in
conjunction with the IMPROVE methodology for calculating light
extinction from measurements of the five main components of fine
particle mass (sulfate, nitrate, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and
crustal material). By using this approach with appropriate assumptions
for annual average relative humidity, EPA estimates natural conditions
for the worst visibility days to be approximately 11-12 deciviews in
the east and 8 deciviews in the west. The EPA supports use of these
estimating techniques as a valid starting point because they rely on
peer-reviewed estimates of the natural composition of fine particle
mass,\77\ and analysis of data from the IMPROVE program's well-
established approach, refined over the past 10 years or more, for
calculating light extinction from monitored PM constituents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ See National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program. Acid
Deposition: State of Science and Technology. Report 24, Visibility:
Existing and Historical Conditions--Causes and Effects, Table 24-6.
Washington, DC. 1991.
\77\ The NAPAP estimates were cited in both the Criteria
Document and EPA Staff for the PM NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because these values are expressed in regional terms only, further
refinement of these estimates will need to take place in the future on
a site-specific basis. However, because current conditions at most
Class I areas with existing IMPROVE monitoring exceed the above
estimates by at least several deciviews (with some of the more impaired
Class I areas having values that exceed estimated natural conditions by
20 deciviews or more), EPA does not believe that such refined values
are necessary for the initial 10-year program implementation period. As
the difference between current and natural conditions for a particular
Class I area becomes smaller, it will be important to develop more
precise techniques for estimating natural conditions.
Current Conditions
Proposal. The proposed rule required the State to revise its long-
term strategy every 3 years and to compare current conditions to the
visibility conditions existing at the time of its previous long-term
strategy revision. Current conditions would be established for the most
impaired and least impaired days, and would be expressed in deciviews.
[[Page 35730]]
Comments received. Many commenters supported EPA's approach to
periodic tracking of changes in visibility to determine reasonable
progress. Some commenters felt that averaging 5 years of data, rather
than 3, would be preferable.
Final rule. Section 51.308(f)(1) of the final rule retains the
requirement for each State, at the time of any SIP revision, to
determine the current visibility conditions for the most impaired and
least impaired days for each Class I area within the State. Current
conditions are to be based on the 5 most recent years of monitoring
data available at the time a SIP revision or progress report is
submitted. The approach for calculating current conditions is similar
to the approach for calculating baseline conditions discussed above:
the value is determined by calculating the average for the 20 percent
most impaired days for each of the 5 most recent years for which
quality-assured data are available, and then by calculating the average
of those five values.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ See the section on Baseline Conditions for a discussion of
the rationale for selecting a 5-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sections 51.308(f)(1) and 51.308(g)(3) of the final rule also
require the State to calculate the difference between current
conditions and several other parameters so that this information can be
taken into account when the State is revising its SIP and considering
new reasonable progress goals. A discussion of these calculations is
provided in unit III.J of this preamble addressing periodic SIP
revisions and progress reports.
Summary
The following summary table further illustrates the uses of
``baseline,'' ``natural,'' and current conditions in the regional haze
program.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
How is it used in
Term What does it mean? the regional haze
program?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Baseline conditions''..... Visibility (in ``Baseline''
deciviews) for the conditions are used
20 percent most- in two ways:
impaired days, and (1) For the first
for the 20 percent regional haze SIPs,
least-impaired due in about 2006-
days, for the years 2008, baseline
2000 through 2004. conditions are the
reference point
against which
visibility
improvement is
tracked.
(2) For subsequent
SIP updates (in the
year 2018 and every
10 years
thereafter),
baseline conditions
are used to
calculate progress
from the beginning
of the regional
haze program.
``Natural conditions''...... The level of ``Natural
visibility (in conditions''
deciviews) for the represents the
20 percent most- absence of
impaired days, and visibility
for the 20 percent impairment due to
least-impaired human-caused
days, that would emissions, the
exist if there were ultimate goal of
no manmade the regional haze
impairment.. program.
``Current conditions''...... ``Visibility (in For the initial
deciviews) for the planning SIPs,
20 percent most- ``current'' and
impaired days, and ``baseline''
for the 20 percent conditions are the
least-impaired same.
days, for the most For subsequent 5-
recent 5-year year progress
period. reports, ``current
conditions''
describe the amount
of progress that
has been made at
the mid-course
review point
halfway through an
implementation
cycle.
For subsequent
comprehensive
regional haze SIPs
(beginning in 2018
and every 10 years
thereafter),
``current
conditions'' will
be used to show how
much progress has
been made relative
to the
``baseline,'' and
will serve as the
reference point for
tracking progress
for the next
implementation
period.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Reasonable Progress Goals
The previous section discussed three important visibility
parameters for tracking ``reasonable progress'' toward the national
visibility goal. In this section, EPA describes the requirements of
section 51.308(d)(1) of the final rule for States to establish
``reasonable progress goals'' for each Class I area within the State.
In addition, this section also discusses important analyses and other
factors for States to take into consideration in setting these goals.
Proposed rule. In the proposed rule, EPA presented a framework for
a long-term program under which continued progress would be achieved in
Class I areas toward the national visibility goal. The EPA proposed
presumptive ``reasonable progress targets,'' expressed in terms of
deciviews, for the purposes of improving visibility on the 20 percent
worst days and allowing no degradation of visibility on the 20 percent
best days. Two options were presented for the presumptive target for
the most impaired days: (1) A rate of improvement equivalent to 1.0
deciview over a 10-year period, and (2) a rate of improvement
equivalent to 1.0 deciview over a 15-year period. For the least
impaired days, EPA proposed a target of no degradation, defined as less
than a 0.1 deciview increase.
The EPA noted that the 10- and 15-year time periods for tracking
improvement were consistent with section 169A(b)(2)(B), which calls for
States to develop long-term strategies covering 10 to 15 years. The EPA
also emphasized the importance of achieving a perceptible change in
visibility over the time period of a long-term strategy. In addition,
EPA stated that gradual improvements in visibility as defined by
reasonable progress targets were consistent with the GCVTC definition
of reasonable progress, which is ``achieving continuous emissions
necessary to reduce existing impairment and attain steady improvement
of visibility in mandatory Class I areas.
[[Page 35731]]
* * *'' 79 As noted in unit III.C., EPA also proposed to
track progress in relation to the targets through the use of monitored
air quality data and calculation of light extinction values from this
aerosol data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ GCVTC Report, June 1996, p. x.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposal also provided a process by which a State could
establish alternate reasonable progress targets, expressed in
deciviews, provided the State justified the alternate target based on a
review of the relevant statutory factors.80 These factors
are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ See CA A section 169A(g)(1) and 169A(g)(2). See also 62 FR
41145-41148.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The costs of compliance;
The time necessary for compliance;
The energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of
compliance; and
The remaining useful life of any existing source subject
to such requirements.
Comments received. A number of commenters advocated a faster rate
of improvement than the proposed presumptive rate of 1 deciview every
10 or 15 years since, as proposed, they claimed it could take more than
200 years to reach the national visibility goal in some eastern
locations. They felt that this rate of progress should not be
considered ``reasonable.'' Many of these commenters supported a rate of
improvement for the worst days equal to 10-20 percent of the current
deciview value (i.e., 3-6 deciviews per 10 years in an average eastern
location with a worst day value of 30 deciviews, and 1.5-3.0 deciviews
for an average southwestern location with a worst day value of 15
deciviews). A number of other commenters interpreted the proposed rule
as requiring an inflexible visibility ``standard'' of 1 deciview
improvement every 10 or 15 years. They maintained that such a standard
would be infeasible to achieve in some areas of the country, and that
EPA had failed to justify such a presumption through an analysis of the
statutory factors in section 169A(g). These commenters wanted the
States to have greater flexibility in setting visibility goals. Some
commenters stated that 1 deciview is not the threshold of perception in
all situations, and that for this reason the one deciview presumptive
target in the proposal should be dropped. Other commenters asserted
that the no degradation target for the best visibility days would
prevent new source growth in some areas. Some commenters also opposed
the presumptive target because of the concern that a State could be
subject to a citizen lawsuit for not meeting a reasonable progress
target.
Final rule. In considering how to address the reasonable progress
target issue in the final rule, EPA was mindful of the balance that
must be maintained between the need for strategies that will achieve
meaningful improvements in air quality and the need to provide
appropriate flexibility for States in designing strategies that are
responsive to both air quality and economic concerns. After considering
the comments on the ``presumptive target'' issue, EPA has revised the
rule to eliminate ``presumptive targets.'' There is no presumptive
target that States are required to meet to achieve reasonable progress.
States have flexibility in determining their reasonable progress goals
based on consideration of the statutory factors. However, as discussed
below, the final rule requires States to conduct certain analyses to
ensure that they consider the possibility of setting an ambitious
reasonable progress goal, one that is aimed at reaching natural
background conditions in 60 years.
The final rule calls for States to establish ``reasonable progress
goals,'' 81 expressed in deciviews, for each Class I area
for the purpose of improving visibility on the haziest days and not
allowing degradation on the clearest days over the period of each
implementation plan or revision. The EPA believes that requiring States
to establish such goals is consistent with section 169A of the CAA,
which gives EPA broad authority to establish regulations to ``ensure
reasonable progress,'' and with section 169B of the CAA, which calls
for EPA to establish ``criteria for measuring reasonable progress''
toward the national goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ See section 51.308(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This approach is designed to address the concerns of those
commenters interested in greater State flexibility in setting
visibility goals, as well as the concerns of those commenters who
believed that the presumptive 1 deciview target approach could actually
provide a disincentive for some States to pursue more ambitious rates
of progress, particularly for the most impaired Class I areas in the
East. The EPA has taken this approach in the final rule because the CAA
national visibility goal and ``reasonable progress'' provisions do not
mandate specific rates of progress, but instead call for ``reasonable
progress'' toward the ultimate goal of returning to natural background
conditions. Today's final rule requires the States to determine the
rate of progress for remedying existing impairment that is reasonable,
taking into consideration the statutory factors, and informed by input
from all stakeholders.
Required analysis of rate of progress which would attain natural
conditions in sixty years. The EPA received numerous comments
expressing the concern that a rate of progress that would result in
reaching the national goal in 200 years should not be considered
``reasonable.'' These comments are based on the fact that the most
impaired Eastern United States Class I areas have current conditions
for the worst days (around 26-31 deciviews) that exceed estimated
natural conditions (approximately 10-12 deciviews) by 16-20 deciviews
or more. At the proposed presumptive rate of progress of 1 deciview per
10 years, it would take 200 years or more to reach the national
visibility goal in many Eastern Class I areas. In addition, several
commenters felt that rates of progress should vary between the east and
the west because many parts of the western United States have much
lower levels of visibility impairment than the east. For example, they
asserted that a 1 deciview improvement over 10 years may not be very
ambitious in an eastern location, whereas it could be very ambitious in
some of the least impaired Class I areas in the west.
In order to address the diverse concerns of commenters on the
proposal, EPA is establishing an analytical requirement that takes into
account the varying levels of visibility impairment in Class I areas
around the country while ensuring an equitable approach nationwide. To
determine an equitable analytical approach, we considered the CAA
amendments of 1990, which require actions to attain air quality health
standards over a 20-year period for the 1-hour ozone standard,
depending on the severity of the area's problem, and over a 10-year
period for new standards, such as the new 8-hour ozone standard and the
PM2.5 standards. The CAA also requires reductions over the
same time period to address acid rain. In the eastern United States,
EPA's analyses show that the reductions from these and other CAA
programs will result in a rate of improvement estimated at
approximately 3 deciviews over the period from the mid-1990's to about
2005.82 The EPA calculated that if this rate of improvement
could be sustained, these areas would reach the national goal in 60
years.83 The EPA
[[Page 35732]]
concluded that it would be reasonable to establish an analytical
requirement based on this rate of progress given that this rate of
improvement is expected to be achieved due to emissions under CAA
programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ U.S. EPA, Effects of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments on
Visibility in Class I Areas: An EPA Report to Congress. Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA-452/R-93-014, 1993.
\83\ Calculated by dividing 3 deciviews (per 10 years) into an
average of 18 deciviews away from natural conditions, and
multiplying 6 increments by 10 years, assuming 10 years to achieve
each increment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA also believes that the analytical requirement of the rate
of improvement needed to reach natural conditions in 60 years is
reasonable because in the near-term, cost-effective controls will
continue to be available to reduce emissions that contribute to
visibility impairment in Class I areas across the country. Recent
analyses for other air quality programs show that significant emissions
can be achieved through cost-effective control measures.
In addition, in the longer term, it can be expected that continued
progress in visibility will be possible as industrial facilities built
in the latter half of the 20th century reach the end of their ``useful
lives'' and are retired and/or replaced by cleaner, more fuel-efficient
facilities. Significant improvements in pollution prevention
techniques, emissions control technologies, and renewable energy have
been made over the past 30 years, and continue to be made. History
strongly suggests that further innovations in control technologies are
likely to continue in future decades, leading to the ability of new
plants to meet lower emissions rates.
In light of this analysis of progress that could potentially be
achieved, EPA has established in section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B) an
analytical requirement for setting reasonable progress goals that
should provide for greater equity between goals set for the more
impaired Eastern United States and the less impaired Western United
States. This analytical requirement has the following four steps.
First, the State (or regional planning group) must compare the
baseline visibility conditions in the years 2000-2004 (in deciviews)
for the most impaired days with the natural background conditions, for
each relevant Class I area. From this comparison, the State must
determine the amount of progress needed to reach natural background
conditions in 60 years, that is, by the year 2064. For example, if the
baseline visibility is 30 deciviews, and the natural background is 12
deciviews, then this step would show the need for an 18 deciview
improvement between 2004 and 2064.
Second, the State must identify the uniform rate of progress over
the 60 year period that would be needed to attain natural background
conditions by the year 2064. For the example case noted above, where 18
deciviews is the amount for the 60-year period, this would result in a
uniform rate of progress for each year of (18/60), or 0.3 deciviews for
a year.
Third, the State must identify the amount of progress that would
result if this uniform rate of progress were achieved during the period
of the first regional haze implementation plan. For example, if the
first implementation plan covers a 10-year period, then for the above
example, the State would identify a 3 deciview amount of progress over
that time period.
Fourth, the State must identify and analyze the emissions measures
that would be needed to achieve this amount of progress during the
period covered by the first long-term strategy, and to determine
whether those measures are reasonable based on the statutory factors.
These factors are the costs of compliance with the measures, the time
necessary for compliance with the measures, the energy and nonair
quality environmental impacts of the compliance with the measures, and
the remaining useful life of any existing source subject to the
measures.
In doing this analysis, the State must consult with other States
which are anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in the
Class I area under consideration. Because haze is a regional problem,
States are encouraged to work together to develop acceptable approaches
for addressing visibility problems to which they jointly contribute. If
a contributing State cannot agree with the State establishing the
reasonable progress goal, the State setting the goal must describe the
actions taken to resolve the disagreement.
If the State determines that the amount of progress identified
through the analysis is reasonable based upon the statutory factors,
the State should identify this amount of progress as its reasonable
progress goal for the first long-term strategy, unless it determines
that additional progress beyond this amount is also reasonable. If the
State determines that additional progress is reasonable based on the
statutory factors, the State should adopt that amount of progress as
its goal for the first long-term strategy.
If the State determines, based on the statutory factors, that the
identified uniform rate of progress needed to reach natural conditions
is not reasonable, the State must provide in its plan submission the
analysis and rationale supporting this determination. The State then
must provide a demonstration as part of its SIP submission showing why
a less ambitious goal is reasonable, based on the statutory factors.
The EPA intends to issue guidance interpreting the statutory factors
and providing examples of ways in which they may be applied.
The State must also provide to the public, in accordance with
section 51.308(d)(1)(ii), an assessment of the number of years it would
take to reach natural conditions if the State continued to make
progress at the alternative rate of progress it selected. For example,
if average worst day visibility at the class I area is 18 deciviews
from estimated natural conditions, the uniform rate of progress needed
to reach natural conditions is 3 deciviews per 10 years. If the State
determined that 3 deciviews is not reasonable but 2 deciviews is, then
the State would have to include a statement in its SIP that it would
take 90 years to reach natural conditions if this rate is maintained.
It should be noted that in developing the first regional haze
implementation plan (and subsequent revisions), there is a time period
of several years between the time period for which data are available
and the date of plan submission. The first regional haze implementation
plans for most of the United States will use the years 2000 through
2004 as the baseline for monitoring and emission inventories, while the
first implementation plan for much of the country will not be due until
a deadline that occurs between 2006 to 2008. In identifying the amount
of progress needed by the end of the implementation period (the third
step described above), States must account for this time period.
Assume, for example, for the case discussed above (i.e., a 30 deciview
baseline, and a uniform rate of progress of 0.3 deciviews per year to
reach natural conditions in 60 years) that the first regional haze SIPs
covers the years 2009 through the year 2018. For this case, there would
thus be a 4-year period (2005 through 2008) that would occur between
the baseline and the date of SIP submission. The uniform rate of
progress of 0.3 deciviews per year over this time period would result
in 1.2 deciviews of improvement before the plan submission. Hence, for
this example, in identifying the amount of progress needed between the
baseline and the end of the implementation period (i.e., the year
2018), the State must evaluate strategies that provide for a total of
4.2 deciviews: 1.2 deciviews between the last year of the baseline
period and plan submission, and 3 deciviews for the implementation
[[Page 35733]]
period. The effect of this provision is that States must be mindful of
the expected activities that take place before plan submission.
Generally, we expect for the first plan submission period that progress
in visibility improvement will continue to occur during the 2004 to
2008 period due to implementation of other CAA programs.
Rationale for the required 60-year analysis. The EPA has adopted
this analytical requirement for two reasons. First, a common analytical
framework that recognizes regional differences meets the concerns of
several commenters by providing greater equity between the Eastern
United States and Western United States.
Second, EPA believes this analysis will provide important
additional information for the public to consider as States establish
progress goals. The EPA believes this analysis will provide for a more
informed and equitable decision making process by giving the public
information about the level of emissions needed, related costs, and
other factors associated with improvements in visibility. The EPA
recommends that as part of this process, the States use computer-based
scene optics modeling tools to present to the general public the
anticipated change in Class I area visibility that would result from
one reasonable progress goal versus another.
Consideration of other CAA measures. In determining the emissions
and visibility improvement achieved during each implementation period,
States should include all air quality improvements that will be
achieved by other programs and activities under the CAA and any State
air pollution control requirements. Therefore, any reasonable progress
goal for a Class I area should reflect at least the rate of visibility
improvement expected from the implementation of other ``applicable
requirements'' under the CAA during the period covered by the long-term
strategy. Consequently, States must take into account, at a minimum,
the effect of measures to meet the NAAQS, the national mobile source
program, and other applicable requirements under the CAA on Class I
area visibility.
While, as noted above, based on our current understanding, EPA
expects in the eastern United States that the reductions from measures
implementing the CAA requirements will provide the visibility
improvement and emissions needed for reasonable progress during the
first regional haze implementation plan, EPA also recognizes that
States will not be submitting their regional haze plans for several
years. In developing its submittal, each State will need to conduct
analyses to support its reasonable progress goals according to
information available at the time the plan is submitted about benefits
from the existing CAA programs. Each State should set its goal(s)
taking into consideration input from its stakeholders and based on the
statutory factors described above. In addition, the State must also
conduct a BART determination for each source subject to BART as
required in section 51.308(e) of the rule and described in section
III.H. of the preamble. In considering whether reasonable progress will
continue to be maintained, States will need to consider during each new
SIP revision cycle whether additional control measures for improving
visibility may be needed to make reasonable progress based on the
statutory factors.
Some commenters expressed concern that the State would be subject
to sanctions or enforcement actions in the event that a State fails to
meet a reasonable progress target. As noted above, the reasonable
progress goal is a goal and not a mandatory standard which must be
achieved by a particular date as is the case with the NAAQS. Once a
State has adopted a reasonable progress goal and determined what
progress will be made toward that goal over a 10-year period, the goal
itself is not enforceable. All that is ``enforceable'' is the set of
control measures which the State has adopted to meet that goal. If the
State's strategies have been implemented but the State has not met its
reasonable progress goal, the State could either: (1) revise its
strategies in the SIP for the next long-term strategy period to meet
its goal, or (2) revise the reasonable progress goals for the next
implementation period. In either case, the State would be required to
base its decisions on appropriate analyses of the statutory factors
included in section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) and (B) of the final rule.
If a State fails to submit an approvable SIP, or if it fails to
implement and enforce strategies adopted into its SIP, the State could
be subject to sanctions under the CAA. If the State continues to fail
in meeting its obligations, EPA could be required to develop and
implement a Federal implementation plan (FIP).
Allowing no degradation for the best days. Some commenters
supported the goal of no degradation at a minimum, but they asserted
that in many Class I areas, particularly in the east, the ``best days''
are in fact still quite impaired. In their view, a rule requiring only
preservation of existing clean days would not meet the national
goal.84 Other commenters stated that a ``no degradation''
target for the clearest days could result in limitations to economic
growth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ Data from the IMPROVE network show that for several sites
in the Eastern United States, the deciview values for the best days
are greater than 14 deciviews, which is higher than even the NAPAP
estimate of annual average conditions in the Eastern United States
(9.6 deciviews).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final rule maintains the approach used in the proposed rule,
which established a goal of no degradation for the best visibility
days. The EPA believes this approach is consistent with the national
goal in that it is designed to prevent future impairment, a fundamental
concept of section 169A of the CAA. The EPA recognizes that the best
days are still impaired in many Class I area locations, particularly in
the east. The EPA encourages States to evaluate monitoring data to
determine whether the same types of sources are affecting both the
clear days and the hazy days. If the relative contribution of different
particle types to light extinction is similar for both clear and hazy
days, as it is for many sites currently monitored, then by developing
strategies to improve conditions on the worst visibility days, the
States will likely improve the entire distribution of hazy and clear
days. Thus, under the final rule, the clean days for most Class I areas
are expected to improve over time. Indeed, recent analyses of
visibility trends have shown that at many Class I areas, deciview
values for the 20 percent least impaired days are declining.
If at a Class I area the average conditions for clear days degrades
over time, the State must provide in the next plan revision an
explanation of why this happened, a set of measures designed to reverse
this trend, and a plan for implementation during the next 10-year
period. The State should review the effectiveness of these measures in
subsequent 5-year progress reviews.
Integral vistas. The scenic vistas enjoyed by visitors to many
parks often extend to important natural features outside these parks.
The 1980 rules included a provision whereby the States could identify
specific vistas for protection. For this reason, EPA solicited comment
on whether the integral vistas concept should be extended to the
regional haze program.
Some commenters supported reopening the vista identification
program because such vistas are a significant resource of a Class I
area. Several others opposed extending the program for a variety of
reasons.
[[Page 35734]]
The final regional haze rule does not extend the integral vista
concept to the regional haze program. As noted earlier in the
background section of this preamble, regional haze is caused by a
multitude of sources across a broad geographic area, and it can create
a uniform haze in all directions. The regional haze program is designed
to bring about improvements in regional visibility for the range of
possible views of sky and terrain found in any Class I area.
Accordingly, the program does not protect only specific views from a
Class I area. To address haze, regional strategies will be needed, and
emissions resulting from these strategies are expected to improve
visibility across a broad region, not just within a Class I area. Thus,
although the regional haze program does not include a specific
provision regarding integral vistas, the long-term strategies developed
to meet reasonable progress goals would also serve to improve scenic
vistas viewed from and within Class I areas.
Use of 20 percent most-impaired days and 20 percent least-impaired
days. The final rule maintains the approach discussed in the proposal
of improving the most-impaired visibility days (i.e., the average of
the 20 percent most impaired days over an entire year), and allowing no
degradation in the ``cleanest'' or least impaired days (i.e., the
average of the 20 percent least impaired days over an entire year). In
deciding upon an appropriate characterization of the ``most'' and
``least'' impaired days, EPA considered the typical frequency of
aerosol monitoring in the IMPROVE network 85 (once every 3
days), and the number of samples that would be available for analysis
annually (122 possible samples per year). The EPA believes that
calculating annual ``best'' and ``worst'' conditions on the basis of an
average of the 20 percent best and worst visibility days represents a
reasonable approach to characterizing the typical best and worst
conditions without having these values unduly influenced by a single
anomalous data point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ The IMPROVE network is described in unit III.I. of the
preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA's basis for maintaining the proposed approach is supported
by the CAA and its legislative history, and by the approach used by the
GCVTC in its technical assessment work and in its definition of
reasonable progress. The EPA believes that a rule that requires
strategies for improving the worst days and allowing no degradation on
the clean days is consistent with the national visibility goal in
section 169A of the CAA, which calls for preventing any future
impairment (protecting clearest days) and remedying any existing
impairment (improving the already impaired days). This approach is also
supported by the legislative history of the 1990 CAA and the reasonable
progress definition. The legislative history provides that, ``At a
minimum, progress and improvement must require that visibility be
perceptibly improved compared to periods of impairment, and that it not
be degraded or impaired during conditions that historically contribute
to relatively unimpaired visibility.'' 86 The GCVTC
interpreted ``reasonable progress'' to be ``achieving continuous
emissions reductions necessary to reduce existing impairment and attain
a steady improvement in visibility in mandatory Class I areas, and
managing emissions growth so as to prevent perceptible degradation of
clear air days.'' 87 In today's final rule, EPA is similarly
providing for ``attaining a steady improvement in visibility'' and
``preventing degradation of clean air days'' through the requirement to
improve the haziest days and prevent degradation of the clearest days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ 136 Cong. Rec. S2878 (daily ed. March 21, 1990) (statement
of Sen. Adams).
\87\ GCVTC Report, p. x.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tracking progress based on 5-year averages. To determine whether
reasonable progress in improving visibility is being achieved, States
will need to collect and analyze air quality data each year and review
progress at 5-year intervals. Because the regional haze program
represents a long-term effort to improve visibility in Class I areas,
EPA believes that monitoring and assessments of progress should not be
unduly influenced by short-term events or unusual meteorological
conditions, but should reflect trends in air quality which are robust
and insensitive to minor fluctuations. For this reason, the final rule
calls for measuring progress by tracking changes in 5-year average
deciview values for the haziest and clearest days, and comparing these
current conditions against baseline conditions as well as impairment
levels at the time of the last SIP revision. (See unit III.E above for
further discussion about establishing baseline and current conditions
based on 5-year averages.)
G. Long-Term Strategy
Proposed rule. Under Section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA, EPA's
visibility regulations must require States to include in their SIPs
``such emission limitations schedules of compliance and other measures
as may be necessary to make reasonable progress toward meeting the
national goal specified in * * * [section 169A(a)] * * *'' In section
169A(b)(2)(B), the CAA requires that these SIPs must include a ``long-
term (ten to fifteen years) strategy for making reasonable progress
toward meeting the national goal.'' The EPA interprets the term ``long-
term strategy'' as the control measures that are needed to ensure
reasonable progress, together with a demonstration that those measures
will provide for reasonable progress during the 10 to 15 year period.
The proposed rule required the State to develop a long-term strategy
for regional haze with the initial regional haze SIP, and to provide
for regular updates. (Issues regarding updates of the long-term
strategy are discussed below in unit III.J).
The proposal also required States to consider a specific list of
factors when they developed their long-term strategies for regional
haze. Under the proposal, in developing long-term strategies for
regional haze, States would be required to consider the six items
listed in section 51.306(e) of the 1980 rule, and the five items listed
in section 51.306(g) of the 1980 rule. We proposed to add a seventh
item to section 51.306(e), ``the anticipated effect on visibility due
to projected changes in point, area and mobile source emissions over
the next 10 years.''
Comments received. Public commenters on the long-term strategy
requirement expressed concerns that the proposed rule had over-
emphasized stationary source contributions, and had under-emphasized
contributions from minor sources, area sources, mobile sources and
prescribed fires. Other commenters expressed concerns that control
strategies would be ineffective in cases where contributions from
international sources were causing visibility impairment. Commenters
also emphasized that States be able to take credit in their long-term
strategies for the effects of existing CAA programs. We did not receive
any comments on the specific list of factors to consider in developing
long-term strategies.
Final rule. As discussed further below in unit III.J of today's
notice, the final rule requires control strategies to cover an initial
implementation period extending to the year 2018, with a reassessment
and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every 10 years. The
final rule, in section 51.308(d)(3), includes a requirement for
regional haze SIPs to include a long-term strategy. The long-term
strategy must include specific enforceable measures that are sufficient
to meet the ``reasonable progress goals'' for all Class
[[Page 35735]]
I areas affected by emissions from the State.
Multistate contributions--requirements for consultation and
apportionment. As noted in section 51.308(d)(3)(i), when a State's
emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to
impairment in a Class I area located in another State or States, the
rule requires that the State consult with the other State or States in
order to develop coordinated emission management strategies. Regarding
the Class I areas within the State, section 51.308(d)(3)(i) also
requires States to consult with any other State having emissions that
are reasonably anticipated to contribute to impairment in any Class I
area within the State.
For Class I areas where the State and other States cause or
contribute to impairment in a mandatory Class I area, section
51.308(d)(3)(ii) requires that the State must demonstrate that it has
included in its implementation plan all measures necessary to obtain
its share of the emissions needed to meet the progress goal for the
area. Section 51.308(d)(3)(iii) requires that States must document the
technical basis, including modeling, monitoring and emissions
information, that it uses to determine its apportionment of emission
reduction obligations for the Class I areas the State affects. It is
important that EPA and stakeholders understand the modeling, monitoring
and emission information that the State used to support its conclusion
that the long-term strategy provides for reasonable progress.
The EPA expects that much of the consultation, apportionment
demonstrations, and technical documentation will be facilitated and
developed by regional planning organizations. We expect, and encourage,
these efforts to develop a common technical basis and apportionment for
long-term strategies that could be approved by individual State
participants, and translated into regional haze SIPs for submission to
EPA. While States are not bound by the results of a regional planning
effort, nor can the content of their SIPs be dictated by a regional
planning body, we expect that a coordinated regional effort will likely
produce results the States will find beneficial in developing their
regional haze implementation plans. Any State choosing not to follow
the recommendations of a regional body would need to provide a specific
technical basis that its strategy nonetheless provides for reasonable
progress based on the statutory factors. At the same time, EPA cannot
require States to participate in regional planning efforts if the State
prefers to develop a long-term strategy on its own. We note that any
State that acts alone in this regard must conduct the necessary
technical support to justify their apportionment, which generally will
require regional inventories and a regional modeling analysis.
Additionally, any such State must consult with other States before
submitting its long-term strategy to EPA.
Consideration of all anthropogenic sources. In the final rule, we
have clarified in section 51.308(d)(3)(iv) that the State should
consider all types of anthropogenic sources including stationary,
minor, mobile, and area sources in developing its long-term strategy.
The State should review all such sources in identifying the emission
reduction measures to be included in the strategy. In addition, we
provide the following points of clarification:
Minor sources. Because of the focus of the BART provision on major
stationary sources, EPA believes that commenters may have the
impression that EPA has concluded that minor sources with emissions,
below the BART cutoff of 250 tons per year, are not significant
contributors to regional haze. This is not the case. The EPA believes
that States should take the cumulative emissions from minor sources
into account in developing their regional haze long-term strategies.
For example, if growth in minor source emissions for a particular
category had a substantial impact on emission trends and a
corresponding effect on regional haze in a given geographic area,
States should consider emission control strategies for such source
categories as part of their long-term strategies.
Mobile sources. In cases where pollutants emitted by mobile sources
contribute to regional haze, States must include in their SIPs mobile
source emissions inventories representing current conditions, as well
as comparisons of those emissions with future emissions projected for
the end of the covered by the long-term strategy. It will be
particularly important for States to address the effects of population
growth and accompanying increases in vehicle miles traveled on their
ability to provide for reasonable progress. The EPA agrees with
commenters that national mobile source emission standards also will be
an important factor in projecting mobile source emissions. The EPA
intends to support States in their efforts to estimate mobile source
emissions (including the effects of Federal rules) of pollutants that
lead to regional haze.
Area sources. States also need to develop emission inventories and
conduct analyses to understand the importance of area sources. For
example, the GCVTC report cited emissions from road dust as a possible
contributor to impairment. Depending on the nature of the visibility
problem, road dust and other area sources may at times make a
significant contribution to visibility impairment. States should
include area sources in emission inventories and control strategy
analyses as warranted.
Fire. Commenters expressed a number of concerns with respect to the
appropriate consideration of emissions from fire in the development of
long-term strategies.
The EPA notes that fire emissions have both a natural and a manmade
component. In addressing fire emissions in long-term strategies, EPA
believes that States must take into account the degree to which fire
emissions cause or contribute to ``manmade'' visibility impairment and
its contribution to natural background conditions. Reducing ``manmade''
visibility impairment is the focus of sections 169A and 169B of the
CAA. The EPA recognizes the natural role of fire in forest ecosystems,
and the fact that forest fuels have built up over many years due to
past management practices designed to protect public health and safety
through fire suppression. Research has shown that these practices have
led to an increased risk of catastrophic wildfire as well as reduced
forest health. In response to this situation, the Federal land
management agencies, as well as some States and private landowners,
have recommended the increased use of prescribed fire in order to
return certain forest ecosystems to a more natural fire cycle and to
reduce the risk of adverse health and environmental impacts due to
catastrophic wildfire.
The EPA also recognizes that fire of all kinds (wildfire,
prescribed fire, etc.) contributes to regional haze, and that there is
a complex relationship between what is considered a natural source of
fire versus a human-caused source of fire. For example, the increased
use of prescribed fire in some ecosystems may lead to PM emissions
levels lower than those that would be expected from catastrophic
wildfire. Given that the purpose of prescribed fire in many instances
is to restore natural fire cycles to forest ecosystems, it would be
appropriate to consider some portion of prescribed fire as ``natural.''
Consequently, in determining natural background for a Class I area, EPA
believes States should be permitted to consider some amount of fire in
the calculation to reflect the fact that some
[[Page 35736]]
prescribed fire effects serve merely to offset what would be expected
to occur naturally. The EPA will work with the FLMs, States and other
stakeholders to develop guidance on ways in which fire can be
considered in the determination of natural background, and in the
determination baseline and current conditions.
Commenters asserted that in the proposed rule, EPA ignored the
contribution of fires and thus overlooked the most important haze-
contributing emission source in many Class I areas. The EPA agrees that
fire is an important emission source to include in the analysis, but
current data do not show that fire is the predominant source of
visibility impairment in any Class I area. Annual data from the IMPROVE
network show that elemental carbon (which we generally use as the main
indicator of emissions from fire and other combustion sources such as
diesel emissions), accounts for only about 3-7 percent of
PM2.5 mass on the worst visibility days in eastern sites. In
western sites, elemental carbon accounts for about 4-7 percent of total
PM2.5 mass on the worst days. The contribution from fires
can be substantial over short-term periods, but fires occur relatively
infrequently and thus have a lower contribution to long-term averages.
Fire events making substantial contributions to haze in a given Class I
area have occurred relatively infrequently, and as a practical matter
will contribute less than sources for which emissions are more
continuous. As noted previously, the final rule requires States to
develop long-term strategies for regional haze that address 5-year
averages of the 20 percent worst days. These 5-year averages will also
be used in evaluating monitoring results. The frequency with which
fires occur will effect the importance of their emissions on predicted
future 5-year averages for visibility conditions on the 20 percent
worst days.
Commenters expressed concerns with the expected increase in
emissions from prescribed burning on Federal lands. Specifically, the
commenters asserted that States would not be able to address emission
increases from these prescribed burns, and that stationary sources
would be required to compensate for the increased amount.
The EPA believes these commenters are mistaken in their view of
State's authority to address emissions from prescribed Federal burns.
Pursuant to section 118 of the CAA, when States impose requirements on
sources, Federal agencies must comply with those requirements in the
same manner, and to the same extent, as any nongovernmental entity.
States therefore have the authority to address emissions from
prescribed Federal burns in the same manner, and to the same extent,
they regulate prescribed fires generally. Additionally, to the degree
that States determine in the development of long-range strategies that
the manmade component of fire is a significant contributor to regional
haze, States have a substantial degree of flexibility under the CAA and
in the final rule. The final rule provides States flexibility in
determining the amount of progress that is ``reasonable'' in light of
the statutory factors, and also provides flexibility to determine the
best mix of strategies to meet the reasonable progress goal they
select. Nothing in the final rule requires States to develop long-term
strategies that reduce emissions from other sources by amounts
equivalent to any increases from the manmade fraction of prescribed
fires. We do expect that States consider and analyze the full range of
available control measures and that they consider the causes of
visibility impairment when evaluating the potential measures to include
in their long-term strategies.
The EPA encourages the development of smoke management programs
between air regulators and land managers as a means to manage the
impacts of wildland and prescribed burning. The sources of information
described above, as well as other developmental efforts currently
underway, provide effective, flexible approaches to smoke management.
Where smoke impacts from fire are identified as an important
contributor to regional haze, smoke management programs should be a key
component of regional and State regional haze planning efforts and
long-term strategies.
There are a number of sources of information on mitigation
approaches for fire emissions, including: (1) The EPA Interim Air
Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Burning, (2) fire-related
strategies developed by the GCVTC and (3) the best available control
methods (BACM) document for prescribed burning. In the Interim Air
Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Burning, EPA, in
collaboration with a national stakeholder group comprised of Federal,
State, and private land managers, State air regulators, environmental
groups, tribes, and others, developed a framework for managing the
impacts of smoke from increased prescribed fire programs across the
country. This policy describes the elements and process of smoke
management planning that air regulators and land managers can use to
reach agreement on development of smoke programs. The GCVTC included a
number of long-term strategies for fire in its report and
recommendations, including emissions tracking and emission goals for
fire, smoke management programs, and full consideration for
alternatives to fire. The GCVTC's strategy is illustrative of the
available mitigation approaches for emissions from fire that other
States may consider. The GCVTC's approach is contained in section
51.309(d)(6) of the final rule and discussed further in unit IV.C of
this notice. The BACM document, Prescribed Burning Background Document
and Technical Information Document, EPA-450/2-92-003, is organized to
discuss various aspects of State smoke management programs. The
document includes information on how States administer and enforce
programs for burn/no-burn days, and information on various topics
including emission inventories, cost estimation, and public information
programs.
Transboundary emissions from sources outside the United States.
Some Class I areas located near international borders are particularly
prone to influence by emissions beyond the United States border.
Commenters expressed concerns that EPA should take into account that
States are not able to control international sources in reviewing a
State's proposal for a reasonable progress target. Additionally,
commenters urged EPA to work with Mexico and Canada to reduce emissions
from sources that States determine to be significant contributors to
regional haze in their Class I areas.
The EPA agrees that the projected emissions from international
sources will in some cases affect the ability of States to meet
reasonable progress goals. The EPA does not expect States to restrict
emissions from domestic sources to offset the impacts of international
transport of pollution. We believe that States should evaluate the
impacts of current and projected emissions from international sources
in their regional haze programs, particularly in cases where it has
already been well documented that such sources are important. At the
same time, EPA will work with the governments of Canada and Mexico to
seek cooperative solutions on transboundary pollution problems.
Factors to consider for long-term strategies. In section
51.308(d)(3)(v) (A) through (G) in the final rule, we have incorporated
a list of seven factors that States must consider in developing long-
term strategies. The final rule
[[Page 35737]]
includes six factors in the July 1997 proposal that are derived from
section 51.306(e) of the existing rule, and the additional item, ``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'' that was specifically added by the July 1997
proposal. We have decided not to include the five proposed items that
are derived from section 51.306(g), because four of these items are
included on the list of ``reasonable progress'' factors in section
51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) of the final rule, and because we believe that the
fifth factor ``effect of new sources'' is part of ``projected changes
in point source emissions.''
In their regional haze SIP submissions, States must describe how
each of these seven factors is taken into account in developing long-
term strategies. We believe it is useful to clarify several of these
factors, and EPA's expectations on how SIPs can address them.
Item (A): Emissions due to ongoing air pollution control programs,
including measures to address reasonably attributable visibility
impairment.
It is expected that for some areas of the country, such as parts of
the eastern United States, emissions achieved for the acid rain program
and for meeting the PM2.5 NAAQS, will lead to substantial
improvements in visibility as well. Item (A) makes clear that States
must take these other emissions into account in developing their long-
term strategies for regional haze. We expect that some States may be
able to demonstrate reasonable progress based on these emissions alone,
particularly for the first 10-year period.
Item (B): Measures to mitigate the impacts of construction
activities.
Item (B) requires that in developing long-term strategies, States
must consider the impacts of construction activities. States, for
example, should include these activities in emission inventories used
for long-term strategy development.
Item (C): Additional measures and limitations and schedules for
compliance to achieve the reasonable progress goal.
Where emissions from ongoing requirements, addressed by item (A),
are not sufficient to achieve the reasonable progress goal, States must
identify additional measures that will ensure that the goal will be
met. Schedules for compliance for these additional measures must be
included in the SIP, and measures considered for inclusion must be
identified in the SIP submission.
Item (D): Source retirement and replacement schedules.
Item (D) requires the consideration of source retirement and
replacement schedules in developing the long-term strategies,
particularly, where these schedules would have a significant impact on
regional emission loadings and on a State's ability to achieve
reasonable progress.
Item (E): Smoke management techniques for agricultural and forestry
management purposes including plans as they currently exist within the
State for these purposes.
Item (E) highlights the widely recognized importance of prescribed
burning programs on regional haze. Issues related to fire and forestry
management practices are discussed above.
Item (F): Enforceability of emissions limitations and control
measures.
States must ensure that control measures are written in a way that
EPA and citizens may enforce as a practical matter. Guidance on
practical enforceability issues is readily available in EPA policy
guidance memoranda, for example Guidance on Limiting Potential to Emit
in New Source Permitting, June 13, 1989.
Item (G): The anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected
changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the next 10
years.
Item (G) requires that States must address the anticipated net
effect on visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and
mobile source emissions over the next 10 years when developing
emissions strategies that will meet the reasonable progress
requirements. In some areas, these changes in emissions would be
expected primarily from population growth, while in others, emissions
changes may result from potential new industrial, energy, natural
resource development, or land management activities. These changes in
emissions would also include the changes due to measures developed
specifically for the regional haze program.
Relationship to long-term strategies under the existing rule. The
final rule provides for coordination of the long-term strategies to
address regional haze impairment with any existing long-term strategies
under the 1980 visibility rule. Some long-term strategies are already
in place to address reasonably attributable visibility impairment under
the existing 1980 regulation. Coordination of the two programs is
addressed in section 51.306(c) of the final rule. This section
clarifies two points. First, that the provisions of existing long-term
strategies will continue to apply until regional haze strategies are in
place. Second, once the first regional haze strategy is in place, the
final rule, in section 51.306(c) requires the State to develop a
coordinated long-term strategy which address both reasonably
attributable impairment and regional haze.
H. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
Background. One of the principal elements of the visibility
protection provisions of the CAA is the provision in section 169A
addressing the installation of BART for certain existing sources. The
conference committee report accompanying the 1977 CAA amendments
indicates that a major concern motivating the adoption of the
visibility provisions was ``the need to remedy existing pollution in
the Federal mandatory class I areas from existing sources.''
88 The BART provision in section 169A(b)(2)(A) demonstrates
Congress' intention to focus attention directly on the problem of
pollution from a specific set of existing sources. This provision
provides that EPA's regulations to protect visibility must require
States to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be
necessary to make reasonable progress toward the national visibility
goal, including a requirement that certain existing stationary sources
procure, install, and operate the ``best available retrofit
technology.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ H.R. Rep. No. 564, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. at 155 (1977)
(emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CAA defines the sources potentially subject to BART as major
stationary sources, including reconstructed sources, from one of 26
identified source categories which have the potential to emit 250 tons
per year or more of any air pollutant, and which were placed into
operation between August 1962 and August 1977.89 This set of
sources potentially subject to BART was defined in the 1977 CAA and
will not be modified by rule. The 26 source categories are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ See CAA sections 169A (b)(2)(A) & (g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Fossil-fuel fired steam electric plants of more than 250
million British thermal units per hour heat input,
(2) Coal cleaning plants (thermal dryers),
(3) Kraft pulp mills,
(4) Portland cement plants,
(5) Primary zinc smelters,
(6) Iron and steel mill plants,
(7) Primary aluminum ore reduction plants,
(8) Primary copper smelters,
(9) Municipal incinerators capable of charging more than 250 tons
of refuse per day,
[[Page 35738]]
(10) Hydrofluoric, sulfuric, and nitric acid plants,
(11) Petroleum refineries,
(12) Lime plants,
(13) Phosphate rock processing plants,
(14) Coke oven batteries,
(15) Sulfur recovery plants,
(16) Carbon black plants (furnace process),
(17) Primary lead smelters,
(18) Fuel conversion plants,
(19) Sintering plants,
(20) Secondary metal production facilities,
(21) Chemical process plants,
(22) Fossil-fuel boilers of more than 250 million British thermal
units per hour heat input,
(23) Petroleum storage and transfer facilities with a capacity
exceeding 300,000 barrels,
(24) Taconite ore processing facilities,
(25) Glass fiber processing plants, and
(26) Charcoal production facilities.
In section 51.301(e) of the 1980 visibility regulations, a source
meeting the above criteria was defined as an ``existing stationary
facility.'' In today's regional haze rule, EPA has added the definition
of a ``BART-eligible source'' in section 51.301(hh) that is identical
to the definition of ``existing stationary facility.'' This new
definition is used throughout the regional haze rule and preamble in
order to avoid the potential misinterpretation of the ``existing
stationary facility'' definition as representing a collection of
sources broader than the subset of sources potentially subject to BART.
The regulations issued in 1980 define BART as ``an emission
limitation based on the degree of reduction achievable through the
application of the best system of continuous emission reduction for
each pollutant which is emitted'' by a BART eligible
facility.90 The BART emission limitation must be
established, on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the
following factors:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ Section 51.301(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The technology available,
The costs of compliance,
The energy and nonair environmental impacts of compliance,
Any pollution control equipment in use at the source,
The remaining useful life of the source, and
The degree of improvement in visibility which may
reasonably be anticipated from the use of such technology.91
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA published guidelines in 1980 which outline the general
procedures for States to follow in analyzing sources and establishing
BART emission limits.92 These guidelines apply to situations
in which visibility impairment in the Class I area is determined to be
``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or a small group of
sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ See EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Guidelines for Determining Best Available Retrofit Technology for
Coal-Fired Power Plants and Other Existing Stationary Facilities,
EPA-450/3-80-009b, November 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed rule. The proposed regional haze rule discussed a process
for addressing BART in the context of regional haze and requested
comment on how the requirement should be implemented. The first step in
this process was a requirement that the State identify all sources
potentially subject to BART early in the planning process. The second
step required the State to submit a plan and schedule for evaluating
BART and the corresponding potential emissions for those existing
sources which may reasonably be anticipated to contribute to regional
haze visibility impairment. The notice proposed to provide 3 years for
completing this evaluation so that the results could be taken into
consideration by States as they develop coordinated strategies for
attaining the PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS.
In setting out the proposed approach to the BART requirement, EPA
proposed that the test for determining whether a BART-eligible source
``may reasonably be anticipated to contribute'' to regional haze should
be evaluated in the context of the overall emissions reduction
strategy. The EPA also noted that it believed that a similar approach
should be taken in addressing ``the degree of improvement in visibility
which may reasonably be anticipated'' from the imposition of BART
controls. The EPA proposed a cumulative approach because of the nature
of the regional haze problem (i.e., the cumulative product of emissions
from many sources over a broad area) and because of the time and
expense necessary to try to determine, one source at a time, the
percentage contribution of each BART-eligible source to regional haze.
In addition, EPA noted the substantial technical difficulties
associated with estimating the degree of visibility improvement
resulting from a single source. The EPA broadly requested comments on
effective approaches for States and sources to meet the BART
requirement under the regional haze program in the most appropriate
manner, and in particular how BART, once determined, should be
implemented.
Comments received. Commenters identified a number of issues
concerning how EPA should address the BART requirement under the
regional haze program. Some commenters asserted that the BART
requirement simply should not apply under the regional haze program.
These commenters argued that the procurement, installation, and
operation of BART is not explicitly required under section 169B, and
that section 169B is the primary statutory authority for the regional
haze program. Other opponents of the BART requirement contended that
the proposal placed too much emphasis on stationary sources, and on
BART sources in particular, as opposed to other sources of visibility-
impairing pollutant emissions, such as mobile and area sources. The
commenters contended that BART should not be the principal control
strategy employed under the regional haze program.
Another group of commenters supported EPA's proposed approach for
addressing the BART requirement. Some pointed out that while existing
stationary sources are not the only contributors to regional haze,
controlling these sources is an essential element of a national
regional haze program. These commenters also supported the approach of
evaluating BART-eligible sources collectively to determine their
overall contribution to visibility impairment within a given airshed.
Several commenters recommended that BART be equivalent to, or more
stringent than, new source performance standards (NSPS) for sulfur
dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Some commenters suggested allowing an
emissions cap-and-trade program to meet the BART requirement. One
commenter described a process whereby States would conduct an
assessment of the availability of retrofit controls for all BART-
eligible sources in a region, calculate the cumulative emissions
possible from application of BART to eligible sources, establish a cap
for each visibility-reducing pollutant, and implement a 10-year program
to achieve emissions equivalent to the emissions cap.
Response to comments. The EPA disagrees with the commenters who
argued that the BART requirements should not apply to the regional haze
program. The statutory authority for developing a regional haze program
emanates from section 169A of the CAA, and any SIPs that are to be
developed under a regional haze program must include provisions that
meet the requirements of this section, including the requirement that
certain sources procure, install, and operate BART.
[[Page 35739]]
Since 1977, section 169A of the CAA has authorized EPA to address
regional haze. Section 169A(a)(1) of the CAA establishes as the
national visibility protection goal ``the prevention of any future, and
the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in Class I
areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' Visibility
impairment is defined broadly in the CAA and includes that caused by
regional haze.93 This language does not distinguish between
reasonably attributable impairment and regional haze, but provides for
visibility protection generally. This reading of the statute is
consistent with the legislative history; in adopting section 169A,
Congress evinced its intent to address impairment caused by ``hazes''
and the potential corresponding need to control a ``variety of
sources'' and ``regionally distributed sources.'' 94 While
EPA deferred addressing regional haze in 1980 when it promulgated the
first phase of visibility regulations, it did so because of technical
obstacles, not because of a limitation on its legal
authority.95 Indeed, in the 1980 rule, EPA expressed its
intent to address regional haze in a future rulemaking under section
169A. Thus, EPA's decision to address visibility impairment in separate
phases does not change the fact that the BART requirement is an
integral part of the statutory scheme in section 169A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ See CAA section 169A(g)(6); see also Maine v. Thomas, 874
F.2d.883, 885 (1st Cir. 1989) (``EPA's mandate to control the vexing
problem of regional haze emanates directly'' from CAA section 169A).
\94\ H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 204 (1977).
\95\ 45 FR 80084 (Dec. 2, 1980).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The provisions in section 169B of the CAA, adopted in 1990, do not
override EPA's statutory authority to require State plans to remedy
regional haze. These provisions grew out of Congress' frustration that
EPA had not more expeditiously addressed regional haze under its
section 169A delegated rulemaking authority. Thus, section 169B(e)
explicitly requires EPA to carry out its ``regulatory responsibilities
under section [169A]'' within a set time period. The legislative
history confirms that Congress did not intend section 169B to impinge
upon EPA's long-standing authority to address regional haze visibility
impairment,96 including the authority to require BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ See 136 Cong. Rec. S2878 (daily ed. March 21, 1990)
(statement of Sen. Adams) (``[t]he authority to establish visibility
transport regions and commissions is a supplement to the
administrators [sic] obligation under current law. * * * The
Administrator may not delay requirements under section 169A because
of the appointment of a commission for a region under section
169B'') (daily ed. Oct. 26, 1990) (statement of Rep. Wyden)
(``[n]either the original House language nor the Senate language
adopted in conference repealed or lessened EPA's obligations under
the 1977 law'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA believes that commenters asserting that EPA overemphasized
the control of stationary sources and, in particular, the role of BART
in the regional haze program misinterpreted the proposal. The EPA did
not intend to emphasize controls on BART-eligible sources over, or to
the exclusion of, other sources. While the BART requirement is limited
to a specified population of major stationary sources, States will need
to consider measures addressing a wide range of sources and activities,
including mobile sources, area sources, activities involving fire, and
other major and non-major stationary point sources in their long-term
strategies. The unit on long-term strategies includes further
discussion of this point.
Final Rule. The final rule requires each implementation plan to be
revised to contain two basic elements related to BART. The first is the
requirement that the States submit a list of the ``BART-eligible
sources'' in the State. Second, the State must determine and include in
the plan the ``best available retrofit technology,'' taking into
account certain factors identified in section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA,
for each BART-eligible source in the State reasonably anticipated to
cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility.
In recognition of the control and cost efficiencies that can be
achieved through trading programs and other alternative measures, EPA
is providing States with the opportunity to adopt alternative measures
in lieu of BART where such measures would achieve even greater
reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal. The
overarching requirement of the visibility protection provisions of
section 169A is to make reasonable progress toward the national goal of
eliminating visibility impairment. If greater reasonable progress can
be made through an approach that does not require source specific
application of BART, EPA believes that approach would comport with this
statutory goal. The EPA reached this conclusion in determining the
appropriate measures to address visibility impairment in the Grand
Canyon National Park resulting from the Navajo Generating
Station.97 In that case, EPA ultimately chose not to adopt
the emission control limits indicated by its BART
analysis.98 Instead, as explained by the Ninth Circuit in
upholding EPA's final decision, EPA acted within its discretion in
adopting an alternative emission control standard ``that would produce
greater visibility improvement at a lower cost. Congress's use of the
term `including' in [section 169A(b)(2)] prior to its listing BART as a
method of attaining `reasonable progress' supports EPA's position that
it has the discretion to allow States to adopt implementation plan
provisions other than those provided by source-specific BART analyses
in situations where the agency reasonably concludes that more
`reasonable progress' will thereby be attained.'' 99 Under
today's final rule, States may elect to adopt an emissions trading
program or other alternative measures in lieu of BART so long as
greater reasonable progress is made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ See Central Arizona Water Conservation District v. EPA, 990
F.2d 1531, 1543 (1993).
\98\ See 56 FR at 50178.
\99\ Central Arizona Water Conservation District v. EPA, 990
F.2d 1531, 1543 (1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List of BART-eligible sources. To ensure adequate time for
developing long-term strategies to ensure reasonable progress, we
recommend that States begin identifying and evaluating the list of
potential BART sources as soon as possible after promulgation of the
final rule. Identifying the BART-eligible sources will require States
to collect information as to the dates that emission units at
stationary sources were placed into operation, the pollutants emitted,
and the potential to emit of these units. We suggest that, at the same
time that they begin refining their emissions inventories for
PM2.5 and its precursors, States request that stationary
sources provide them with these dates. While such information is
generally available for electric utilities through data bases
maintained by the Energy Information Administration, this information
is not normally maintained in national data bases for the other 25
source categories subject to BART. However, EPA believes that much of
this information is likely to be available in States permitting data
bases or other inventories. To assist the States in this task, we will
continue efforts to identify other helpful sources of information.
Determination of sources subject to BART. After the State has
identified the BART-eligible sources, the next step is determining
whether these sources emit any air pollutant ``which may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute'' to any visibility impairment in a
Federal Class I area. As noted in the proposal, EPA believes that this
determination should not require extremely costly or lengthy studies of
the contribution of specific sources to regional haze. Unlike the 1980
regulatory program, which addresses the
[[Page 35740]]
visibility impairment that is reasonably attributable to a specific
source or small group of sources, today's final rule addresses the
problem of visibility impairment resulting from emissions from a
multitude of sources located across a wide geographic area. As the
regional haze rule is not limited to addressing visibility impairment
that can be attributed to a specific source or small group of sources,
EPA believes it would be inappropriate to focus on the contribution of
one source or a small group of sources. First, the States will not face
the same need to define the precise contribution from one particular
source to the visibility problem. Second, establishing the contribution
from one particular source to the problem of regional haze would
require lengthy and expensive studies and pose substantial technical
difficulties. The EPA has thus concluded that a detailed source-
receptor analysis would not be appropriate in determining whether a
source ``may reasonably be anticipated to contribute'' to regional haze
in a Class I area.
In implementing today's final rule, a State should find that a
BART-eligible source is ``reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute'' to regional haze if it can be shown that the source emits
pollutants within a geographic area from which pollutants can be
emitted and transported downwind to a Class I area. The EPA believes
that this test is an appropriate one for determining whether a source
can reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to the problem of
regional haze. As the Ninth Circuit stated in considering this
language:
Congress mandated an extremely low triggering threshold,
requiring the installment of stringent emission controls when an
individual source ``emits any air pollutant which may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility''
in a Class I Federal area. 42 U.S.C. sec. 7491(b)(2)(A). The NAS
correctly noted that Congress has not required ironclad scientific
certainty in establishing the precise relationship between a
source's emission and resulting visibility impairment.* * *
100
\100\ Central Arizona Water Conservaiton District v. EPA, 990
F.2d 1531, 1541 (9th Cir. 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The approach taken here is consistent with that taken in the
programs for acid rain and ozone, programs which also address regional
air quality problems caused by transported pollutants. These programs
do not require a specific demonstration of each source's contribution
to the overall problem, but instead focus efforts on developing cost-
effective solutions to reducing emissions over a broad area that is
regional or national in scope. For example, in the recent
NOX SIP call addressing the regional transport of
NOX emissions (an ozone precursor) in the Eastern United
States, EPA adopted a ``collective contribution'' approach to
determining whether sources ``contribute'' to ozone nonattainment in
downwind areas. In this rulemaking, EPA concluded that because ozone
nonattainment results from the collective contribution of many entities
over a broad geographic area, even relatively small (in an absolute
sense) contributions from upwind entities should be considered to be
``significant.'' 101
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ 63 FR 57356, 57376 (Oct. 27, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has concluded that a similar approach in the regional haze
program is appropriate. Where emissions from a region are considered to
contribute to regional haze in a Class I area, any emissions from BART-
eligible sources in that region should also be considered to cause or
contribute to the regional haze problem. The EPA will issue and update
guidance, including EPA modeling guidelines,102 to assist
the States in analyzing whether sources contribute to regional haze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ See 40 CFR part 51, appendix W for information on EPA's
modeling guideline for conducting regional-scale modeling for
particulate matter and visibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Establishing source-specific BART emission limits. The second
element of the BART requirement is for the States to establish emission
limitations for those BART-eligible sources which may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to regional haze. To meet this
requirement, the State must develop source-specific emission limits
which reflect the application of the best system of continuous emission
reduction for each pollutant which is emitted by a source subject to
BART.103 As stated above, the State can also choose to
develop an emissions trading program, or other alternative measure,
that achieve greater reasonable progress rather than require source
specific BART emission limits on each source subject to BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ See section 51.301(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In developing source specific emission limits for BART, the State
must take into consideration the technology available and a number of
specific factors set forth in the statute. These factors are the costs
of compliance, the energy and nonair environmental impacts of
compliance, any existing pollution control technology in use at the
source, the remaining useful life of the source, and the degree of
improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated from the
use of such technology. Taking these factors into account, the State
may conclude that BART is the best level of emissions reduction that
can be achieved by available retrofit technology or some other level of
control. In some cases, the State may determine that a source has
already installed sufficiently stringent emission controls for
compliance with other programs (e.g., the acid rain program), such that
no additional controls would be needed for compliance with the BART
requirement. In establishing BART for a particular facility, the State
must make available during public review of the SIP at the State level
the materials supporting its BART determination. The State must also
include this documentation in the technical support materials
accompanying the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ See CAA section 169A(g)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In establishing source specific BART emission limits, the State
should identify the maximum level of emission reduction that has been
achieved in other recent retrofits at existing sources in the source
category. As noted above, the visibility regulations define BART as
``an emission limitation based on the degree of reduction achievable
through the application of the best system of continuous emission
reduction.'' Recent retrofits at existing sources provide a good
indication of the current ``best system'' for controlling emissions.
Thus, for example, recent retrofits for large utility sources (e.g.,
sources under the acid rain program and the Navajo Generating Station)
have commonly achieved a 90 percent or better rate of SO2
emissions (at an average cost of $265 per ton of SO2
removed).105 For source categories with recently promulgated
NSPS, that standard may also provide a good indication of the current
``best system'' for controlling emissions. In addition, current
information concerning control technology performance for many source
categories is available from EPA's Clean Air Technology Center, http://
www.epa.gov/ttn/catc. EPA plans to issue revised BART guidance to
provide updated guidance to the States on how to calculate BART for
purposes of regional haze within a year of promulgation of this rule.
The EPA will be developing this guidance through a national stakeholder
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ Ellerman A. Danny et al., Emissions Trading Under the U.S.
Acid Rain Program: Evaluation of Compliance Costs and Allowance
Market Performance, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center
for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once the State has identified the retrofit technology that provides
the maximum degree of continuous
[[Page 35741]]
emission reduction, it should take into consideration the costs of
compliance, the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of
compliance, any existing pollution control equipment in use at the
source, and the remaining useful life of the source. Taking these
factors into account allows the State to arrive at an estimate of the
``best system'' of retrofit control technology for a particular source
and a corresponding estimate of the likely emissions which would be
achieved by the imposition of BART. These factors should be taken into
account for each source subject to BART in order to compare tradeoffs
between the control efficiencies and costs associated with various
control alternatives.
The remaining factor which the States must take into account in
determining BART is ``the degree of improvement in visibility which may
reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology.''
In applying this factor in the context of the regional haze program, a
State should use the degree of improvement in visibility that would be
expected at each Class I area as a result of imposing BART, as
determined through the application of the factors discussed above, on
all sources subject to BART. For the same reasons that the
determination of whether a BART-eligible source may be reasonably
anticipated to cause or contribute to a visibility problem should be
made on a cumulative basis, EPA believes that a regional analysis is
appropriate for determining the degree of visibility improvement that
can be achieved through application of BART. Moreover, the statute
requires the States to consider ``the degree of improvement in
visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use
of such technology.'' \106\ EPA interprets the language ``from the use
of such technology'' to refer to the application of BART level controls
to all sources subject to BART. As a result, EPA believes that it is
reasonable to interpret this provision as requiring the State to
consider, as part of its source-specific analysis, the cumulative
impact of applying retrofit controls to all sources subject to BART to
estimate the degree of visibility improvement which may reasonably be
anticipated to result from the use of BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA section 169A(g)(2) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA also believes that such a regional analysis provides
important information to the State and to the public about the
magnitude of potential emissions from sources subject to BART. This
information could be used to help inform the public debate in
developing reasonable progress goals, in setting a regional emissions
target for a trading program, and in developing the overall long-term
strategies for making reasonable progress.
To calculate the degree of improvement in visibility that would be
expected at each Class I area as a result of imposing BART on all
sources subject to BART, the State should estimate the possible
emissions reductions resulting from the application of BART at all
subject sources located within the region that contributes to
visibility impairment in the Class I area. The State should work on its
own or in conjunction with other States, such as in a regional planning
body, to determine the geographic scope of the region that contributes
to each Class I area. The States should consult with one another to
determine the emission reductions achievable from sources subject to
BART in other States.
The estimate of possible emission reductions from sources subject
to BART should be based on the application of the technology, cost,
time for compliance, energy and nonair environmental impacts, and
remaining useful life factors discussed above. Using this estimate, the
State will then need to calculate the resulting degree of visibility
improvement that would be achieved at Class I areas. The EPA expects
that this exercise will be in the form of a regional modeling analysis.
The State should use this estimated degree of visibility improvement in
determining the appropriate BART emission limitations for specific
sources.
Unless a State commits to regional planning, a State must include
its source-specific BART determinations in its initial SIP revision for
the area in which the source is located.\107\ Where the State commits
to regional planning, a State may defer submitting its source-specific
BART determinations consistent with the timing requirements described
in unit III.B. However, the State must submit its list of BART-eligible
sources at the same time it submits its committal SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ For areas designated attainment or unclassifiable for
PM2.5, this SIP will be due 12 months after the areas are
designated. For areas designated as nonattainment, this SIP will be
due no later than 3 years after the area is designated
nonattainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SIP revision must include the emission limitations determined
to be BART for sources subject to BART and a compliance schedule for
each source. Each source subject to the BART requirement will have to
meet the BART emission limitation within 5 years of SIP approval, as
required under the CAA. As noted above, within a year, EPA will be
issuing revised BART guidance to provide States with assistance in
determining BART for regional haze.
Alternative Measures in Lieu of BART. In today's final rule, States
may elect to adopt alternative measures, such as a regional emissions
trading program, in lieu of BART so long as the alternative measures
achieve more reasonable progress than would application of source-
specific BART. The EPA believes that a regional emissions trading
program would be the most efficient means of achieving BART-level
emission reductions and the emission reductions needed to meet the
States' reasonable progress goals as implemented through the States'
long-term strategies.
The EPA believes that this approach is consistent with the Ninth
Circuit's decision in Central Arizona Water Conservation District v.
EPA.\108\ In this case, the court upheld EPA's exercise of discretion
to adopt an alternative emission standard that achieved greater
reasonable progress than would have been achieved through the
imposition of BART. Allowing States to adopt alternative measures such
as an emissions trading program rather than to require BART will
provide the States with the flexibility to achieve greater reasonable
progress towards the national goal at a lower cost, while still
addressing the Congressional concern that existing sources contributing
to visibility impairment be required to control emissions
appropriately. The EPA believes that this best fulfills the overarching
statutory requirement in section 169A(b) that States make reasonable
progress toward the national visibility goal, but also ensures that, at
a minimum, the degree of visibility impairment attributable to BART
sources is addressed by the States during the first long-term strategy.
Moreover, while an appropriately designed alternative might result in
differing levels of control at particular sources than a source-by-
source BART requirement, the environment will benefit through the
achievement of greater reasonable progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ 990 F.2d 1531, 1543 (1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, to take advantage of the flexibility offered by
this provision, the State must demonstrate that the alternative
measures adopted in lieu of meeting the BART requirements achieve
greater reasonable progress than would result from the installation of
source-specific BART. One way of making this showing is for a State to
show in its SIP demonstration that the alternative
[[Page 35742]]
measures will achieve greater emission reductions and visibility
improvement than would result from meeting the BART requirements.
In making this showing, States may rely on the assessments and
analyses developed by regional planning groups that are formed to
address regional haze. To compare the emissions reductions and
visibility improvement that would result from application of source
specific BART to that resulting from implementation of alternative
measures, such as a regional emissions trading program, the State must
estimate the emissions reductions that would result from the use of
BART-level controls. To do this, the State could undertake a source-
specific review of the sources in the State subject to BART, or it
could use a modified approach that simplifies the analysis.
To simplify the process of arriving at an estimate of emissions,
EPA believes that one approach that would be acceptable in place of a
source by source BART analysis would be to consider some of the BART
factors on a category-wide basis. For example, the average cost per ton
of complying with alternate control technologies and associated energy
and nonair environmental impacts could be considered on a category-wide
basis. It may be more appropriate to consider other factors on a
source-by-source basis. For example, the State could identify the
current control technology in operation at each source and calculate
the emissions that would be achieved at each source with a given
retrofit control technology or determine and consider the remaining
useful life of individual sources.
Alternatively, EPA believes it may be appropriate for the State to
combine a category-wide BART assessment with a source-specific
assessment for certain sources. For example, if a State can verify that
a source will be retired within a short period of time, it could take
this into account in determining BART-level emissions reductions for
that facility while assessing the remaining sources subject to BART on
a category-wide basis.
The States accordingly have flexibility in developing a method to
determine the emission reductions that could be achieved through the
application of BART. Whatever methodology is chosen by the State to
evaluate possible emissions reductions from BART, the estimate must
reflect at least the minimum level of emissions reductions that can be
expected. This estimate becomes the point of comparison for determining
whether an alternative measure, such as an emission trading program,
achieves greater reasonable progress toward visibility improvement.
Once the State has arrived at an estimate of the emissions that would
result from application of source-specific BART, it should then compare
the degree of visibility improvement expected to be achieved in Class I
areas through the application of BART to the degree of visibility
improvement projected to be achieved by the alternative measures
proposed by the State.\109\ It is not necessary to go through an
additional analysis of the BART factors in considering the effects of
alternative measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ The State should be able to compare the degree of
visibility improvement through modeling. For example, for an
emissions trading program, the State may undertake a regional
modeling analysis that simulates least-cost market trades to predict
the geographic distribution of the emission reductions that could be
achieved through a market trading program and the resultant
improvement in visibility at different Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA believes that the most likely alternative measures adopted
by the States will be an emissions trading program. There are several
advantages associated with a regional trading approach in lieu of
meeting a source-specific BART requirement. First, it provides
flexibility to participating sources in deciding whether to purchase
credits or to implement on-site emission reduction strategies, while
being designed to achieve an equivalent level of emissions. Many
commenters felt the proposal did not provide this type of flexibility.
Second, trading allows sources to assess the costs of control
technology, alternative fuels, and process changes across a broad array
of sources and source categories. Thus, a trading program typically
will result in lower cost per ton of pollutant reduced than a program
which mandates plant-specific technological control. For example, EPA's
experiences in the acid rain program have shown that sulfur dioxide
reductions achieved through market-based programs within the electric
utility sector continue to be quite cost effective, in the $170--320
per ton range.\110\ A program which allows broader trading among
sources in other industrial categories as well would likely lead to
even greater cost effectiveness for individual sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information
Administration, ``The Effects of Title IV of the Clean AIr Act
Amendments of 1990 on Electric Utilities: An Update,'' DOE/EIA-
0582(97), March 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In designing emissions trading programs that will achieve the
requisite improvement in visibility, States must ensure that such
programs meet several criteria. First, as noted above, the legislative
history demonstrates Congress' recognition of the need to control
emissions from a specific set of existing sources. Because of the
Congressional focus on control of these sources, any emissions trading
program must include, at a minimum, the sources within the trading
region subject to BART. The one exception to this is where a source has
already installed BART-level pollution control technology and the
emission limit is a federally-enforceable requirement. In that case,
States may elect to allow a source the option of not participating in
the trading program.
Second, a trading program adopted in lieu of BART must be fully
implemented within the period of the first long-term strategy. To
ensure this, States must provide schedules for implementing emissions
trading programs with their SIP submittal. While EPA is allowing States
to fully implement a trading program within the period addressed by the
State's first long-term strategy, under section 169A, BART emission
limits are to be implemented within 5 years. To provide States with the
additional flexibility they may need to implement a trading program,
EPA has concluded that it is appropriate for States to have the full
period of the long-term strategy to achieve the full measure of
necessary emissions. The basis for allowing this longer implementation
period is the provision that the trading program achieve greater
reasonable progress than would be achieved by source-specific
application of BART within 5 years of plan submittal. The EPA will
consider the estimated period of time to implement the program in
determining whether the alternative measures ``achieve more reasonable
progress.'' In any event, a trading program adopted in lieu of BART
must be implemented during the period of the first long-term strategy.
Third, the reductions in emissions required of BART sources must be
surplus to other Federal requirements as of the baseline date of the
SIP, that is, the date of the emissions inventories on which the SIP
relies. In addition, sources must be required to monitor their
emissions in a way that allows States and EPA to assure that the
reductions are being achieved. The basic concept of an emission trading
program is to allow for alternative, cost-effective ways of achieving
equal or greater overall emissions. To ensure that the trading program
does achieve a greater overall emission reduction, it is important that
the emission credits are created by genuine reductions in emissions. We
will be issuing further guidance to assist States in designing
[[Page 35743]]
their trading programs to ensure that programs provide such
accountability.
Fourth, the regional trading program may include sources not
subject to BART. Inclusion of such sources provides for a more
economically efficient and robust trading program. The EPA believes the
program can include diverse sources, including mobile and area sources,
so long as the reductions from these sources can be accurately
calculated and tracked.
Fifth, EPA encourages States wishing to develop such programs to
consider the emission reduction requirements of other air quality
programs. To implement reductions in a fully integrated fashion, the
State should consider the extent to which some sources should be
limited in their ability to trade. Examples of such factors include the
significant contribution to a local nonattainment situation and the
extent to which trading may assist or undermine the achievement of
greater progress toward attainment of the NAAQS or the national
visibility goal.
A related issue is the connection between determinations of BART
under the reasonably attributable regulations and a trading program
adopted in lieu of BART. The EPA has adopted a provision in the final
rule that allows States to include a geographic enhancement in such a
trading program to accommodate reasonably attributable BART. The
purpose for including this provision is to address concerns regarding
``hot spots''--the concern that some part of visibility impairment in a
specific Class I area is attributable or uniquely attributable to a
single source or small group of sources because of the nature and
location of the pollution from the source(s). Should action be taken by
a State (or EPA) to address reasonably attributable impairment, these
provisions would allow the State to incorporate methods, procedures, or
processes in a market-based strategy to accommodate such action.
Sixth, interpollutant trading should not be allowed until the
technical difficulties associated with ensuring equivalence in the
overall environmental effect are resolved. Some other emissions trading
programs (e.g., trading under the acid rain program) prohibit emission
trades between pollutants. An emissions trading program for regional
haze might also need to restrict trades to common pollutants. Each of
the five pollutants which cause or contribute to visibility impairment
has a different impact on light extinction for a given particle mass,
making it therefore extremely difficult to judge the equivalence of
interpollutant trades in a manner that would be technically credible,
yet convenient to implement in the timeframe needed for transactions to
be efficient. This analysis is further complicated by the fact that the
visibility impact that each pollutant can have varies with humidity, so
that control of different pollutants can have markedly different
effects on visibility in different geographic areas and at different
times of the year. Despite the technical difficulties associated with
interpollutant trading today, EPA would be willing to consider such
trading programs in the future that demonstrate an acceptable technical
approach.
Application for Exemption from BART. Even where a source may
reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility
impairment, section 169A(c) allows for the exemption of any source from
the BART requirements if it can be demonstrated that the source, by
itself or in combination with other sources, is not reasonably
anticipated to cause or contribute to significant visibility
impairment. In addition, as specified in section 169A(c)(2) of the CAA,
any fossil-fuel fired power plant with a total generating capacity of
750 megawatts or more may receive an exemption only if the owner
demonstrates that the power plant is located at such distance from all
Class I areas that it does not, or will not, in combination with other
sources, emit any pollutant which may be reasonably anticipated to
contribute to significant visibility impairment.
As with the question of whether a source can be reasonably
anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment, EPA
believes that the question of whether a source causes or contributes to
significant visibility impairment requires an analysis of the
cumulative effects of emission sources on a region. Regional modeling
will be one appropriate method to determine whether a source could
qualify for the exemption from the BART requirements. If a significant
cumulative impact is demonstrated from the sources across the relevant
regional modeling domain, then any BART-eligible source in the region
would most likely be found to be reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to significant visibility impairment.
The proposed regional haze rule was structured such that the BART
exemption provisions in section 51.303 of the existing visibility
regulations would also apply to sources subject to BART under the
regional haze regulation. In the final rule, EPA has taken the same
approach. Consistent with section 51.303, a source may apply to EPA for
an exemption from the BART requirement. The EPA will grant or deny an
application after providing notice and opportunity for a public
hearing. Any exemption granted by EPA must have the concurrence from
all affected Federal land managers.
Timing for Submittal of BART Elements. Because TEA-21 changed the
schedule for submittal of visibility SIPs, EPA is not requiring States
to submit a list of BART-eligible sources to EPA within 12 months, as
proposed. Under the final rule, the emission limits or other measures
to address BART under the regional haze program must be included in the
State's initial SIP submittal(s), as discussed further in unit III.B of
this notice, except where the State commits to regional planning. In
the case where a State opts to work with other States to develop a
coordinated approach to regional haze by participating in a regional
planning process, SIP revisions containing the BART emission limits or
alternative measures in lieu of BART will be due generally at the time
PM2.5 nonattainment SIPs are submitted, but in no case later
than December 31, 2008. As discussed in unit III.B, States that submit
a commitment to participate in regional planning are required to submit
the list of BART-eligible sources as part of that submittal.
I. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements
Monitoring Strategy
Proposed rule. In the proposed rule, we included a requirement for
States to develop a monitoring strategy. We believe that actual
monitoring data are a critical component of any air quality management
approach to visibility impairment. Data on individual components of PM
(nitrates, sulfates, elemental carbon, organic carbon, crustal
material) are crucial to understanding the causes of visibility
impairment at a given location, and accordingly are necessary for long-
term strategy development. Reviewing these data with time, and
additional data provided by monitoring sites, are necessary to
understand whether the long-term strategies are effective.
Under the proposed rule, an initial monitoring strategy was due 12
months after promulgation, with periodic updates every 3 years
thereafter. Requirements for visibility monitoring are authorized under
section 110(a)(2)(B), requiring SIPs to provide for the monitoring of
ambient air quality, and under section 169A(b)(2), which authorizes EPA
to establish regulations requiring SIPs to address ``other measures as
may be necessary.''
[[Page 35744]]
Four separate provisions were included in the monitoring strategy
requirement: (1) a requirement for States to provide for additional
that is monitoring ``representative of all Class I areas,'' (2) a
requirement for States with Class I areas to assess the relative
contributions of sources within and outside the State to any Class I
area within the State, (3) requirements for States without Class I
areas to include a procedure by which monitoring data will be used to
determine the contribution of emissions from within the State to Class
I areas outside the State, and (4) a requirement to report all
visibility monitoring data to EPA at least annually, in accordance with
EPA guidance.
Comments received. Commenters on this requirement raised a number
of concerns. One concern raised by State and local agencies was that
the costs of monitoring could be substantial and urged EPA to provide
funding. Other commenters urged EPA to exercise flexibility in
determining the degree to which monitors in one Class I area could be
considered representative of other nearby areas. Other commenters
raised concerns about the feasibility of monitoring in remote areas and
for areas with difficulty in gaining access to monitors during the
winter. Commenters also expressed concerns over the timetable for the
monitoring plan and the requirement for updating the strategy.
Final rule. Section 51.308(d)(4) of the final rule includes the
requirement for a monitoring strategy. Under the final rule, this
monitoring strategy is due with the first regional haze SIP, and it
must be reviewed every 5 years.
Additional sites. Since the 1980's, EPA has cooperatively managed
and funded the IMPROVE network with FLMs and States. Today, the IMPROVE
network of 30 Class I sites (and an additional network of about 40
sites that use the IMPROVE methods) collects data on fine particle
concentrations and on individual particle species. These individual
species (sulfates, nitrates, elemental carbon, organic carbon, crustal
material) are important for understanding causes and trends of
visibility impairment at a given location. The network also employs
optical monitoring methods for the direct measurement of light
extinction, and scene monitoring methods using 35 millimeter
photography.
The EPA is funding the deployment of several hundred
PM2.5 monitors by the end of calendar year 1999. In order to
meet the requirements for some monitors to characterize background
conditions and transport patterns, as well as to more broadly
characterize visibility impairment in Class I areas for implementation
of the regional haze program, EPA is funding the deployment of an
additional 78 IMPROVE sites for Class I areas by the end of 1999. As a
result of this anticipated network expansion, we expect that few, if
any, State-funded monitors will be needed in implementing today's final
rule. The IMPROVE Steering Committee is coordinating closely with the
States on the selection of sites for the expanded network to help
ensure that the new sites will meet States' needs for SIP development.
The EPA expects that as a result of the IMPROVE Steering Committee
process, the expanded network should provide for data that can be
considered representative of most if not all Class I areas.
The monitoring strategy must, however, provide for additional
monitoring sites if the IMPROVE network is not sufficient to determine
whether reasonable progress goals will be met. This provision requires
States with Class I areas to work with EPA and the FLMs to ensure that
monitoring networks provide monitoring data that are representative of
visibility conditions in each affected Class I area within the State.
We want to clarify that this provision does not require a monitor in
each Class I area, only that a monitor be representative of a Class I
area. Accordingly, a monitor in or adjacent to one Class I area can be
representative of one or more other Class I areas, based on certain
criteria. Additionally, EPA agrees with commenters that a few Class I
areas may have severe accessibility problems for which monitoring may
not be feasible.
Use of Monitoring Data to Understand Contributions to Class I
Areas. States with Class I areas are required to include in the
regional haze SIP a monitoring strategy that is tailored to a given
representative site. The strategy must identify the ways that the
visibility monitoring and chemical composition analysis will be used to
understand the emission sources that contribute to visibility
impairment at a given monitoring site. Additionally, the monitoring
strategy should identify the procedures for reviewing monitoring data
and coordinating with other technical experts. We believe that
continued coordination of visibility monitoring and chemical
composition analysis among States, FLMs, and EPA will be important for
future regional planning activities. Analysis of trends in emissions of
those constituents can assist States in the development of long-term
strategies for making reasonable progress.
The rule also requires monitoring strategies for States without
Class I areas. We believe it is equally important for those States to
understand and describe the implications of monitoring data. First, it
is important for those States to review monitoring information,
including data on the chemical composition of individual species
concentrations, to help understand the relative contribution of
emissions from their State to Class I areas in other States. Second, it
is important for these States to understand and describe how they will
use the monitoring data to review progress and trends.
Periodic Updates to Strategy. The rule requires an initial
monitoring strategy and periodic updates. The initial monitoring
strategy is due with a State's first SIP submission. Additionally, the
rule requires that the monitoring strategy be reviewed every 5 years.
We believe that when progress is reviewed and control strategies are
updated, it will be important to review the monitoring strategy. For
the periodic updates, States should review the existing monitoring
strategy with the FLMs and other participating agencies to assess the
need for additional monitoring sites or modifications to existing
sites, as well as the need for updated guidance on monitoring
protocols.
Monitoring Guidance. The EPA plans to issue a visibility monitoring
guidance document soon after promulgating this rule that will be
designed to assist the States in developing monitoring strategies. The
document will include technical criteria and procedures for conducting
aerosol, optical, and scene monitoring of visibility conditions in
Class I areas. The protocols of the IMPROVE network will be included in
this guidance.
Reporting of Monitoring Data
Proposed Rule. The proposed rule required States to report all
visibility monitoring at least annually for each Class I area having
such monitoring. We proposed that States report data in accordance with
EPA guidance and through electronic data transfer techniques to the
extent possible. There were no adverse comments on this reporting
requirement.
Final Rule. We have retained a general requirement in section
51.308(d)(4) that States submit as part of the SIP a monitoring
strategy that addresses the reporting of visibility monitoring data to
EPA. As noted above, EPA expects that few, if any, additional State-
funded sites will be necessary to
[[Page 35745]]
fully implement the regional haze rule. Where States do choose to fund
additional sites, however, EPA believes it is important for the States
to make data from these sites available to EPA and other agencies.
For monitoring sites in the IMPROVE network, the IMPROVE Steering
Committee oversees network contractors who quality assure and
consolidate data from chemical composition analysis of filter samples.
Such data are made available to all interested parties through various
electronic formats and online websites. Assuming this practice
continues with the IMPROVE Steering Committee, States will experience
little or no burden in meeting this requirement for reporting to EPA.
Annual consolidation of these data will serve several purposes.
First, a central data base will allow the States and other interested
parties to track progress over time in relation to reasonable progress
goals. It will also assist the States in understanding current
visibility conditions as well as past trends. Consolidation of the data
will assist EPA, the State, other agencies, and the public in reviewing
the effectiveness of the State's long-term strategy for regional haze.
Additionally, consolidation of the data will enable EPA to better
characterize national and regional visibility trends in its annual air
quality trends report. Finally, a centralized data base will provide
for the integration of monitoring data from the new PM2.5
monitoring network and the visibility monitoring network, both of which
will include PM2.5 and PM10 mass, as well as
compositional analysis by aerosol species. Class I area particle mass
and chemical composition data can fill important data gaps in defining
regional concentrations for air quality modeling analyses.
Requirements Under Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. Visibility SIP
submittals must document certain program infrastructure capabilities
consistent with the requirements of section 169B(e)(2) and section
110(a)(2) of the CAA. Section 169(B)(e)(2) requires States to revise
their section 110 SIPs to ``contain such emission limits, schedules of
compliance, and other measures as may be necessary'' to carry out
regulations promulgated pursuant to this section. The EPA believes that
this language authorizes EPA to ensure that States review their
existing program infrastructures to ensure that the types of elements
required by section 110(a)(2) for programs addressing the NAAQS are
also sufficient for adoption and implementation of SIP measures for
regional haze. The final rule does not include specific provisions
addressing all elements of section 110(a)(2). However, section
51.308(d)(4)(iv) of the final rule requires the State to maintain and
update periodically a statewide inventory of emissions of pollutants
that contribute to visibility impairment.
Where a State is also revising its SIP to incorporate changes to
address the PM2.5 NAAQS, many of these revisions may be
sufficient to address both PM2.5 and regional haze. The EPA
encourages States to consider the needs of both programs when updating
the provisions required by section 110 of the CAA to minimize any
administrative burdens.
J. Periodic SIP Revisions and 5-year Progress Reports
Proposed Rule. The proposed rule required States to periodically
review and revise their SIPs every 3 years. The preamble to the
proposal stated that ``[t]he EPA believes that a requirement for
regular SIP revisions will result in a more effective program over time
and provide a focus for demonstrating ongoing progress and making mid-
course corrections in emission strategies.'' 111 Each SIP
revision would include a comprehensive review of the long-term
strategy, and a review of emissions reductions estimates relied on in
the previous plan if the State does not achieve any reasonable progress
target.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ 62 FR 41151.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposal also requested comment on whether SIP revisions should
instead be required every 5 years. Regarding this option, EPA also took
comment on whether it should revise the existing requirement in the
``reasonably attributable'' regulations for long-term strategy reviews
from every 3 years to every 5 years, such that SIP revision schedules
for both regional haze and reasonably attributable impairment would be
coordinated.
Public Comments. Some commenters stated that the CAA does not allow
EPA to require periodic SIP revisions. Several commenters felt that a
requirement to submit comprehensive SIP revisions every 3 years would
be overly burdensome, and would not provide enough time to properly
evaluate changes in air quality and emissions resulting from
implementation of strategies to meet reasonable progress targets. For
this reason, a number of commenters supported a 5-year period between
SIP revisions. Several participants in the GCVTC supported a 5-year
review of progress that meets the procedural requirements of a SIP
revision, but that also allows for the State to make a negative
declaration if current strategies are deemed adequate for making
reasonable progress at that time.
Other commenters supported SIP revisions every 3 years, citing
EPA's preamble language, which noted that implementing mid-course
corrections after the 5-year mark may in fact be too late to correct
situations where impairment is steadily increasing. Some of these
commenters also supported the 3-year cycle for regional haze SIPs since
it would be consistent with the requirement for 3-year reviews of long-
term strategies in the existing 1980 visibility rules.
Authority for Periodic Updates. The EPA does not agree with
commenters that it lacks the authority to require periodic SIP
revisions. Section 110(a)(2)(F) of the CAA provides that SIPs are to
require ``periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions and
emissions-related data'' and ``correlation of such reports * * * with
any emission limitations or standards established pursuant to this
chapter.'' Moreover, section 110(a)(2)(H) requires SIPs to provide for
revision when found to be substantially inadequate to ``comply with any
additional requirements established under * * * [the CAA].'' Both of
these provisions provide EPA with the authority to require periodic SIP
revisions.
The CAA calls for regulations to protect visual air quality in the
Class I areas in a way that assures prevention of future impairment in
addition to remedying existing impairment. A one-time review of
impairment and development of strategies to address that impairment
cannot provide such continuing assurance and, at best, can only focus
on remedying currently known manmade visibility impairment within the
limits of resources and technology. A program that did not anticipate
and provide for the need for future periodic review and revisions,
would not be responsive to the national goal of preventing any future
manmade visibility impairment.
The requirement for periodic review of SIP measures also directly
responds to the CAA goal for States to develop strategies to ensure
reasonable progress toward the national goal of no human-caused
impairment. Given that the statutory factors which States must consider
in determining a reasonable progress goal include costs of control and
availability of controls, among others, and given that technology
changes can affect costs and availability of controls over time, EPA
believes that the requirement for a periodic SIP revision is
appropriate. The periodic revisions will assure that the statutory
requirement for reasonable progress will
[[Page 35746]]
continue to be met. The EPA believes that the need for periodic updates
is also clear from the NAS conclusion that ``achieving the national
visibility goal will require a substantial long-term (emphasis added)
program.'' 112
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ National Research Council, NAS Committee on Haze in
National Parks and Wilderness Areas, Protecting Visibility in
National Parks and Wilderness Areas, National Academy Press, 1993,
page 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three-year versus 5-year period. In considering the public
comments, EPA also took into account the body of evidence indicating a
need for multistate regional planning efforts under the regional haze
program. Past experience with regional air quality planning efforts,
such as the GCVTC or the Ozone Tranport Assessment Group (OTAG), has
shown that regional air quality planning efforts often take 2 or more
years to complete, with additional time needed for State adoption of
measures and for review and approval by EPA.
After consideration of the comments described above, and the
timeframes needed for regional planning, EPA concluded that a 5-year
progress review and SIP revision cycle is more appropriate than a 3-
year cycle. The EPA determined that the States will be better able to
assess the effectiveness of emission management strategies by
considering 5 years of data rather than 3 years since a 5-year period
provides for more stable trend lines for emissions and air quality
changes than a 3-year period. The EPA also concluded that a 5-year
period should result in significantly less administrative burden on the
States than a 3-year period.
Final rule requirements for comprehensive plan revisions and
progress reports. The EPA has included in the final rule, two main
requirements for comprehensive periodic plan revisions (section
51.308(f)) and progress reviews (section 51.308(g)). Section 51.308(f)
requires the States to submit a comprehensive SIP revision in 2018 and
every 10 years thereafter. It must meet all of the core requirements of
section 51.308(d). The BART provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted
above, apply only to the first implementation period. Section 51.308(g)
requires progress reports for each Class I area in the State in the
form of SIP revisions every 5 years.
Requirements for comprehensive periodic plan revisions.
Comprehensive SIP revisions under section 51.308(f) must include all of
the implementation plan elements found in section 51.308(d) of the
final rule. These elements include, but are not limited to, the
following: (1) reasonable progress goals for the next 10-year
implementation period, (2) determination of current conditions and
review of estimates for natural conditions, (3) a revised long-term
strategy, as necessary to achieve the reasonable progress goal for the
next 10-year implementation period, and (4) revised emission
inventories, technical analyses and monitoring strategies. The EPA
wishes to clarify the following points with respect to the basic core
provisions of section 51.308(d) for the purpose of periodic
comprehensive plan updates.
Reasonable progress goals. For purposes of the periodic plan
revisions, the State must select a reasonable progress goal based upon
the statutory factors discussed above in unit III.F. In determining the
goal for the next implementation cycle, the State must include an
analysis of the rate of improvement needed to reach natural conditions
by the year 2064 as an analytical framework for the plan revision. To
conduct this required analysis, the State must follow the same four
steps discussed in unit II.F for the initial plan revision, that is (1)
identification of the difference between baseline conditions and
natural conditions (noting any updates to the estimate of natural
conditions based upon technical refinements), (2) identification of the
uniform rate of progress over the 60-year period that would be needed
to attain natural conditions by the year 2064, (3) identification of
the amount of progress that would result if this uniform rate of
progress were achieved during the period of the regional haze
implementation plan,113 and (4) identification of reasonable
progress goals in light of the statutory factors, taking the 60-year
analysis into account. The State must also calculate the number of
years it would take to attain natural conditions if visibility
improvement continues at the rate of progress selected by the State as
required in section 51.308(d)(1)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ Referring to the example in unit III.F, if the second
implementation plan covers a 10-year period from 2019 through 2028,
then the State would identify a 3 deciview rate of improvement, and
the amount of visibility improvement that must be analyzed for the
year 2028 would be the 3 deciview improvement for the years 2019
through 2028, plus the 4.2 deciviews of improvement for the years
2004 through 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reporting of Baseline and natural visibility conditions. In the SIP
submission for the comprehensive periodic plan updates, the State must
identify (1) the visibility change from baseline conditions, (2) the
visibility change since the last SIP revision 10 years ago, and (3) the
difference between current and natural conditions.
Visibility Change from Baseline Conditions. Section 51.308(f) calls
for States to consider, at the time of any future SIP revision after
the initial implementation plan, the amount of visibility improvement
achieved from baseline visibility conditions (established over the
period 2000-2004) in developing future reasonable progress goals and
associated strategies. The final rule requires the State to do this by
comparing ``current conditions'' for the 5 years of most recent
visibility data with baseline conditions. (See discussion in unit III.E
on definition of ``current.'') Any lack of progress in improvement of
visibility from baseline conditions will need to be explained in the
SIP revision and considered by the State in the establishment and/or
revision of new reasonable progress goals and/or emission management
strategies. Similarly, greater than expected improvements should be
considered by the State in setting new visibility goals and emission
management strategies.
If little or no perceptible visibility improvement has occurred in
comparison to baseline conditions, or if conditions have actually
degraded, then the State will need to explain the reason for this
degradation in the SIP, and should seriously consider establishing more
ambitious goals and additional enforceable measures to achieve these
goals. The EPA will take into account the amount of progress achieved
to date from the baseline period in determining whether any future
strategy would ensure ``reasonable progress.'' If significant
visibility improvement has occurred from baseline conditions, then EPA
can also take this into account in reviewing future reasonable progress
goals and strategies.
Visibility Change Since Last SIP Revision. Section 51.308(f) also
calls for States, in developing reasonable progress goals for the next
10 years, to take into account how visibility conditions have actually
changed since establishment of the previous reasonable progress goal.
(This provision would apply beginning in the second SIP revision cycle
under the regional haze program.) If conditions degraded or failed to
meet reasonable progress goals, the State would be required to analyze
the cause of the shortfall, and address it as appropriate in future
strategies. If the State has failed to achieve its reasonable progress
goal for the prior implementation period, the State would be required
to include in its revision a comparison of the visibility improvement
the State
[[Page 35747]]
expected to achieve to the visibility improvement the State actually
achieved.
Difference between current and natural conditions. Section
51.308(f) of the final rule requires the State, at the time of any
comprehensive SIP revision, to calculate the difference between current
conditions and natural conditions for the most impaired and least
impaired days. ``Current conditions'' means the conditions for the most
recent 5-year period preceding the required date of the implementation
plan submittal. This calculation is needed to determine the total
amount of improvement that States will ultimately need to address in
their long-term strategies.
Long-term strategies. As for the first implementation plan,
subsequent comprehensive updates must identify the enforceable
emissions reductions that will provide for meeting the reasonable
progress goal for Class I areas within the State and for Class I areas
outside the State which may be affected by emissions from the State.
Unit III.G provides additional detail on the requirements of the long-
term strategies.
Update of monitoring strategies and other requirements. The
comprehensive updates are also required to meet the requirements of
section 51.308(d)(4) for updated monitoring strategies, updated
emission inventories, and other required technical analyses.
Requirements for 5-year progress reports. Section 51.308(g)
describes the required elements for progress reports due every 5 years.
For States that participate in regional planning and submit initial
SIPs in 2008, the first progress report will be due in 2013. If a State
submits its initial SIP in the 2004-2008 timeframe, its first progress
report would be due before 2013. These progress reports must follow the
same procedural requirements required for implementation plan
revisions, and the State must provide the opportunity for public review
and comment. However, the rule also allows the State to submit this
progress report in the form of a negative declaration if the State
finds that emission management measures in the SIP are being
implemented on schedule, and visibility improvement appears to be
consistent with existing reasonable progress goals. The EPA intends for
progress reports to involve significantly less effort than a
comprehensive SIP revision.
Each 5-year progress report must contain the following elements as
specified in section 51.308(g):
The status of implementation, and summary of the emissions
reductions achieved, for all emission management measures implemented
within the State in order to achieve reasonable progress goals for
Class I areas within and outside the State.
For each Class I area located in the State, the report
must include calculations of the following parameters:
--Current visibility conditions for the most impaired and least
impaired days.
--The difference between current conditions and baseline conditions for
the most impaired and least impaired days.
--The change in visibility for the most impaired and least impaired
days over the past 5 years.
An emissions tracking report that analyzes the change over
the past 5 years in emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility
impairment, disaggregated by source category and emissions activity,
for significant categories of sources or activities.
An assessment of whether current implementation plan
strategies are sufficient for the State or affected States to meet
their reasonable progress goals.
Based on the required calculations and assessments in the progress
report, the State must take one of four actions as specified in section
51.308(h). If the State finds that an additional substantive SIP
revision is not required, then it may submit a ``negative declaration''
to EPA after opportunity for public review and comment. The EPA
anticipates that if the State is implementing a reasonable set of
strategies according to the schedule as developed in the previous
comprehensive SIP revision, and that visibility trends show that
reasonable progress goals should be achieved over the 10-year long-term
strategy period, then the State should be able to certify, through a
negative declaration, that no additional control measures are needed at
the time of this mid-course review.
If the State finds that over the past 5 years there has been a
substantial increase in emissions by intrastate sources, or there has
been a deficiency in plan implementation, the final rule requires the
State to revise the SIP within 1 year, rather than waiting for the next
10-year comprehensive review. Such a mid-course correction would be
designed to achieve the existing reasonable progress goal for the
relevant Class I area. The EPA believes that it is appropriate for the
State to take prompt action to address intrastate problems since they
would not need to participate in further regional planning.
If the State finds that there is a substantial increase in
emissions or a deficiency in plan implementation resulting primarily
from interstate emissions, section 51.308(h)(2) calls for the State to
re-initiate the regional planning process with other States so that the
deficiency can be addressed in the next comprehensive SIP revision due
in 5 years. If the State finds that international emissions sources are
responsible for a substantial increase in emissions affecting
visibility conditions in any Class I area or causing a deficiency in
plan implementation, the State must submit a technical demonstration to
EPA in support of its finding. If EPA agrees with the State's finding,
EPA will take appropriate action to address the international emissions
through available mechanisms. Appropriate mechanisms for addressing
visibility-impairing emissions from international sources are further
discussed in unit III.G on the long-term strategy.
If EPA finds that the State has not been implementing certain
measures adopted into its SIP, or that the State has submitted a SIP
that is not approvable, or that the State has failed to submit any
required progress report or SIP revision at all, the State could be
subject to sanctions in accordance with sections 179(b) and 110(m) of
the CAA. If the State does not resolve the situation expeditiously, EPA
may be obligated to take further appropriate action to resolve the
situation, including promulgation of a FIP within 2 years in accordance
with section 110(c) of the CAA. The EPA believes that in this
regionally-oriented program, it will be important for States to
implement measures designed to improve visibility for Class I areas
outside of their State, as well as to improve visibility within the
State. The EPA will exercise its FIP authority as appropriate and
necessary to ensure that States fulfill their obligations such that
Class I areas make reasonable progress toward the national visibility
goal.
K. Coordination With Federal Land Managers
Section 51.308(i) of the final rule requires that States consult
with FLMs before adopting and submitting their regional haze SIPs. This
requirement is consistent with the proposed regional haze rule and the
1980 regulation for ``reasonably attributable'' visibility impairment.
A number of commenters expressed a concern that this provision was not
equitable, in that States are required to consult with FLMs, but the
rule does not require FLMs to consult with States before they take
action, even when actions such as prescribed burning could have a
significant impact
[[Page 35748]]
on a State's visibility program. These commenters recommended that the
proposed rule be amended to mandate a two-way communication.
The EPA agrees that it is important and necessary for FLMs to
consult with States on visibility-related issues. Land-use activities
on Federal lands can have impacts on nearby areas of a State, and there
have been significant air quality issues related to these activities.
In recent years, FLMs have undertaken activities to improve
communications with States. There are a number of examples of these
efforts. The IMPROVE steering committee, the group that oversees FLM
efforts to monitor visibility in Class I areas, includes representation
from State agencies. Recently, State representation on this committee
was expanded by adding two more State members. Another example are the
memoranda of understanding that FLMs have entered into with States to
coordinate prescribed burning activities. The EPA believes that the FLM
agencies generally recognize the importance of involving States in the
development and implementation of land use policies and other actions
that affect States' abilities to make air quality improvements.
The EPA believes that it is unnecessary to impose an administrative
requirement on another agency of the sort requested by commenters in a
Federal rule, because Federal agencies are already subject to
compliance with SIP requirements in the same manner, and to the same
extent as any nongovernmental entity through section 118, as discussed
below. The EPA will, however, be working with FLMs and States to assist
in their communications over air quality issues.
Commenters also expressed concerns that emissions from Federal
agencies are beyond their jurisdiction. These commenters felt that if
States were not able to regulate such emissions, then other sources
within the State would be treated inequitably under the final rule. The
EPA does not agree that Federal sources are beyond a State's
jurisdiction. As required by section 118 of the CAA, if a State air
quality regulation affects a given type of source within its
jurisdiction, Federal facilities having that type of source must comply
with the State regulations in the same manner, and to the same extent
as any nongovernmental entity. Thus, FLMs having emission sources of
the type that are covered by State air quality regulations are subject
to the same extent as private sector entities.
IV. Treatment of the GCVTC Recommendations
A. Background
The EPA established the GCVTC on November 13, 1991.\114\ The
purpose of the GCVTC was to assess information about the adverse
impacts on visibility in and around 16 Class I areas on the Colorado
Plateau region and to provide policy recommendations to EPA to address
such impacts. Section 169B of the CAA called for the GCVTC to evaluate
visibility research as well as other available information ``pertaining
to adverse impacts on visibility from potential or projected growth in
emissions from sources located in the region.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ See 56 FR 57522, Nov. 12, 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The GCVTC was required to issue a report to EPA recommending what
measures, if any, should be taken to protect visibility.\115\ The CAA
required that, at a minimum, this report was to consider: (1) The
establishment of clean air corridors,\116\ (2) the need to impose
additional new source review requirements in any clean air corridors,
and (3) additional restrictions on increases in emissions which may be
appropriate to protect visibility in affected Class I areas. The GCVTC
was also required to address the promulgation of regulations addressing
long-range strategies to address regional haze in the region. In June
1996, the GCVTC issued its recommendations to EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ CAA Section 169B(d).
\116\ A Clean air corridor is defined as a region that generally
brings clear air to a receptor region, such as the Class I areas of
the Golden Circle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The GCVTC recommendations covered a wide range of control strategy
approaches, planning and tracking activities, and technical findings.
The primary recommendations of the GCVTC covered nine categories of
activities: \117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ See GCVTC Report, pp. i-iii.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air pollution prevention and reduction of per capita
pollution as a high priority, including non-binding targets on
production of electricity from renewable energy sources;
Tracking the effect of new sources of emissions on clean
air corridors;
Closely monitoring stationary source emissions,
establishment of regional targets for sulfur dioxide emissions for the
year 2000 and the year 2040 with interim targets to be established in
the future, exploration of a similar tracking system for other
pollutants, and the development of market-based regulatory programs if
emissions targets are not met;
Emissions reductions in and near Class I areas;
Capping of mobile source emissions for areas contributing
to visibility impairment, and State support for national measures aimed
at further reducing tailpipe emissions;
Further assessment of the contribution of road dust to
visibility impairment;
Future binational collaboration to resolve technical and
policy concerns about contributions to visibility impairment on the
Colorado Plateau resulting from emissions from pollution sources in
Mexico;
Implementation of smoke management programs to minimize
effects of all fire activities on visibility; and
The need for a future regional coordinating entity to
follow through on implementing the recommendations.
Proposed rule. In the July 31, 1997 proposal of the regional haze
rule, EPA included an extensive review of the recommendations of the
GCVTC.\118\ The preamble discussed how several concepts from the
GCVTC's recommendations were incorporated into the proposed framework
for the national regional haze program. For example, EPA proposed an
approach for tracking reasonable progress, based on improving
conditions on the worst visibility days and not allowing conditions on
the best days to degrade, that was consistent with both the GCVTC's
definition of ``reasonable progress'' and with the CAA national
visibility goal of remedying any existing impairment and preventing any
future impairment. The proposal also called for tracking of continuous
emissions to inform State control strategy decisions on a periodic
basis.\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ 62 FR 41141.
\119\ 62 FR 41146.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, in its proposal, EPA chose not to incorporate the GCVTC's
specific emission management strategies as direct requirements for
SIPs. The EPA followed this approach because the proposed rule was
designed to establish a national framework for development of SIPs to
remedy regional haze visibility impairment in all Class I areas
nationwide. In addition, it was not clear how the various elements of
the GCVTC's report were to be translated into SIP requirements. The EPA
noted in the proposal that the ``Commission's recommendations have
components that contemplate implementation through a combination of
actions by EPA, other Federal agencies, States and Tribes in the
region, and voluntary measures on the part of the public and private
[[Page 35749]]
entities throughout the region.'' \120\ The EPA indicated that such a
mixture of activities made it difficult for EPA to directly require
States to implement all of these measures in their SIPs. Instead, the
EPA specifically sought public comment on the manner in which the
national regional haze program framework, as proposed, would allow for
implementation of the GCVTC's recommendations.\121\ The EPA also
solicited comment on whether to adopt the GCVTC's stationary source
strategies with or without modification.\122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ 62 FR 41142.
\121\ 62 FR 41143.
\122\ 62 FR 41143.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA also reiterated its position in testimony before the United
States Congress, stating that ``we specifically designed the regional
haze rule to allow for implementation of the GCVTC's recommendations to
address the environmental goal of improving visibility.'' \123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ Written Testimony of John S. Seitz, Director, Office of
AIr Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, before the Subcommittee on Forest and Public Land Management
of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States
Senate, October 28, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In public meetings and written comments following the proposal,
interested parties expressed concern that the proposed rule did not
specifically endorse or incorporate the GCVTC's recommendations. Some
commentors asserted that the rule ``ignored'' the recommendations. The
EPA also received numerous comments that supported adoption of the
GCVTC recommendations as part of the national regional haze rule. In
particular, several commentors who believed that EPA's proposed rule
did not adequately support the GCVTC's recommendations asserted that
EPA's participation in the GCVTC implied that strategies developed to
address visibility in Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau would be
taken into account within the structure of the rule. Commentors also
noted that EPA's proposal of a visibility target and requirements to
address BART left a high degree of uncertainty as to whether the GCVTC
recommendations could form the basis for SIPs.
On June 29, 1998, after the close of the public comment period on
the proposed regulations, the WGA sent to EPA additional comments on
the proposed regional haze rules. These comments contained specific new
language for addressing the recommendations of the GCVTC. The comments
offered provisions to be included in the national regional haze rule to
allow certain western States to submit SIPs to assure reasonable
progress in addressing regional haze impacts on the Colorado Plateau
based upon the technical work and policy recommendations of the
GCVTC.\124\ The transmittal letter signed by Michael O. Leavitt,
Governor of the State of Utah, reemphasized the commitment of Western
governors to the GCVTC recommendations, and requested that EPA take
public comment on their suggested preamble and rule language as part of
the EPA process in reaching decisions on a final regional haze rule. In
response to this submittal, on September 3, 1998, EPA published a
notice of availability in the Federal Register.\125\ The notice
solicited public comment on the contents of the WGA letter and EPA's
translation of the letter's requirements for SIPs into draft regulatory
language. The comment period for the notice of availability closed on
October 5, 1998 and EPA received approximately 125 comments. In
summary, most of the commentors supported the adoption of provisions to
directly address the GCVTC recommendations in the national rule,
although many requested changes to the draft regulatory language. Some
commentors expressed concern over how these provisions would relate to
the national rule, in particular to the national provisions for BART.
Other commentors addressed the way in which the WGA letter and EPA's
draft regulatory language translated the GCVTC's recommendations. In
addition, some commentors expressed concern over the timing of the SIP
submittals both over the linkage to timing of SIP submittals for ozone
and PM2.5 SIPs and the requirements of TEA-21. Commentors
also requested EPA to commit to consider the national transportation
measures noted by the GCVTC as part of EPA's responsibility toward
helping the States make reasonable progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ Docket A-95-38, Item # VIII-G-76.
\125\ 63 FR 46952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the final rule, EPA is establishing specific SIP requirements
which may be used by the States and tribes that participated in the
GCVTC to satisfy the national regional haze rule. These SIP
requirements will form a basis for these States to meet the CAA
requirements for reasonable progress in the 16 Class I areas addressed
by the GCVTC Report. These SIP requirements acknowledge and give effect
to the substantial body of work already completed by the States and
tribes participating in the GCVTC. The Agency, therefore, and for
reasons explained in more detail below, provides these SIP requirements
as an optional way for these States and tribes to implement the
national rule based on the merits of the work of the GCVTC completed
before establishment of the national framework. The EPA finds that the
GCVTC actions to date address, or provide a mechanism to address, the
statutory factors for assessing reasonable progress required by the
CAA. The EPA is satisfied that the GCVTC's strategies as set forth in
section 51.309, when supplemented by the annex process discussed below,
will provide for ``reasonable progress'' toward the national visibility
goal for the 16 parks and wilderness areas addressed by the GCVTC.
Consequently, if a State submits a plan that addresses the requirements
of section 51.309, including the requirements related to the annex, as
described below, that plan will be considered to comply with the
national rule's requirement for reasonable progress for the period from
plan approval to 2018.
Today's final rulemaking, including section 51.309, is directly
responsive to the western States' and tribes' comments calling for
recognition of the policy development efforts of the GCVTC. At the same
time, the rule allows for future cooperative efforts among the GCVTC
States, so that the national requirements for ensuring reasonable
progress are fully addressed. This action exemplifies how the regional
haze protection provisions can be flexible and allow for a broad range
of emissions control strategies tailored to a specific region. This
action fully recognizes the GCVTC and its follow-up body, the WRAP, as
a valid regional planning process to address, at a minimum, the 16
Class I areas that were the focus of the GCVTC. Section 51.309 provides
for continued work of the GCVTC, which may be accomplished through the
WRAP, to establish a complete framework which can be adopted in the
SIPs for addressing all sources of visibility impairment in the 16
Class I areas. The section also sets forth provisions for addressing
additional Class I areas that were not directly addressed in the GCVTC
report.
Section 51.309 does not preclude States from developing and
adopting their own control strategies. Rather, it provides an expedited
process whereby a State choosing to follow the GCVTC's recommendations
in its SIP can rely fully on the technical analyses, policy
recommendations, and agreements reached by the GCVTC members, thereby
significantly reducing the effort required to establish federally
approvable SIPs. A State remains free to develop and submit a SIP to
EPA which does not rely on the GCVTC's work or
[[Page 35750]]
section 51.309. Such a State will be fully subject to the requirements
and schedules set forth in section 51.308, in the same manner and to
the same extent as the States and tribes throughout the United States
that did not participate in the GCVTC process.
B. General Requirements of Section 51.309
Section 51.309 requires specific emissions control strategies for a
broad region of the Western United States and includes measures which
address different types of emissions sources, including stationary,
area and mobile sources. Some of these strategies are already in place
while others, such as mobile source provisions and the structure of a
market trading system to assure compliance with stationary source
emissions goals, will require development of additional regulatory
measures. A review of each element of section 51.309 is found in unit
IV.C below.
The GCVTC recommended emission reduction targets from stationary
sources of SO2 for the years 2000 and 2040. The GCVTC did
not recommend quantitative interim targets between the years 2000 and
2040. Therefore, in addition to provisions for specific emissions
strategies, section 51.309 allows for an annex to the GCVTC report
which will be considered in establishing specific targets for
SO2 emissions from stationary sources in the region between
2003 and 2018. This annex process and EPA's approval of acceptable
interim emissions targets for SO2 will be key in completing
a series of strategies that can be deemed by EPA as meeting reasonable
progress for the Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau.
The provisions for adoption of strategies consistent with the GCVTC
recommendations do not preclude the States and tribes from developing
additional control strategies for achieving reasonable progress in
other Class I areas. Nor do they preclude States and tribes which did
not participate in the GCVTC, but which may benefit from its strategies
due to the geographic proximity of their Class I areas to the State
where strategies will be implemented and regional transport throughout
the west, from building on these strategies to address reasonable
progress for their Class I areas. However, for all Class I areas not on
the Colorado Plateau, the States and tribes would need to demonstrate,
through the required analyses, that implementation of these strategies
would contribute to meeting the requirements of section 51.308. By
focusing first on implementation strategies for the 16 Class I areas
based on the recommendations of the GCVTC, all western States may
reduce the technical and administrative costs of addressing the
remaining Class I areas by building on the outcome of existing programs
rather than requiring the development of two programs in parallel.
In the national rule, EPA is requiring States to analyze the rate
of progress in visibility improvement that would be needed to reach
natural conditions within 60 years. The analyses must assess what
strategies are available to meet that rate for the period of the long-
term strategy. The GCVTC reviewed the period from 1990 to 2040 to
assess what strategies were reasonable to achieve visibility
improvement in the 16 Class I areas. The GCVTC's Alternatives
Assessment Committee developed a modeling system linking emissions
control strategies, the costs of such strategies and the degree of
visibility improvement that would result from those strategies. While
not specifically attempting to reach natural conditions within 60
years, a key emissions control scenario assessed in the GCVTC process
was a ``maximum management alternative.'' The GCVTC looked at many
source types and their impacts on visibility. This specific assessment
applied all known and anticipated control strategies over the time
period as an indicator of the maximum amount of improvement in
visibility possible in the region. The results of this analysis did not
show sufficient emissions to reach natural conditions in any mandatory
Class I area by 2040. The analysis of this scenario did, however,
demonstrate that the ``maximum management alternative'' is not likely
to be achievable based on technological, economic and policy choices
made by the Alternates Assessment Committee due to costs, degree of
visibility improvement and other factors. Consequently, EPA finds this
analysis, plus the management alternatives chosen (i.e., market-based
emissions reductions, specific source-sector reductions, etc.) to be an
acceptable basis for approvable SIP strategies for the 16 Class I areas
for the first long-term strategy period since, in effect, reaching
natural conditions by 2040 was shown not to be reasonable in this
transport region at this time. In making this finding, EPA concludes
that the GCVTC analyses and process provide for an assessment
comparable to that called for by section 51.308.
In promulgating section 51.309, EPA is establishing specific SIP
requirements for the time period 2003 through 2018 based on
demonstrations by the GCVTC. The EPA finds the GCVTC demonstrations
satisfy requirements for review of the statutory factors as provided
for under subsection 51.308(d).
While the GCVTC's assessment included projections to the 2040, EPA
feels that the strategies incorporated in section 51.309 must be re-
evaluated in 2018 to assure that they will continue to achieve
reasonable progress after a thorough review of the CAA factors. As
discussed elsewhere in today's notice, this periodic review and
revision of regional haze SIPs is needed because of technological
changes and economic factors which are likely to significantly alter
both the rate of emissions growth within a region, and the degree to
which new technologies can more effectively reduce emissions, both of
which can affect the rate of visibility improvement. In addition, the
requirement for periodic revisions is consistent with the statutory
provisions governing long-term strategies.
The EPA agrees with commentors who noted certain benefits to
following the pathway provided through section 51.309 for addressing
regional haze impairment. First, there is the benefit that the mixture
of required strategies for the 16 Class 1 areas has already been
through public comment as part of the GCVTC deliberations and subject
to review by many stakeholders. This previous public debate should help
ensure broader public support for the State's plans as they are adopted
and implemented. As pointed out by commentors, one of the benefits of
the GCVTC recommended strategies is that they are aimed at developing
cost-effective control strategies and ensuring compliance flexibility
for affected sources. For example, the strategy to address emissions
from stationary sources uses a milestone and backstop emissions trading
program mechanism. This rewards voluntary emissions reductions since a
regional emissions trading program would only become effective if
regional milestones are exceeded. Given that the provisions for the
milestone and backstop emissions trading system may be approvable in
lieu of BART, depending on the milestones developed in the annex, full
compliance with BART emissions limitations would not be required within
5 years of plan submittal, as would be required of States which submit
plans under section 51.308 requiring source-specific BART. In addition,
the economies of scale offered by the work of the WRAP in conducting
coordinated assessment activities, such as economic and air quality
modeling, could be substantial in aiding States in meeting their
planning obligations.
[[Page 35751]]
Finally, EPA's provisional view that SIPs which meet section 51.309
would satisfy the requirement for reasonable progress minimizes the
analyses required of States which adhere to the requirements of section
51.309, compared to States making an independent submittal under
section 51.308.
C. Elements of the GCVTC-Based State and Tribal Implementation Plans
1. Time Period
Section 51.309(d)(1) establishes the time period of the plan to
cover the 16 parks and wilderness areas for the period 2003 through
2018. The GCVTC's recommended emissions reduction strategies, including
the emission reduction approach for stationary sources of
SO2, establish the long-term strategy requirements for plan
submittals to EPA until the year 2018. This time period is consistent
with the submittals required under section 51.308 which will be due
between 2004 and 2008 depending on the classification of State areas
with respect to attainment of the recently promulgated NAAQS for
PM2.5. The time period covered by the plan revision due
under section 51.309, 2003-2018, is somewhat different from the
timeframe for long-term strategies required by section 51.308 for the
Class I areas not on the Colorado Plateau. The differences that exist
acknowledge the substantial early work of the GCVTC, on the 16 Class I
areas, while at the same time making the strategy review cycle
consistent with the timetable established in section 51.308.
The EPA received comment that it should allow the GCVTC
recommendations to be the basis of all future strategies to address
regional haze for the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau
permanently. The EPA disagrees. No given set of emissions strategies
can be determined reliably to achieve reasonable progress into the
distant future. While the GCVTC strategies adopted by the States under
the provisions of section 51.309 may well continue to be adequate to
meet the future long-term strategy requirement, a full review of
emissions strategies for all Class I areas of the region is appropriate
to assure that ``reasonable progress'' is being achieved and will
continue to be achieved during the periods of subsequent long-term
strategies. As noted above, the relevant facts concerning costs of
controls, availability of control strategies, and other statutory
factors will change over time. Advancements in technology and changes
in economic factors will likely provide opportunities for
implementation of new cost-effective control measures to assure
reasonable progress. The structure of EPA's rule is designed to require
States, through the SIP process, to review the statutory factors on a
periodic basis and determine appropriate changes to their strategies
based on that review.
2. Projection of Visibility Improvement
Section 51.309(d)(2) requires the plan to contain a projection of
the visibility conditions expected through the year 2018 and to take
into account the measures required in the GCVTC report and the
provisions of section 51.309. This projection must, at a minimum, be
expressed in units of deciview.
The Agency received comment that the GCVTC States should not be
required to estimate visibility conditions using the deciview metric,
but should be permitted simply to track emissions over time. While EPA
encourages States to track emissions in order to evaluate the emission
reduction effectiveness of adopted control measures, it is equally
important that changes be translated into visibility improvements in
order to be responsive to the national goal. As noted earlier in unit
III.C of this notice on the deciview metric, EPA's selection of the
deciview scale is an appropriate way to do this. The Agency also
included this provision to ensure that the public understands the
relationship of the SIP to visibility conditions at the Class I areas
and to the national goal of no manmade impairment in visibility in
these areas. The Agency thus feels that it is appropriate to inform the
public on the relationship between chosen emissions control measures
and their effect on visibility by requiring States to report on actual
and expected changes in visibility to be achieved through
implementation of section 31.309. Those changes can be based on
monitored data as well as estimated for future conditions based on
implementation of emissions strategies. Moreover, the requirement for
use of the deciview metric does not prevent the States from using other
indicators, in addition to the deciview, for describing regional haze
conditions, such as standard visual range or atmospheric light
extinction.
3. Treatment of Clean Air Corridors
Section 51.309(d)(3) requires the States to identify a geographic
region or regions which will be subject to a comprehensive emissions
tracking strategy. The purpose of such comprehensive emissions tracking
is to ensure that the frequency of clear days, or days with good
visibility, increases or does not decrease at any of the 16 Class I
areas addressed by the GCVTC. This section of the rule is designed to
make the review of emissions, and their resulting impact on the clear
days at the Class I areas, part of the public record through the SIP
approval process. It does not mandate any emissions control strategies
specifically aimed at improving clear days, but provides for the State
to periodically review the need for such strategies. If anthropogenic
emissions create visibility impairment above natural conditions, and if
overall annual human-caused emissions reductions take place in a
region, it is likely that visibility will improve for both the most
impaired days and the least impaired days.
The geographic area (or areas) to be covered by the emissions
tracking strategy is to be determined initially based on the GCVTC
Meteorology Subcommittee's report entitled Clean Air Corridors: A
Framework for Identifying Regions that Influence Clean Air on the
Colorado Plateau. The geographic area (or areas) can be further refined
based on new technical findings over time. The requirement to track
emissions will enable States to quickly determine if changes in
patterns of emissions will reduce the number of clean air days (defined
as the average of the 20 percent clearest days) in any of the 16 Class
I areas. The State must analyze the effects of the emissions changes
and implement additional measures to protect the clean days if
necessary. The States may include the tracking of emissions for the
clean air corridors with tracking of emissions for other purposes such
as compliance with stationary source emissions targets, if appropriate.
The EPA notes that clean air corridors will be protected by other
implementation plan requirements, such as other SIP measures that may
apply to existing stationary sources. States may wish to rely on
technical cooperation now beginning under the WRAP as an efficient
means to consolidate efforts on emission inventories and projections
needed to monitor clean air corridor emissions and their effects on
clear air days.
4. Implementation of Stationary Source Reductions
To achieve the reductions in emissions for stationary sources
projected in the GCVTC's strategies, subsection 51.309(f)(1)(i)
requires the establishment of SO2 emission reduction
milestones as part of the development of an annex to the GCVTC report.
Section 51.309(d)(4) requires monitoring and reporting of stationary
[[Page 35752]]
source emissions of SO2 in order to assess compliance with
these milestones during the period 2003 to 2018. The SIP must contain
criteria and procedures for implementing a market trading program or
other program documented in the SIP, consistent with section
51.309(f)(1)(i), if triggered by emissions exceeding the emissions
reduction milestones. In particular, the SIPs must provide for
implementation of the market-based program or other emissions control
strategy as called for by an assessment of SO2 emissions for
the years 2003, 2008, 2013, and 2018. States must fully activate the
market system or other program within 1 year after an assessment
showing the excessive emissions. In addition, the implementation plan
must provide for all affected sources to comply with the market system
or other programs allocating emissions within 5 years after the date
the program is triggered. The rule also requires States to report on
actual emissions reductions and compare them to the established
milestones. If a market trading program or other program is triggered,
the rule requires States to report whether all sources covered by the
market trading or other programs are in compliance with applicable
requirements.
In addition to requirements for control of emissions of
SO2, the rule requires the State to explore emission
management options for stationary source emissions of PM and
NOX. The States are required to report by 2003 on their
consideration of the need for emissions targets for these pollutants to
prevent growth in emissions of these pollutants in the region as a
whole. The EPA believes that the States should base their decisions on
the need for, and levels of, emissions targets for these pollutants on
the degree to which such pollutants contribute to regional haze
impairment in the Class I areas addressed by their SIPs. The States
must report to EPA by 2003 on their decisions whether to develop
targets and additional control strategies for PM and NOX
emissions from stationary sources. If the States determine that such
targets and controls are needed, they must submit a plan revision to
EPA not later than December 31, 2008 containing any necessary long-term
strategies and BART or other requirements for stationary sources of PM
and NOX.
In adopting the requirements for stationary source emission
reduction milestones in this manner, EPA is indicating that the State's
adoption of approvable SO2 milestones and a backstop market
trading program as set forth in section 51.309(f) in addition to the
other requirements in section 51.309 would provide for reasonable
progress for the 16 Class I areas for the implementation period from
2003 to 2018. The emissions reductions provided for by the milestones
and trading program must address the BART provisions in section
51.308(e). For the reasons discussed in the portion of this preamble
concerning BART requirements, EPA believes that the GCVTC's adoption of
a market based alternative to source-by-source BART will permit the
GCVTC States to meet the provisions of the national rule which allow
the use of alternative measures in lieu of BART. Implementation of the
framework established by subsections 51.309 (d)(4) and (f) will thus
satisfy the provisions for an alternative measure in lieu of BART for
regional haze impairment set forth in section 51.308(e)(2), provided
the interim milestones called for in the annex assure greater
reasonable progress than would be achieved by application of BART. The
EPA will supplement its actions on the stationary source strategy with
future rulemaking on the States' submission of interim milestones for
SO2 emissions as part of the annex. In reviewing the interim
milestones, EPA will be informed by the annex to the GCVTC report
provided for in section 51.309(f) to be discussed later.
5. Mobile Sources
Section 51.309(d)(5) requires implementation plans to address the
contribution to regional haze by emissions from mobile sources. This
mobile source provision is based on the finding in the GCVTC Report
that reducing total mobile source emissions is an essential part of any
long-term strategy for management of visibility on the Colorado
Plateau.126 The GCVTC found that some urban areas will
already be developing mobile source emissions budgets and programs to
meet other CAA requirements. To the extent that mobile source emissions
in these or other areas are found to contribute significantly to
visibility impairment in the Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau, the
GCVTC recommended that an emissions budget be established for any area
with a significant contribution to the regional mobile source emissions
total. The GCVTC called for the budgets to be established beginning in
the approximate year in which emissions from mobile sources are
projected to be at their lowest point during the planning period of
2003 to 2018, which is expected to be in 2005. The emissions budget
should serve both as a planning objective and a performance indicator
for that area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ GCVTC Report, pp. 38-46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, today's final rule requires all plans to provide for
an inventory of current and projected emissions (VOC, NOX,
SO2, elemental carbon, organic carbon, and direct fine
particles) from mobile sources for the 2003 to 2018 period. Because, as
noted in the GCVTC Report, the inventory for the year 2005 is expected
to represent the expected lowest total emissions from mobile sources in
the planning period, that inventory must be included in the SIP. Once
State inventories have been compiled and evaluated, the States with
urban areas found to contribute significantly to visibility impairment
in the 16 Class I areas must establish and document their mobile source
emissions budgets for any such area. In addition, the States must
establish SIP components which limit VOC, SO2,
NOX, elemental and organic carbon and direct fine
particulate mobile source emissions to their projected lowest levels
for the period 2003 to 2018. The State plans must also provide for the
implementation of measures to achieve the mobile emissions budget, and
for demonstrations of compliance with any such budget. The
demonstrations must include a tracking system to evaluate and
demonstrate the State is meeting its share of the regional mobile
source emissions budget.
The GCVTC report also noted that the Federal government has a role
in addressing mobile source emissions. The GCVTC report identified
several national mobile source-related emissions reduction strategies
under consideration by EPA that are important to visibility conditions
in the Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. The GCVTC agreed to
promote these initiatives on a national level. With regard to ongoing
development of policies and regulations on emissions from mobile
sources, the June 29 letter from the WGA requests that EPA ``make a
binding commitment in its final regional haze rule to fully consider
the GCVTC's recommendations' on several national mobile source
emissions control strategies. Comment on the regional haze rule
specifically requested that EPA commit to consider development of a
list of very specific national mobile source emissions control
strategies.
The EPA agrees with the GCVTC's conclusion that emissions from
mobile sources can be significant contributors to regional haze
visibility impairment. The EPA is currently working on a number of the
strategies the GCVTC requested us to ``fully consider'' and the
[[Page 35753]]
summary below indicates the status of activities under way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status of EPA efforts to
No. Measure fully consider the
measure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................. Adoption of the 49-State Combined Tier II/gasoline
LEV standard in 2001 and sulfur NPRM is being
Tier II vehicle emission drafted, with
standards in year 2004 publication expected in
(if determined to be early to mid-1999.
more effective).
2................. Support of EPA's current Finalized 2004 standards
proposal for new on- for on-road heavy-duty
road, heavy-duty in 10/97 [62 FR 54693];
vehicles emission reductions in NOx
standards that reduce emissions and secondary
NOx emissions by at PM.
least 50 percent over
the 1998 requirements in
the CAA, while
maintaining current
stringent PM emission
limits.
3................. Pursue additional PM Potential actions being
reductions from on-road evaluated.
vehicles.
4................. Pursue additional engine Finalized standards in 8/
emission standards for 98 [63 FR 56967]. Also
new off-road vehicles planning a technology
(heavy-duty, review by December 2001
construction-type) that to evaluate feasibility
provide reasonably standards and additional
achievable reductions. reductions.
5................. Explore broader Gasoline sulfur control-
application of and rulemaking underway.
additional reductions in Considering regulation of
the sulfur content of diesel fuel sulfur.
both gasoline and diesel
fuel.
6................. Promotion of cleaner- In first year of
burning fuels. implementing clean-fuel
fleets program. The
Office of Mobile Sources
presented a series of
fleet manager workshops
during May, June and
July of '98. Clean Fuel
Fleet Program
Implementation Guidance
was issued in August
'98.
We have a team within OMS
working on promoting
clean fuels efforts.
7................. Pursue fuel standards and Study of these issues is
control strategies for ongoing, but no specific
diesel locomotives, actions have been
marine vessels/pleasure scheduled.
craft, airplanes, and
Federal vehicles as
described in the GCVTC's
Report.
8................. Support requirements for On-board re-fueling
effective refueling standards for cars and
vapor recovery systems trucks finalized October
that capture evaporative 1996.
emissions. We may consider refueling
systems for on-road,
heavy-duty gasoline in
future.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA will continue to work with States and regional planning
entities to help them assess how national mobile source emissions
strategies will affect other strategies needed to ensure reasonable
progress toward the national visibility goal during the implementation
of the regulations promulgated today. The EPA will also grant States
full credit for implementation of future national mobile source
programs in emissions strategies needed to attain reasonable progress
goals.
6. Emissions Related to Fire
Section 51.309(d)(6) requires documentation that all prescribed
fire programs within the State consider and address the effects of
smoke on visibility when planning and issuing permits for prescribed
fires. The GCVTC Report stated that ``fire has played a major role in
the development of and maintenance of most ecosystems in the West.''
127 In addition, the report notes ``emissions from fire
(wildfire and prescribed fire) are an important episodic contributor to
visibility-impairing aerosols, including organic carbon, and
particulate matter (PM2.5)''. Agricultural burning emissions
and their effects have been identified as a concern by the GCVTC but
have not been quantified due to lack of data. The GCVTC concluded that
all types of fire (prescribed fire, wildfire, and agricultural burning)
must be addressed equitably as part of a visibility protection
strategy.128
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\ GCVTC Report, p. 47.
\128\ See Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA agrees with the GCVTC's conclusions and is including in
this section of the rule a requirement for the States to address all
types of fire in fulfilling the requirements of this section and in
submitting SIPs for approval by EPA. Section 51.309(d)(6) requires each
State to establish an emissions inventory and tracking system (spatial
and temporal) for VOC, NOX, elemental carbon and organic
carbon, and direct fine particulate emissions from prescribed fire,
wildfire, and agricultural burning. The EPA believes that such
information could be developed on a regional basis and could be
accomplished through mechanisms such as recording acres experiencing
fire and calculating emissions based on vegetation type and soil
moisture. Most importantly, the rule requires the establishment of
enhanced smoke management programs for fire that consider visibility
effects, in addition to health and nuisance objectives, and calls for
programs to be based on the criteria of efficiency, economics, law,
emissions reduction opportunities, land management objectives, and
reduction of visibility impacts. The comprehensive approach envisioned
by the rule will allow States to plan a smoke management program that
minimizes visibility impacts but also fully recognizes the ecological
role of fire.
The smoke management plans must address all sources of fire used
for land management purposes. The provisions of this section also
provide for establishment of annual emissions goals for fire (excluding
wildfire) that will minimize increases in emissions to the maximum
extent feasible. These goals are to be established cooperatively by
States, tribes, State and Federal land management agencies, and their
private sector counterparts, considering factors similar to those
identified for enhanced smoke management plans.
7. Dust From Roads
Section 51.309(d)(7) requires States to assess the impact of dust
emissions on regional haze visibility in the 16 Class I areas. If such
dust emissions are determined to be a significant contributor to
visibility impairment, the State must implement emissions management
strategies to address their impact. In the technical work of the GCVTC,
road dust was not shown to be a major contributor to regional haze
impairment based on current monitoring data. However, work on future
emissions projections of road dust emissions was directly tied to
growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The large increase projected
for the west in VMT over the planning period of the GCVTC report
resulted in initial
[[Page 35754]]
predictions of a very large contribution of road dust to regional
haze.129 This technical result was addressed in the GCVTC
report and the GCVTC discounted the predictions of the future impacts
from road dust. However, the GCVTC recommended that its policy
conclusion that distant road dust is not likely to play an important
role in regional haze should be confirmed through further tracking of
road dust emissions. The GCVTC also emphasized that road dust control
should be considered in locations ``in and near'' Class I
areas.130 The EPA agrees with this approach and has included
the assessment of road dust as a requirement of the SIP. In addition,
today's action requires appropriate SIP measures over time based on the
contribution of road dust to regional haze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ GCVTC Report, p. 46.
\130\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Pollution Prevention
This section addresses the GCVTC's recommendations on pollution
prevention and renewable energy. The GCVTC goal recommended that
renewable energy comprise 10 percent of the regional power needs by
2005 and 20 percent by 2015. The Administration has recently offered
legislation proposing a national mandate of 7.5 percent by 2010. The
Commission's goal represents the outcome of its consensus process and
is a more aggressive goal than what the Administration has proposed as
a national mandate. As with other GCVTC recommendations, the EPA has
included this provision in this rule in recognition of the overall body
of the GCVTC's work and believes it is consistent with the provisions
of the national rule. Section 51.309(d)(8) requires the State to
summarize all pollution prevention plans currently in place, inventory
the current and expected energy generation capacity through 2002, the
total energy generation capacity and production for the State, the
State's percentage of total energy generation and capacity that comes
from renewable energy sources, and the State's anticipated contribution
toward the GCVTC's goal that renewable energy comprise 10 percent of
the regional power needs by 2005, and 20 percent by 2015.
The GCVTC found that to prevent further degradation of vistas in
the west, it would be necessary to combine cost-effective pollution
control strategies with a greater emphasis on pollution prevention,
including low or zero emission technologies and energy conservation. It
further found that there was a high potential for renewable energy
production, especially electrical energy, and that the relative cost of
renewable energy production is declining over time. The GCVTC cited
forecasts of renewable energy production by the Western Systems
Coordinating Council and by the Land and Water Fund of the Rockies in
support of its adoption of the goal that 10 percent of regional power
needs be served by renewable energy sources by the year 2005 and 20
percent by the year 2015.131
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ GCVTC Report, p. 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In establishing assessment and reporting requirements for the
States, EPA is supporting the GCVTC Report's promotion of renewable
power production. Such production will likely be based on emerging
renewable energy technologies such as wind, solar, biomass, and
geothermal. The EPA also supports tracking annual goals for increases
in renewable power generation in the transport region.132
The GCVTC identified strategies which the States could rely on to help
achieve this regional renewable energy goal, including, but not limited
to, focusing research funding for renewables, financial incentives, and
requiring new power generation projects to include a portion of the
generation from renewable energy sources. The EPA notes that the WRAP
is committed to following through on the GCVTC's recommendations and
can assist the States in developing strategies they can rely on to
achieve regional renewable energy goals contained in the GCVTC Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ GCVTC Report, p. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the GCVTC's recommendations on pollution prevention,
section 51.309(d)(8) calls for each SIP to provide for incentives to
reward efforts that go beyond compliance and/or achieve early
compliance with air pollution related requirements. The plan also must
identify specific areas where renewable energy has the potential to
supply power where it is not now provided by current service systems
and where renewable energy systems are most cost effective. The plan
must contain projections of the short-term and long-term emissions
reductions, visibility improvements, costs savings, and secondary
benefits associated with renewable energy goals, energy efficiency and
pollution prevention activities. The plan must also contain a
description of the programs being relied on to achieve the State's
contribution toward the GCVTC's renewable energy goals.
The State must provide a demonstration of its progress toward
achieving the renewable energy goals in 2003, 2008, 2013 and 2018. The
demonstration must include documentation describing the potential for
renewable energy resources, the percentage of renewable energy
associated with new power generation projects implemented or planned,
and the renewable energy generation capacity and production in use or
planned within the State. Where a State cannot feasibly meet its
planned contribution to the regional renewable energy goals, the State
must identify the measures implemented to achieve its contribution and
explain why meeting the State's contribution was not feasible.
Commentors on EPA's September 3, 1998 notice of availability stated
that incorporation of language from the WGA letter on renewable energy
restricts State and local energy planning since a SIP is federally
enforceable under the CAA. Commentors also expressed the opinion that
the requirements for SIPs to address renewable energy goals may
overstep EPA's legal authorities which are limited to emissions
limitation and pollution performance standards.
The EPA disagrees that the provisions of section 51.309(d)(8)
impermissibly restrict State and local energy planning or that these
provisions exceed EPA's authority under the CAA. As stated previously,
the requirements of section 51.309 are provided to GCVTC States as an
alternative to the general provisions of section 51.308 as a means of
giving effect to the policy and technical work of the GCVTC. The goals
themselves are not enforceable and States are not required to meet the
renewable energy goals. However, as the WGA letter and the GCVTC
provide, these provisions are not severable. States which wish to take
advantage of the GCVTC's efforts and EPA's acceptance thereof are
obligated to meet all of the requirements of section 51.309.
Rather, EPA is setting enforceable requirements for the States to
assess progress toward goals established by the GCVTC with respect to
renewable energy production as a means for reducing dependence on more
polluting forms of energy production. States participating in the GCVTC
strategy are responsible for explaining why they cannot meet the GCVTC
goals. The required reporting by the States will inform the public of
air quality improvements that would result from that goal had it been
realized. It is the relationship between renewable energy production
and associated environmental effects (direct and
[[Page 35755]]
indirect) that is the thrust of the assessment and reporting effort
under the SIP.
9. Implementation of Additional Requirements
In section 51.309(d)(9), EPA requires SIPs to provide for
implementation of other GCVTC Report policy and strategy options that
can be practicably included as enforceable emissions limits, schedules
of compliance or other enforceable measures to make reasonable progress
toward the national visibility goal for the 16 Class I areas.
The GCVTC's recommendations included items that are not appropriate
to directly translate to SIP requirements for every State. The EPA
supports State choice of appropriate actions on other options and
measures identified by the GCVTC and has, therefore, established a
general provision for SIPs calling for them to consider and adopt
additional measures as necessary and appropriate. The rule further
requires States to report to EPA in 2003, 2008, 2013, and 2018 on what
measures have been adopted and the status of implementation of those
measures.
10. International Transport of Pollution
One of the additional areas of concern noted in the GCVTC report,
for instance, relates to effects of emissions from sources outside of
the territory of the United States. As stated elsewhere in this notice,
the EPA will not hold States responsible for developing strategies to
``compensate'' for the effects of emissions from foreign sources.
However, the States should not consider the presence of emissions from
foreign sources as a reason not to strive to ensure reasonable progress
in reducing any visibility impairment caused by sources located within
their jurisdiction. The States retain a duty to work with EPA in
helping the Federal government use appropriate means to address
international pollution transport concerns. Indeed, such efforts are
under way. The EPA and other Federal officials are working with
representatives of the Mexican government to complete a study which
will assess the contribution of fossil-fuel fired electric generation
stations in northern Mexico to haze in Big Bend National Park. These
efforts and funding of work to establish emissions inventories in
Mexico will help address concerns raised by the GCVTC. In addition to
activities directly related to visibility effects, there are other
efforts underway related to the United States-Mexico border health
issues. Given that emissions contributing to health effects and those
contributing to visibility impairment are generally the same, the
border studies and emissions inventories will help support assessment
of regional visibility conditions. In addition to work with Mexico, EPA
routinely meets with representatives of the Canadian government on
issues related to transport of air pollutants, particularly focusing on
emissions affecting acidic deposition. The EPA intends to continue to
work through appropriate channels in building technical information and
addressing policy concerns related to international pollution
transport.
11. Periodic Implementation Plan Revisions
Section 51.309(d)(10) requires the States to periodically assess
their progress in implementing measures for protection of visibility.
This includes a review of how the measures implemented under section
51.309 are consistent with the national rule's provisions for long-term
strategies and BART. The assessments must be completed by 2008, 2013,
and 2018 and must be submitted to EPA as SIP revisions that comply with
the procedural requirements of sections 51.102 and 51.103. As with any
other review and revision of SIP requirements, States will be expected
to use the most current available technical methods and procedures in
conducting their assessments.
The provisions of section 51.309(d)(10) further require that where
a State concludes that planning adjustments are necessary as a result
of emissions occurring within the State, it revise its implementation
strategies to include rule revisions that are effective within 1 year
after the State makes such a conclusion in order to assure reasonable
progress at any of the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. States
may also conclude, based on their assessments, that no changes to the
plan are needed, and the plan revision requirement can be met by
submitting a ``negative declaration'' as an implementation plan
revision to EPA. This revision must provide the State's basis for
finding that no changes are needed. This submission will provide the
public with necessary information and an opportunity to comment on the
State's findings.
The EPA views the requirement of section 51.309(d)(10) as a
periodic check on progress rather than a thorough revision of regional
strategies. The State interim assessments should focus on significant
failures or shortfalls in implementing adopted strategies and on
emissions from in-State or out-of-State sources which may be causing
degradation in regional haze visibility but were not anticipated in the
development of the original plan and will, therefore, not be addressed
by currently-adopted programs. If a State makes such findings with
respect to in-State sources, EPA expects the State to revise its SIP,
reducing emissions to be consistent with the regional planning effort
reflected in the reasonable progress SIPs due in 2003. If transport of
emissions from out of State is suspected of impairing reasonable
progress, the State should identify this to EPA and should initiate
cooperative efforts with upwind States so the emissions can be more
fully evaluated and, as needed, addressed in the next mandatory full
SIP revision. This requirement is virtually identical to the provisions
for periodic review under sections 51.308(g) and (h).
12. State Planning and Interstate Coordination
Section 51.309(d)(11) provides flexibility to a State to address
its contribution to visibility impairment through the regional
emissions control strategies discussed above. The SIP strategies to
protect the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau can thus be
developed through interstate coordination in a regional planning
process. Such regional planning can help a State develop documentation
of the technical and policy basis for the individual State
apportionment of emissions and visibility impairment, the contribution
to emissions addressed by the State's plan, coordination in the
analysis of interstate transport and control of pollution with other
States, and compliance with other criteria for approval of SIPs under
CAA sections 110 and 169A and B. Therefore, under today's final rule
and EPA policy, States may rely on regional entities' efforts to
develop and document technical and policy support for the SIPs required
by this rule. For the purposes of implementing the requirements of
section 51.309, EPA recognizes the WRAP as a regional planning group
for purposes of interstate consultation under section 51.308(c).
As indicated in the introduction to the section of today's notice
addressing the WGA and GCVTC recommendations, States retain the right
to develop their own programs with or without reliance on the work
products of a regional entity. In the case where a State chooses to
develop a SIP without reliance on a regional planning process, however,
the State will need to show how it accounted for the effect of its
emissions on Class I areas which may be
[[Page 35756]]
located beyond the State's borders, as well as the effect of upwind
emissions from other States on the Class I areas within its borders.
The regional haze SIP for a State choosing not to implement the
requirements of section 51.309, including the SIP submittal deadlines,
would be governed by the national rules provided in section 51.308. Any
State choosing not to adopt a SIP in accordance with the GCVTC strategy
and optional approach in section 51.309, but wishing to use the WRAP
mechanism for regional cooperation in developing its SIP requirements,
would need to comply with all of the requirements outlined in the
national rule in section 51.308.
13. Tribal Implementation Plans
The WGA called for EPA's final rule to permit tribes within the
GCVTC Transport Region to implement visibility programs, or reasonably
severable elements, in the same manner as States, regardless of whether
such tribes have participated as members of a visibility transport
GCVTC. The EPA has not included the WGA's recommended rule provision in
today's action because the necessary authority for tribal organizations
has already been provided in a previous EPA rulemaking.133
The EPA does, however, agree with the position expressed in the WGA
recommendation. The EPA wishes to clarify that tribes may directly
implement the requirements of this section of the regional haze rule in
the same manner as States. The Tribal Authority Rule provides for this,
as discussed further in unit V of today's notice. The independence of
tribes means that a tribal visibility program is not dependent on
strategies selected by the State or States in which the tribe is
located. If tribes within the Transport Region decline to implement
visibility programs and EPA finds that emissions management strategies
are needed to assure reasonable progress, EPA will work with the
appropriate tribes directly to provide for Federal implementation of
appropriate emissions reduction strategies. This is based on the
government to government principles of Federal-Tribal relations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\ See 63 FR 7254 (Feb. 12, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Requirements for States Electing Not To Follow All Provisions of the
Section 51.309(e)
The EPA notes that the provisions for allowing the Transport Region
States to adopt SIPs based on the GCVTC recommendations requires that
States endorse the range of strategies recognized by the GCVTC. A State
electing not to implement the GCVTC recommendations as set forth in
section 51.309(d) must address all of its Class I areas and any Class I
area to which its sources' emissions may contribute to impairment under
the provisions of section 51.308. In addition, any Transport Region
State must advise other States electing to comply with section 51.309
of the nature and effect of their program on visibility impairing
emissions so that other States can use this information in developing
programs under section 51.309. This provision assures that all
components needed to address reasonable progress are part of SIPs
either under the provisions of section 51.309 or section 51.308.
E. Annex to the GCVTC Report
1. Interim Milestones
Section 51.309(f) calls for an annex to the GCVTC Report for the
purpose of completing the program requirements to meet reasonable
progress under the CAA, including submission of a complete long-term
strategy and addressing the BART requirement for the 16 Class I areas
on the Colorado Plateau. The purpose of the annex is to develop interim
emissions milestones for stationary source SO2 interim
targets between the year 2000 target and the target for the year 2040.
Under section 51.309(f)(1)(i), the States must consider four specific
factors in setting the interim emission milestones. The first factor
affecting the selection of interim milestones is the GCVTC's definition
of reasonable progress. The GCVTC notes in its report that the term
``reasonable progress'' refers to ``progress in reducing human-caused
haze in Class I areas under the national visibility goal.'' \134\ It
goes on to note that ``the CAA indicates that `reasonable' should
consider the cost of reducing air pollution emissions, the time
necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental
impacts of reducing emissions, and the remaining useful life of any
existing air pollution source considered for these reductions.'' The
discussion also includes the GCVTC's Public Advisory Committee
definition that ``progress towards the national visibility goal is
achieving continuous emissions reductions necessary to reduce existing
impairment and attain steady improvement in visibility in mandatory
Class I areas, and managing emissions growth so as to prevent
perceptible degradation of clean air days.'' Together, these provisions
call for the achievement of continuous emissions reductions and
tracking the reductions to ensure visibility improvement in hazy days
and visibility maintenance on clear days. To be consistent with and
responsive to the guiding principles, recommendations and strategies
adopted by the GCVTC, EPA expects any interim targets to demonstrate a
significant continuous downward trend in emissions and not postpone
significant progress to periods covered by future long-term strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\ GCVTC Report, p. x-xi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second factor is the quantifiable target for 2040 to which
interim targets must contribute. This target is a 50 to 70 percent
reduction by 2040 in emissions from stationary source SO2
emissions, based on the projection of the GCVTC's baseline forecast
scenario from actual 1990 emission levels. Interim targets should
reflect assessment of reasonable measures which reduce regional
loadings of SO2. Such assessments may include examination of
interim targets based on costs per ton of reducing SO2 in
line with recently adopted control measures.
The third factor is the applicable requirements of the CAA for
making reasonable progress and implementing BART. As noted previously
in this preamble, the CAA requires a long-term strategy to ensure
reasonable progress and the application of BART to certain large
sources that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to
regional haze. The rule requires the annex to address the BART
provisions of the national rule. As noted in the earlier discussion of
BART, EPA will accept alternative measures, such as regional emissions
trading programs, which achieve greater reasonable progress in lieu of
meeting the source-specific BART requirement. As noted elsewhere in the
preamble, EPA plans to issue revised BART guidance within a year.
During the next year and a half, EPA also plans to issue new or revised
guidance related to the design of emission trading programs, including
guidance on the structure of economic incentive programs. Given this
schedule, EPA intends to work closely with the WRAP as it develops the
annex, its approach to meeting the rule's BART requirements and its
backstop market-trading program. The EPA believes that its
participation in the WRAP will help to ensure that the way in which the
annex addresses BART and the market trading program will be compatible
with EPA's revised BART guidance and any new or revised guidance EPA
issues related to emissions trading programs.
In the event EPA finds that the annex does not meet the rule's BART
provisions because it is inconsistent
[[Page 35757]]
with EPA's revised BART guidance, the Transport Region States may
submit a revised annex to address any deficiencies. The revision should
be submitted as expeditiously as practicable but no later than 12
months from EPA's determination that the annex is deficient with
respect to BART due to its inconsistency with the BART guidance.
Similarly, if EPA finds the annex does not meet the provisions of any
EPA guidance applicable to market-trading programs that is issued after
promulgation of this rule, the Transport Region States may submit a
revision to the annex to remedy any such deficiencies. These revisions
should also be submitted no later than 12 months from EPA's
determination that the annex cannot be incorporated in the SIP because
of inconsistencies with the guidance. The EPA expects that the States
and WRAP stakeholders will make every effort to address both the
revised BART guidance and any new or revised emission trading program
guidance within the timeframe established by section 51.309 for
submittal of the annex. By providing for EPA participation in the WRAP,
encouraging State and stakeholder efforts to respond expeditiously to
new or revised guidance, and calling for any needed revisions to the
annex to be submitted within a year from an EPA determination of
deficiency, this approach will ensure compliance with the SIP submittal
deadlines in section 51.309(c).
The fourth factor to be addressed in the setting of interim
milestones is the timing of implementation plan assessments of progress
and the identification of mechanisms to address cases where emissions
exceed milestone levels for the reporting years 2003, 2008, 2013 and
2018. This schedule is designed to achieve eventual coordination of
target years with assessments for regions affecting other Class I
areas. Because these efforts call for continuing consultation and
sharing of information between regions as well as between States,
timetables for further work by the GCVTC States are designed to bring
the GCVTC States' long-term strategy updates in line with the schedule
for the next long-term strategy update required of all other States.
2. Documentation of Market Trading or Other Alternative Measures To
Assure Reasonable Progress.
In addition to the interim targets, section 51.309(f)(1)(iii)
requires the annex to contain final documentation of the market trading
program or other programs to be implemented by the GCVTC States if
current implementation plans and voluntary measures are not sufficient
to meet the established interim milestones. This documentation must
include model rules, memoranda of understanding, and other materials
necessary to describe in detail and establish in enforceable fashion
how emission reduction progress will be monitored, what conditions will
require the market trading program to be activated, how allocations
will be performed, and how the program will operate.
3. Additional Class I Areas
An additional provision, section 51.309(g) allows States to elect
to demonstrate reasonable progress for other Class I areas within the
Transport Region States beyond the original 16 areas addressed by the
GCVTC's assessment, relying on the strategies recommended by the GCVTC.
See the discussion in unit IV.F. of this preamble.
4. Geographic Enhancements
The EPA has also adopted provisions in subsections 51.309(b)(7) and
51.309(f)(4) that would allow the Transport Region States to establish
a process as part of a broad regional strategy, such as backstop
market-trading program, to accommodate the situation where a State
takes action to address reasonably attributable BART under the
provisions of section 51.306(c)(2). As noted elsewhere, the annex, if
approved, will allow the Transport Region States to submit a SIP which
adopts an alternative measure in lieu of BART. The purpose for
including the provisions regarding geographic enhancement is to address
the intersection between the existing reasonably attributable BART
provision and regional haze BART, which may be met through an emissions
trading program such as the milestone/backstop market-trading program
which is to be included in the annex. Existing rules address ``hot
spots'--those situations in which part of the visibility impairment in
a specific national park or wilderness area is reasonably attributable
to a single source or small group of sources in the airshed because of
the nature and location of the pollution relative to the Class I area.
Should action be taken by the State to address such reasonably
attributable impairment through BART, the geographic enhancement
provisions would allow the backstop market-based trading program to
accommodate such action. These provisions parallel a similar allowance
in subsections 51.301(ii) and 51.308(e)(2)(C)(v).
The EPA is repeating these provisions, with minor language changes,
to be clear that they apply to both the milestones or backstop market-
trading program provided for in the annex. Subsection 51.309(b)(7)
defines the term geographic enhancement for the provisions governing
the annex and section 51.309(f)(4) allows the annex to contain a
geographic enhancement. Similar to the national program, these
provisions will allow the market trading system included in the annex
to accommodate situations where a State wishes to require BART control
measures on sources or a small group of sources due to reasonably
attributable impairment and that source has been included in the
backstop market trading program under the annex. In this situation, the
milestone or backstop market-trading program may include a level of
reasonably attributable impairment which may require additional
emissions reductions over and above those achieved under the
quantitative emissions reductions milestones established for regional
haze.
5. The EPA Responsibilities in Relation to the Annex
Section 51.309(f)(3) spells out EPA's responsibilities with respect
to the annex and calls for EPA to publish the annex upon receipt. The
EPA must then conduct a review and decide, after notice and opportunity
for public comment, whether the annex meets the requirement of section
51.309(f)(1) and whether it assures reasonable progress. If EPA finds
the interim targets and accompanying documentation meet the
requirements of reasonable progress, then it will incorporate the
interim targets into the stationary source SIP requirements in section
51.309(d)(4) within 1 year of receipt, after public notice and comment.
If EPA decides that the annex does not meet SIP requirements for
reasonable progress or if EPA does not receive an annex, it will notify
the GCVTC States, who will then be subject to the general provisions of
section 51.308 in the same manner as other States.
One commentor on the annex approach described in EPA's September 3
notice of availability noted that the WGA letter set forth a tight
timetable for development of the market system and that it appears to
violate the TEA-21 requirements. In response, EPA notes that these are
the timetables established by the GCVTC in 1996 and which have been the
basis for work by the follow-up body of the WRAP. With respect to TEA-
21, the colloquy between Senator Allard and Senator Baucus in the
Congressional Record on the conference report concerning implementation
of GCVTC recommendations is instructive,
[[Page 35758]]
and EPA believes that it fully addresses the commentor's concern.
Senator Baucus stated that ``[TEA-21] clarifies that it does not affect
EPA's authority to provide for State implementation of the agreements
and recommendations set forth in the June 1996 GCVTC Report on a
schedule consistent with the GCVTC's Report. * * * The conferees added
specific language so as not to preclude the Administrator from
providing for earlier State implementation of the GCVTC's agreements
and recommendations * * *.'' 135 That language states that:
\135\ 144 Cong Rec. SS407 (daily ed. May 22, 1998).
The preceding provisions of this paragraph shall not preclude
the implementation of the agreements and recommendations set forth
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
in the GCVTC Report dated June 1996.
TEA-21 section 4102(c)(2).
F. Additional Class I Areas
Section 51.309(g) calls for Transport Region States to identify in
their 2003 plan submissions whether they elect to meet the provisions
of section 51.308 or 51.309 in establishing their long-term strategy
and BART requirements for additional Class I areas not covered by the
original GCVTC effort. By no later than December 31, 2008 the States
electing to use section 51.309 to address additional Class I areas must
submit plan revisions which include a modeling demonstration
establishing expected visibility conditions on the most-impaired and
least-impaired days at the Class I areas for which they seek to
demonstrate reasonable progress. These demonstrations may be conducted
by the State or based on refined studies conducted by regional
entities. The plan must include the analyses required in section
51.308(d)(1). The plan can build upon and take full credit for the
strategies adopted for the 16 Class I areas. It must also contain any
additional measures beyond those strategies that may be needed to
demonstrate reasonable progress in those areas, in accordance with the
provisions of section 51.308(d)(1) through (4). As provided for in
section 51.309(g)(2), a Transport Region State may have until no later
than December 31, 2008, to submit a plan for additional Class I areas,
which is the date for submission that additional Class I areas under
section 51.308. Transport Region States may well benefit by addressing
the additional Class I areas under section 51.309, since using the same
rule provision for both sets of Class I areas could facilitate
coordination of the requirements for the areas as well as enabling
consolidation of plans after 2008.
Furthermore, if the State can develop the necessary demonstration
for other Class I areas before 2003, a Transport Region State could
submit one implementation plan in 2003 covering both the 16 Class I
areas and other Class I areas for which it must assure reasonable
progress.
V. Implementation of the Regional Haze Program in Indian Country
This section discusses how the requirements of the regional haze
rule relate to emissions released from Indian country.
A. Background on Tribal Air Quality Programs
Before discussing how the regional haze rule affects tribes, we
believe it is useful to briefly describe EPA's overall policy and
rulemaking efforts on tribal air quality programs.
On November 8, 1984, the EPA released a policy statement entitled
``EPA Policy for the Administration of Environmental Programs on Indian
Reservations.'' This policy statement, available on the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/indian/1984.htm, stresses a number of themes. In
particular, this policy stresses that EPA, consistent with overall
Federal government policy, will pursue the principle of Indian ``self-
government,'' and that it will work with tribal governments on a
``government-to-government'' basis. The policy statement also
emphasizes EPA's desire to work with interested tribal governments in
developing programs and in preparing to assume regulatory and
environmental program management responsibility for Indian country. The
EPA will retain responsibility for protecting tribal air quality until
such time as tribes administer their own air quality protection
programs.
The CAA, as amended in 1990, added a new section 301(d) which
authorizes EPA to ``treat tribes as States'' for the purposes of
administering CAA programs. Section 301(d) required that EPA promulgate
regulations listing specific CAA provisions for which it would be
appropriate to treat tribes as States and establishing the criteria
that tribes must meet in order to be eligible for such treatment under
the CAA. The EPA proposed these regulations on August 25, 1994 (59 FR
43956), and finalized the rule on February 12, 1998 (63 FR 7254). Much
of the regulatory language in this rule is codified in the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) as a new 40 CFR part 49. This rule is
generally referred to as the Tribal Authority Rule or TAR.
The TAR includes general eligibility requirements for tribes
interested in assuming program responsibilities that are codified in
section 49.6 of the rule. These eligibility requirements are designed
in part to ensure that such tribes have the infrastructure needed to
successfully implement a tribal air quality program. Tribes may request
a formal eligibility determination using administrative procedures
contained in 49.7. Tribes may also use the administrative procedures in
49.7 to seek approval to implement CAA programs. The TAR authorizes EPA
to review requests for eligibility determinations and program approvals
simultaneously. As noted in 49.7(c), tribes that are interested in
seeking EPA approval to implement air quality programs under the CAA
may request approval to implement only partial elements of a CAA
program, so long as the elements of the partial program are
``reasonably severable.''
Section 301(d)(4) of the CAA confers discretionary authority on EPA
to provide, through regulation, alternative means to ensure air quality
protection in cases where it determines that treating tribes as
``identical'' to States would be inappropriate. Accordingly, in
promulgating the TAR, EPA provided flexibility to tribes seeking to
implement the CAA. Some flexibility is established by virtue of EPA's
decision, under 49.4 of the final rule, not to treat tribes as States
for specified provisions of the CAA. The rationale for this approach is
discussed on pages 7264 and 7265 of the preamble to the final rule, and
in unit III.B of the preamble to the proposed rule. For example, unlike
States, tribes are not required by the TAR to adopt and implement CAA
plans or programs, thus tribes are not subject to mandatory deadlines
for submittal of implementation plans. As discussed in the preamble
sections identified above, EPA believes that it generally would not be
reasonable to impose the same types of deadlines on tribes as on
States. Among the CAA provisions for which EPA has determined it will
not treat tribes as States is section 110(c)(1) of the CAA, which
requires EPA to intervene and ensure air quality protection within 2
years after a State either fails to adopt a SIP or does not win EPA
approval for a SIP that was determined to be deficient. The EPA did not
apply this provision to tribes because the section 110(c) obligation on
EPA to promulgate a FIP is based on failures with respect to required
submittals, and, as noted above, tribal submissions under the TAR are
voluntary, not mandatory.
[[Page 35759]]
Instead, pursuant to its section 301(d)(4) discretionary authority, EPA
has provided in the TAR that, where necessary and appropriate, it will
promulgate FIPs within reasonable timeframes to protect air quality in
Indian country. See 40 CFR 49.11(a).
B. Issues Related to the Regional Haze Program in Indian Country
Today's final rule imposes requirements for revisions to SIPs. The
rule requires States to develop SIP revisions to address regional haze,
to update the SIP every 10 years, and to continue to evaluate progress
toward the national visibility goal. The requirements of today's final
rule are among those air quality programs for which tribes may be
determined eligible and receive authorization to implement under the
TAR. Tribes wishing to assume these regional haze program requirements
and be ``treated as States'' may seek approval under 40 CFR 49, but are
not required to do so. Where tribes do not take on this responsibility,
EPA will ensure air quality protection in Indian country consistent
with the provisions of 40 CFR 49.11(a).
We encourage tribes to participate in regional planning efforts for
regional haze. A good example of tribal participation in regional haze
planning is the efforts of tribal representatives on the GCVTC. These
efforts are continuing with tribal participation on the WRAP. The EPA
expects, as noted above, that additional regional planning groups will
be formed in reaction to today's final rule. A number of tribes have
indicated interest in participating in regional planning efforts, and
we believe this is beneficial in many respects. Tribal participation
can help provide emissions inventory information that can serve to
better understand the importance of sources in Indian country to
regional visibility impairment. Conversely, such participation can also
help provide a forum for tribal participants to alert regional planning
organizations as to concerns on how regional emissions are affecting
air quality in Indian country.
As noted in the preamble to the TAR, we intend to work with tribes
to identify air quality priorities and needs, to build communication
and outreach to tribes on air quality issues, and to provide training
to build tribes' technical capacity for implementing air quality
programs. We recognize, however, that not all tribes will have the
resources nor the expertise to participate in regional planning efforts
for regional haze. An important EPA role in regional planning efforts
will be to ensure that the overall objectives of the regional haze
program are met where tribes are unable to participate.
In order to encourage tribes to develop self-sufficient programs,
the TAR provides tribes with the flexibility of submitting programs as
they are developed, rather than in accordance with statutory deadlines.
This means that tribes that choose to develop programs, where necessary
may take additional time to submit implementation plans for regional
haze over and above the deadlines in the TEA-21 legislation as codified
in today's final rule. (See unit III.B for a discussion of these
deadlines.) The TEA-21 legislation changed the deadlines for State
submission of SIP revisions to address regional haze, which were
originally set out in section 169B(e)(2) of the CAA. Section 49.4(f) of
the TAR provides that deadlines related to SIP submittals under section
169(B)(e)(2) do not apply to tribes. We encourage tribes choosing to
develop implementation plans to make every effort to submit by the
deadlines to ensure that the plans are integrated with and coordinated
with regional planning efforts. In the interim, EPA will work with the
States and tribes to ensure that achievement of reasonable progress is
not delayed.
As noted previously in unit II of this notice, sections 169A and
169B of the CAA contain requirements for visibility protection in Class
I areas, and do not require that States or tribes develop plans and
control strategies for visibility protection for additional locations.
These provisions of the CAA do not require implementation plans to
address regional haze in other Class I areas, such as those designated
as Class I by tribes or States under section 164 of the CAA. One
commenter from a tribe expressed concerns that the scenic beauty and
value of tribal areas should not be viewed by EPA as less important
than the national parks and wilderness areas that have ``mandatory
Class I'' status. While EPA believes that these tribal areas are not
afforded the same legal protection under the CAA as Class I areas, it
is important for tribes to understand that the regional haze control
program for the Federal areas will help to protect scenic locations of
interest to tribes. For example, EPA believes that modeling analyses
aimed at addressing Class I areas can readily add receptor locations to
analyze the visibility improvements at selected tribal locations. The
EPA will work with regional planning bodies to ensure that tribal
interests are represented and to foster communication between States
and tribes, and we will encourage the consideration of impacts on
visibility in tribal locations in regional planning efforts.
VI. Miscellaneous Technical Amendments to the Existing Rule
The rule includes the following changes to coordinate the
requirements of today's regional haze rule with the 1980 visibility
regulations for ``reasonably attributable'' visibility impairment:
Section 51.300. Purpose and Applicability
We have amended this section to clarify that subpart P includes
provisions for regional haze as well as reasonably attributable
visibility impairment.
Section 51.301. Definitions
We have added the following terms: reasonably attributable
visibility impairment, regional haze, deciview, State, most-impaired
days, least-impaired days, implementation plan, tribe, BART-eligible
source, and geographic enhancement. The other definitions in this
section apply to the program for reasonably attributable impairment as
well as the new regional haze program, except where it is noted that
they only apply to the program for reasonably attributable impairment.
Section 51.302. Implementation Control Strategies
We have changed references in section 51.302(a) to the
administrative process requirements for public hearings and SIP
submissions, which are now located in section 51.102 and 51.103. We
have also amended this section to clarify that the implementation
control strategies addressed in the section apply to reasonably
attributable visibility impairment.
Section 51.305. Monitoring
We have amended this section to clarify that the monitoring
requirements in this section apply to reasonably attributable
visibility impairment.
VII. Administrative Requirements
In preparing any final rule, EPA must meet the administrative
requirements contained in a number of statutes and executive orders. In
this section of the preamble, we discuss how the final regional haze
rule addresses these administrative requirements.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) (Executive Order 12866)
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993,) the
Agency
[[Page 35760]]
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and,
therefore, subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive
Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that
is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action'' and
EPA has submitted it to OMB for review. The drafts of rules submitted
to OMB, the documents accompanying such drafts, written comments
thereon, written responses by EPA, and identification of the changes
made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations are available
for public inspection at EPA's Air and Radiation Docket Information
Center (Docket No. A-95-38).
The EPA has prepared and entered into the docket a Regulatory
Impact Analysis (RIA) entitled Regulatory Impact Analysis for the
Regional Haze Rule. This RIA assesses the costs, economic impacts, and
benefits for four illustrative progress goals, two sets of control
strategies, two sets of assumptions for estimating benefits, and
systems of national uniform versus regionally varying progress goals.
The RIA is a caveated and illustrative assessment of the potential
consequences of the regional haze rule in 2015, a year near the end of
the first long-term progress period, 2018. As a result of comments from
the public as well as changes initiated by EPA staff, the RIA has a
broader scope, improved data, and more realistic modeling than the
analysis issued with the proposed rule.
Despite these improvements, the RIA is not a precise reflection of
the actual costs, economic impacts, and benefits associated with the
progress goals and emission management strategies developed as a result
of the final regional haze rule. This is due to the fact that under the
regional haze rule, the States bear the primary responsibility for
establishing reasonable progress goals as well as emission management
strategies for meeting these goals. Until such time as the States make
those decisions, EPA can only speculate as to which goals may be
established and what types of control requirements or emission limits
might result from the associated emission management strategies.
According to the RIA, there is substantial visibility improvement
due to emissions from other CAA programs such as those for the new O3
and PM NAAQS and the Tier 2 mobile sources rule. With illustrative
goals ranging from 1.0 deciview improvement in 15 years to 10 percent
deciview improvement in 10 years, the RIA finds that between 22 and 52
percent of the Class I area counties in the continental U.S. achieve or
surpass the progress goals due to emissions reductions from other CAA
programs. Furthermore, by looking at only partial attainment of the PM
and O3 NAAQS and a modest (relative to the proposed rule) Tier 2
program, the RIA understated the visibility improvements from these and
other CAA programs. Hence, if States established reasonable progress
goals equivalent to the amount of visibility improvement which could be
achieved by other CAA programs, the incremental control costs of the
regional haze rule may be less than the costs estimated in the RIA, as
noted below, for the first long-term strategy period. Under these
conditions there could be costs associated with the planning, analysis,
and BART control elements of the rule. Incremental annualized costs for
those elements are estimated to be $72 million (1990 dollars).
However, if States all choose to establish the same illustrative
progress goal, the RIA estimates incremental control costs ranging from
$1 to $4 billion with associated benefits ranging from $1 billion to
$19 billion. But, visibility is not the only monetized effects
category. Many of the benefits which could be monetized are associated
with improvements to human health and other welfare effects. This is
because the emission control strategies targeted at improving
visibility in Class I areas also generate air quality improvements in
many other parts of the country. However, the estimated visibility
benefits which are monetized are substantial, ranging, for example,
from 86 to 111 percent of control costs for the 1 deciview improvement
in 15 years illustrative progress goal and from 32 to 52 percent for
the 10 percent deciview improvement in 10 years illustrative progress
goal.
The RIA finds that the estimated net benefits (benefits minus
costs) may increase and the potential for adverse economic impact would
decrease if States exercise their discretion to establish State or
region-specific reasonable visibility progress goals and emission-
management strategies.
According to the RIA simulations, not all Class I areas achieve or
surpass the illustrative visibility progress goals even after the
simulation of two sets of control strategies. But, the visibility
improvement is substantial with 84 to 94 percent of the 121 counties
with 147 Class I areas in the continental U.S. achieving the 1.0
deciview in 15 years goal and 31 to 43 percent of the areas achieving
10 percent deciview improvement in 10 years goal. Furthermore, all
areas have improved visibility. How much of the estimated progress
shortfall is due to the failure of the RIA to fully account for the
visibility progress due to other CAA programs and advances in control
technology is unknown.
The RIA, although highly caveated and illustrative, represents an
improvement over the analysis prepared for the proposed rule.
Furthermore, the RIA demonstrates significant visibility progress in
121 counties with 147 Class I areas in the continental U.S. These
improvements result from other CAA programs as well as those targeted
at the illustrative progress goals. Despite incomplete coverage of
effects and pollutants, the monetized benefits of strategies associated
with illustrative nationally uniform goals are substantial, outweighing
the control strategy costs under most conditions for the first long-
term strategy period. However, higher net benefits may result and the
potential for significant adverse impact may be mitigated if States
exercise the discretion to establish reasonable progress goals and
emission management strategies. The flexibility for State discretion
is, of course, exactly what the regional haze rule provides.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. The
EPA has also determined that this rule will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities because the rule does
not establish requirements applicable to small entities.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Secs. 601 et seq.) (RFA),
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(Pub. L.
[[Page 35761]]
No.104-121) ( SBREFA), provides that whenever an agency is required to
publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking, it must prepare and
make available an initial regulatory flexibility analysis, unless it
certifies that the proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have ``a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.'' 5 U.S.C. Sec. 605(b). Courts have interpreted the RFA to
require a regulatory flexibility analysis only when small entities will
be subject to the requirements of the rule. See Motor and Equip. Mfrs.
Ass'n v. Nichols, 142 F.3d 449 (D.C. Cir. 1998); United Distribution
Cos. v. FERC, 88 F.3d 1105, 1170 (D.C. Cir. 1996); Mid-Tex Elec. Co-op,
Inc. v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327, 342 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (agency's
certification need only consider the rule's impact on entities subject
to the rule).
As stated in the proposal, the regional haze rule will not
establish requirements applicable to small entities. The rule applies
to States, not to small entities. The rule requires States to develop,
adopt, and submit SIP revisions that will ensure reasonable progress
toward the national visibility goal, and would generally leave to the
States the task of determining how to obtain those reductions,
including which entities to regulate. In developing emission control
measures, section 169A of the CAA requires States to address BART for a
select list of major stationary sources defined by section 169A(g)(7)
of the CAA. As noted in the proposal, however, the State's
determination of BART for regional haze involves some State discretion
in considering a number of factors set forth in section 169A(g)(2),
including the costs of compliance. Further, the final rule allows
States to adopt alternative measures in lieu of requiring the
installation and operation of BART at these major stationary sources.
As a result, the potential consequences of today's final rule at
specific sources are speculative. Any requirements for emission control
measures, including any requirements for BART, will be established by
State rulemakings. The States will accordingly exercise substantial
intervening discretion in implementing the final rule.
For the final rule, EPA is confirming its initial certification
that the rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The EPA notes, however, that the Agency did
conduct a more general analysis of the potential impact on small
entities of possible State implementation strategies. This analysis is
documented in the RIA. In addition, as noted in the proposal, EPA
undertook small-entity outreach activities on a voluntary basis. The
EPA also has issued guidance, entitled ``Guidance on Mitigation of
Impact to Small Business While Implementing Air Quality Standards and
Regulations,'' which can be found on the internet at: http://
ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov/implement/actions.htmOther. This guidance
outlines potential implementation strategies that would mitigate
impacts on small sources and encourages States to make use of these
strategies wherever possible and appropriate. The EPA did receive
comments regarding the impact on the regional haze rule on small
entities. These comments are addressed in the Response to Comments
document.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act--Impact on Reporting Requirements
The information collection requirements in this rule relating to
State requirements for the protection of visibility in Class I national
parks and wilderness areas were submitted to OMB for review and
approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. An
Information Collection Request document was prepared by EPA (ICR No.
1813.02) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, by mail at OPPE
Regulatory Information Division, U.S. EPA (2137) 401 M Street, S.W.;
Washington, DC 20460, by email at farmer.sandy@epamail.epa.gov, or by
calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may also be downloaded off the internet
at http://www.epa.gov/icr. The information requirements are not
effective until OMB approves them.
This collection of information has an estimated reporting burden,
for the fifty States and District of Columbia, of approximately 22,000
to 47,000 hours for a 3-year period between mid-1999 and mid-2002. The
Agency expects the Federal burden will be approximately 1900 to 4000
hours for the 3-year period. The Agency anticipates States costs of
about $980,000 to $2,064,000 for the 3-year period. The Agency
estimates the annual Federal costs to be approximately $83,000 to
$175,000 for the 3-year period. These estimates include time for
reviewing requirements and instructions, evaluating data sources,
gathering and maintaining data, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
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 EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) (UMRA), establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 2
U.S.C. 1532, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including
a cost-benefit analysis, for any proposed or final rule that ``includes
any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$100,000,000 or more * * * in any one year.'' A ``Federal mandate'' is
defined under section 421(6), 2 U.S.C. 658(6), to include a ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' and a ``Federal private sector mandate.'' A
``Federal intergovernmental mandate,'' in turn, is defined to include a
regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local,
or tribal governments,'' section 421(5)(A)(i), 2 U.S.C. 658(5)(A)(i),
except for, among other things, a duty that is ``a condition of Federal
assistance,'' section 421(5)(A)(i)(I). A ``Federal private sector
mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty
upon the private sector,'' with certain exceptions, section 421(7)(A),
2 U.S.C. 658(7)(A).
Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is
needed under section 202 of the UMRA, section 205, 2 U.S.C. 1535, of
the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost
effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule.
The RIA prepared by EPA and placed in the docket for this
rulemaking is consistent with the requirements of
[[Page 35762]]
section 202 of the UMRA. Furthermore, EPA is not directly establishing
any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, including tribal governments. Thus, EPA is not
obligated to develop under section 203 of the UMRA a small government
agency plan. Further, as described in the proposal, EPA carried out
consultations with the governmental entities affected by this rule in a
manner consistent with the intergovernmental consultation provisions of
section 204 of the UMRA.
The EPA also believes that because the rule provides States with
substantial flexibility, the proposed rule meets the UMRA requirement
in section 205 to select the least costly and burdensome alternative in
light of the statutory mandate to issue regulations that make
reasonable progress toward the national visibility protection goal. The
rule provides States with the flexibility to establish reasonable
progress goals and BART based on certain criteria, one of which is the
costs of compliance. The rule also provides States with the flexibility
to adopt alternatives, such as an emissions trading program, in lieu of
requiring BART. Finally, the rule provides the States with the
flexibility to develop long-term strategies. The regional haze rule,
therefore, inherently provides for adoption of the least costly, most
cost effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the
objective of the rule.
The EPA is not reaching a final conclusion as to the applicability
of the requirements of UMRA to this rulemaking action. It is
questionable whether a requirement to submit a SIP revision constitutes
a Federal mandate. The obligation for a state to revise its SIP that
arises out of sections 110(a), 169A and 169B of the CAA is not legally
enforceable by a court of law and, at most, is a condition for
continued receipt of highway funds. Therefore, it is possible to view
an action requiring such a submittal as not creating any enforceable
duty within the meaning of section 421(5)(A)(i) of UMRA (2 U.S.C.
658(5)(A)(i)). Even if it did, the duty could be viewed as falling
within the exception for a condition of Federal assistance under
section 421(5)(A)(i)(I) of UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(5)(A)(i)(I)). As noted
earlier, however, notwithstanding these issues, the discussion in
section 2 and the analysis in Chapter 8 of the RIA constitutes the UMRA
statement that would be required by UMRA if its statutory provisions
applied, and EPA has consulted with governmental entities as would be
required by UMRA. Consequently, it is not necessary for EPA to reach a
conclusion as to the applicability of the UMRA requirements.
E. Environmental Justice--Executive Order 12898
Executive Order 12898 requires that each Federal agency make
achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and
activities on minorities and low-income populations. The requirements
of Executive Order 12898 have been addressed to the extent practicable
in the RIA cited above, particularly in chapters 2 and 9 of the RIA.
F. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
U.S. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the U.S. prior to
publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A ``major rule''
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
section 804(2). This rule will be effective August 30, 1999.
G. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks--Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health
or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. The EPA
interprets E.O. 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that
are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required
under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to influence the
regulation. The regional haze rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because
it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate
health or safety risks.
H. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership--Executive Order 12875
Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the OMB a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected State, local and tribal governments, the
nature of their concerns, copies of any written communications from the
governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of State, local and tribal governments ``to provide
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals
containing significant unfunded mandates.''
Today's final rule does not create a mandate on State, local or
tribal governments. As explained in the discussion of UMRA (unit
VII.D), this rule does not impose an enforceable duty on these
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive
Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.
The EPA notes, however that considerable consultation has taken
place with State, local and tribal government representatives in
developing the final regional haze rule. In September 1995, EPA formed
a subcommittee under the authority of the Federal Advisory Committee
Act to advise the Agency on various issues related to implementation of
the revised ozone and particulate matter NAAQS and the regional haze
program. This group met a total of 13 times between September 1995 and
completion of its duties in December 1997. Several State and local
governmental representatives were on this subcommittee. The EPA
received and reviewed comments from over 40 States and 1 tribal
government on the July 1997 proposal. Tribes in the west have been
active in discussion on regional haze, both as members of the GCVTC,
and in the follow-on body, the WRAP. In addition, EPA has held
[[Page 35763]]
numerous meetings with State and local representatives.
I. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of
the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a
summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected
officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to
provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory
policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their
communities.''
Because the rule does not establish a visibility progress goal or
emission management strategy, the rule does not impose control or other
direct compliance requirements. Hence, the rule does not create a
mandate on tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of 3(b) of
Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Pub. L. No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA
did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: April 22, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 51 of chapter I of
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 51--REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for Part 51 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7410, 7414, 7421, 7470-7479, 7491, 7492,
7601, and 7602.
Subpart P--Protection of Visibility
2. Section 51.300 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(1)
introductory text, and (b)(2), and by adding paragraph (b)(3) to read
as follows:
Sec. 51.300 Purpose and applicability.
(a) Purpose. The primary purposes of this subpart are to require
States to develop programs to assure reasonable progress toward meeting
the national goal of preventing any future, and remedying any existing,
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which
impairment results from manmade air pollution; and to establish
necessary additional procedures for new source permit applicants,
States and Federal Land Managers to use in conducting the visibility
impact analysis required for new sources under Sec. 51.166. This
subpart sets forth requirements addressing visibility impairment in its
two principal forms: ``reasonably attributable'' impairment (i.e.,
impairment attributable to a single source/small group of sources) and
regional haze (i.e., widespread haze from a multitude of sources which
impairs visibility in every direction over a large area).
(b) Applicability. (1) General Applicability. The provisions of
this subpart pertaining to implementation plan requirements for
assuring reasonable progress in preventing any future and remedying any
existing visibility impairment are applicable to:
* * * * *
(2) The provisions of this subpart pertaining to implementation
plans to address reasonably attributable visibility impairment are
applicable to the following States:
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida,
Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,
Virgin Islands, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming.
(3) The provisions of this subpart pertaining to implementation
plans to address regional haze visibility impairment 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.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U
3. Section 51.301 is amended by removing the paragraph
designations, placing the defined terms in alphabetical order, revising
the definitions of Federal Land Manager, Major stationary source,
Natural conditions, and Visibility impairment, and adding in
alphabetical order definitions of Reasonably attributable visibility
impairment, Regional haze, Deciview, State, Most impaired days, Least
impaired days, Implementation plan, Indian tribe or tribe, BART-
eligible source, and Geographic enhancement for the purpose of
Sec. 51.308 to read as follows:
Sec. 51.301 Definitions.
* * * * *
BART-eligible source means an existing stationary facility as
defined in this section.
* * * * *
Deciview means a measurement of visibility impairment. A deciview
is a haze index derived from calculated light extinction, such that
uniform changes in haziness correspond to uniform incremental changes
in perception across the entire range of conditions, from pristine to
highly impaired. The deciview haze index is calculated based on the
following equation (for the purposes of calculating deciview, the
atmospheric light extinction coefficient must be calculated from
aerosol measurements):
Deciview haze index=10 lne (bext/10
Mm-1).
Where bext=the atmospheric light extinction coefficient,
expressed in inverse megameters (Mm-1).
* * * * *
[[Page 35764]]
Federal Land Manager means the Secretary of the department with
authority over the Federal Class I area (or the Secretary's designee)
or, with respect to Roosevelt-Campobello International Park, the
Chairman of the Roosevelt-Campobello International Park Commission.
* * * * *
Geographic enhancement for the purpose of Sec. 51.308 means a
method, procedure, or process to allow a broad regional strategy, such
as an emissions trading program designed to achieve greater reasonable
progress than BART for regional haze, to accommodate BART for
reasonably attributable impairment.
Implementation plan means, for the purposes of this part, any State
Implementation Plan, Federal Implementation Plan, or Tribal
Implementation Plan.
* * * * *
Indian tribe or tribe means any Indian tribe, band, nation, or
other organized group or community, including any Alaska Native
village, which is federally recognized as eligible for the special
programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because
of their status as Indians.
* * * * *
Least impaired days means the average visibility impairment
(measured in deciviews) for the twenty percent of monitored days in a
calendar year with the lowest amount of visibility impairment.
Major stationary source and major modification mean major
stationary source and major modification, respectively, as defined in
Sec. 51.166.
* * * * *
Most impaired days means the average visibility impairment
(measured in deciviews) for the twenty percent of monitored days in a
calendar year with the highest amount of visibility impairment.
Natural conditions includes naturally occurring phenomena that
reduce visibility as measured in terms of light extinction, visual
range, contrast, or coloration.
* * * * *
Reasonably attributable visibility impairment means visibility
impairment that is caused by the emission of air pollutants from one,
or a small number of sources.
* * * * *
Regional haze means visibility impairment that is caused by the
emission of air pollutants from numerous sources located over a wide
geographic area. Such sources include, but are not limited to, major
and minor stationary sources, mobile sources, and area sources.
* * * * *
State means ``State'' as defined in section 302(d) of the CAA.
* * * * *
Visibility impairment means any humanly perceptible change in
visibility (light extinction, visual range, contrast, coloration) from
that which would have existed under natural conditions.
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
4. Section 51.302 is amended by revising the section heading,
paragraphs (a), (c) introductory text, (c)(1), (c)(2) introductory
text, (c)(4) introductory text, and (c)(4)(iv) to read as follows:
Sec. 51.302 Implementation control strategies for reasonably
attributable visibility impairment.
(a) Plan Revision Procedures. (1) Each State identified in
Sec. 51.300(b)(2) must have submitted, not later than September 2,
1981, an implementation plan meeting the requirements of this subpart
pertaining to reasonably attributable visibility impairment.
(2)(i) The State, prior to adoption of any implementation plan to
address reasonably attributable visibility impairment required by this
subpart, must conduct one or more public hearings on such plan in
accordance with Sec. 51.102.
(ii) In addition to the requirements in Sec. 51.102, the State must
provide written notification of such hearings to each affected Federal
Land Manager, and other affected States, and must state where the
public can inspect a summary prepared by the Federal Land Managers of
their conclusions and recommendations, if any, on the proposed plan
revision.
(3) Submission of plans as required by this subpart must be
conducted in accordance with the procedures in Sec. 51.103.
* * * * *
(c) General plan requirements for reasonably attributable
visibility impairment. (1) The affected Federal Land Manager may
certify to the State, at any time, that there exists reasonably
attributable impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal
area.
(2) The plan must contain the following to address reasonably
attributable impairment:
* * * * *
(4) For any existing reasonably attributable visibility impairment
the Federal Land Manager certifies to the State under paragraph (c)(1)
of this section, at least 6 months prior to plan submission or
revision:
* * * * *
(iv) The plan must require that each existing stationary facility
required to install and operate BART do so as expeditiously as
practicable but in no case later than five years after plan approval.
* * * * *
5. Section 51.305 is amended by revising the section heading and
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 51.305 Monitoring for reasonably attributable visibility
impairment.
(a) For the purposes of addressing reasonably attributable
visibility impairment, each State containing a mandatory Class I
Federal area must include in the plan a strategy for evaluating
reasonably attributable visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I
Federal area by visual observation or other appropriate monitoring
techniques. Such strategy must take into account current and
anticipated visibility monitoring research, the availability of
appropriate monitoring techniques, and such guidance as is provided by
the Agency.
* * * * *
6. Section 51.306 is amended by revising the section heading,
paragraph (a)(1), paragraph (c) introductory text, and paragraph (d) to
read as follows:
Sec. 51.306 Long-term strategy requirements for reasonably
attributable visibility impairment.
(a)(1) For the purposes of addressing reasonably attributable
visibility impairment, each plan must include a long-term (10-15 years)
strategy for making reasonable progress toward the national goal
specified in Sec. 51.300(a). This strategy must cover any existing
impairment the Federal Land Manager certifies to the State at least 6
months prior to plan submission, and any integral vista of which the
Federal Land Manager notifies the State at least 6 months prior to plan
submission.
* * * * *
(c) The plan must provide for periodic review and revision, as
appropriate, of the long-term strategy for addressing reasonably
attributable visibility impairment. The plan must provide for such
periodic review and revision not less frequently than every 3 years
until the date of submission of the State's first plan addressing
regional haze visibility impairment in accordance with Sec. 51.308(b)
and (c). On or before this date, the State must revise its plan to
provide for review and revision of a coordinated long-term strategy for
addressing reasonably attributable and
[[Page 35765]]
regional haze visibility impairment, and the State must submit the
first such coordinated long-term strategy. Future coordinated long-term
strategies must be submitted consistent with the schedule for periodic
progress reports set forth in Sec. 51.308(g). Until the State revises
its plan to meet this requirement, the State must continue to comply
with existing requirements for plan review and revision, and with all
emission management requirements in the plan to address reasonably
attributable impairment. This requirement does not affect any
preexisting deadlines for State submittal of a long-term strategy
review (or element thereof) between August 30, 1999, and the date
required for submission of the State's first regional haze plan. In
addition, the plan must provide for review of the long-term strategy as
it applies to reasonably attributable impairment, and revision as
appropriate, within 3 years of State receipt of any certification of
reasonably attributable impairment from a Federal Land Manager. The
review process must include consultation with the appropriate Federal
Land Managers, and the State must provide a report to the public and
the Administrator on progress toward the national goal. This report
must include an assessment of:
* * * * *
(d) The long-term strategy must provide for review of the impacts
from any new major stationary source or major modifications on
visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area. This review of major
stationary sources or major modifications must be in accordance with
Sec. 51.307, Sec. 51.166, Sec. 51.160, and any other binding guidance
provided by the Agency insofar as these provisions pertain to
protection of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal areas.
* * * * *
7. Section 51.307 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory
text, (a)(2) and (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 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)(1)(D) or
(E) of the CAA, the State plan must, in any review under Sec. 51.166
with respect to visibility protection and analyses, provide for:
* * * * *
(2) Where the State requires or receives advance notification (e.g.
early consultation with the source prior to submission of the
application or notification of intent to monitor under Sec. 51.166) of
a permit application of a source that may affect visibility the State
must notify all affected Federal Land Managers within 30 days of such
advance notification, and
* * * * *
(c) Review of any major stationary source or major modification
under paragraph (b) of this section, shall be conducted in accordance
with paragraph (a) of this section, and Sec. 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 the national visibility goal referred to in Sec. 51.300(a). The
State may take into account the costs of compliance, the time necessary
for compliance, the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of
compliance, and the useful life of the source.
* * * * *
8. A new Sec. 51.308 is added to subpart P to read as follows:
Sec. 51.308 Regional haze program requirements.
(a) What is the purpose of this section? This section establishes
requirements for implementation plans, plan revisions, and periodic
progress reviews to address regional haze.
(b) When are the first implementation plans due under the regional
haze program? Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section and
Sec. 51.309(c), each State identified in Sec. 51.300(b)(3) must submit
an implementation plan for regional haze meeting the requirements of
paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section by the following dates:
(1) For any area designated as attainment or unclassifiable for the
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for fine particulate
matter (PM2.5), the State must submit a regional haze
implementation plan to EPA within 12 months after the date of
designation.
(2) For any area designated as nonattainment for the
PM2.5 NAAQS, the State must submit a regional haze
implementation plan to EPA at the same time that the State's plan for
implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS must be submitted under
section 172 of the CAA, that is, within 3 years after the area is
designated as nonattainment, but not later than December 31, 2008.
(c) Options for regional planning. If at the time the SIP for
regional haze would otherwise be due, a State is working with other
States to develop a coordinated approach to regional haze by
participating in a regional planning process, the State may choose to
defer addressing the core requirements for regional haze in paragraph
(d) of this section and the requirements for BART in paragraph (e) of
this section. If a State opts to do this, it must meet the following
requirements:
(1) The State must submit an implementation plan by the earliest
date by which an implementation plan would be due for any area of the
State under paragraph (b) of this section. This implementation plan
must contain the following:
(i) A demonstration of ongoing participation in a regional planning
process to address regional haze, and an agreement by the State to
continue participating with one or more other States in such a process
for the development of this and future implementation plan revisions;
(ii) A showing, based on available inventory, monitoring, or
modeling information, that emissions from within the State contribute
to visibility impairment in a mandatory Class I Federal Area outside
the State, or that emissions from another State contribute to
visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I Federal area within the
State.
(iii) A description of the regional planning process, including a
list of the States which have agreed to work together to address
regional haze in a region (i.e., the regional planning group), the
goals, objectives, management, and decisionmaking structure of the
regional planning group, deadlines for completing significant technical
analyses and developing emission management strategies, and a schedule
for State review and adoption of regulations implementing the
recommendations of the regional group;
(iv) A commitment by the State to submit an implementation plan
revision addressing the requirements in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this
section by the date specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section. In
addition, the State must commit to develop its plan revision in
coordination with the other States participating in the regional
planning process, and to fully address the recommendations of the
regional planning group.
(v) A list of all BART-eligible sources within the State.
(2) The State must submit an implementation plan revision
addressing the requirements in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section
by the latest date an area within the planning region would be required
to submit an implementation plan under paragraph (b) of this section,
but in any event, no later than December 31, 2008.
[[Page 35766]]
(d) What are the core requirements for the implementation plan for
regional haze? 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 which 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) Reasonable progress goals. For each mandatory Class I Federal
area located within the State, the State must establish goals
(expressed in deciviews) that provide for reasonable progress towards
achieving natural visibility conditions. 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.
(i) In establishing a reasonable progress goal for any mandatory
Class I Federal area within the State, the State must:
(A) Consider 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
sources, and include a demonstration showing how these factors were
taken into consideration in selecting the goal.
(B) Analyze and determine the rate of progress needed to attain
natural visibility conditions by the year 2064. To calculate this rate
of progress, the State must compare baseline visibility conditions to
natural visibility conditions in the mandatory Federal Class I area and
determine the uniform rate of visibility improvement (measured in
deciviews) that would need to be maintained during each implementation
period in order to attain natural visibility conditions by 2064. In
establishing the reasonable progress goal, the State must consider the
uniform rate of improvement in visibility and the emission reduction
measures needed to achieve it for the period covered by the
implementation plan.
(ii) For the period of the implementation plan, if the State
establishes a reasonable progress goal that provides for a slower rate
of improvement in visibility than the rate that would be needed to
attain natural conditions by 2064, the State must demonstrate, based on
the factors in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(A) of this section, 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. 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 conditions if visibility improvement
continues at the rate of progress selected by the State as reasonable.
(iii) In determining whether the State's goal for visibility
improvement provides for reasonable progress towards natural visibility
conditions, the Administrator will evaluate the demonstrations
developed by the State pursuant to paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (d)(1)(ii)
of this section.
(iv) In developing each reasonable progress goal, 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. In any situation in which the State cannot agree with another
such State or group of States that a goal provides for reasonable
progress, the 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 goal for visibility improvement
provides for reasonable progress towards natural visibility conditions.
(v) 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 to
achieve the progress goal adopted by the State.
(vi) The State may not adopt a reasonable progress goal that
represents less visibility improvement than is expected to result from
implementation of other requirements of the CAA during the applicable
planning period.
(2) Calculations of baseline and natural visibility conditions. For
each mandatory Class I Federal area located within the State, the State
must determine the following visibility conditions (expressed in
deciviews):
(i) Baseline visibility conditions for the most impaired and least
impaired days. The period for establishing baseline visibility
conditions is 2000 to 2004. Baseline visibility conditions must be
calculated, using available monitoring data, by establishing the
average degree of visibility impairment for the most and least impaired
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;
(ii) For an implementation plan that is submitted by 2003, the
period for establishing baseline visibility conditions for the period
of the first long-term strategy is the most recent 5-year period for
which visibility monitoring data are available for the mandatory Class
I Federal areas addressed by the plan. For mandatory Class I Federal
areas without onsite monitoring data, the State must establish baseline
values using the most representative available monitoring data, in
consultation with the Administrator or his or her designee;
(iii) Natural visibility conditions for the most impaired and least
impaired days. Natural visibility conditions must be calculated by
estimating the degree of visibility impairment existing under natural
conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days, based on
available monitoring information and appropriate data analysis
techniques; and
(iv)(A) 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; or
(B) For all future implementation plan revisions, the number of
deciviews by which current conditions, as calculated under paragraph
(f)(1) of this section, exceed natural visibility conditions for the
most impaired and least impaired days.
(3) Long-term strategy for regional haze. Each State listed in
Sec. 51.300(b)(3) 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 which 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:
(i) Where the State has emissions that are reasonably anticipated
to contribute to visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I Federal
area located
[[Page 35767]]
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 consult with any other State having
emissions that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility
impairment in any mandatory Class I Federal area within the State.
(ii) Where other States cause or contribute to impairment in a
mandatory Class I Federal area, 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 meet the progress goal
for the 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.
(iii) The State must document the technical basis, including
modeling, monitoring and emissions information, on which the State is
relying to determine its apportionment of emission reduction
obligations necessary for achieving reasonable progress in each
mandatory Class I Federal area it affects. The State may meet this
requirement by relying on technical analyses developed by the regional
planning organization 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 is presumed to be the
most recent year of the consolidate periodic emissions inventory.
(iv) The State must identify all anthropogenic sources of
visibility impairment considered by the State in developing its long-
term strategy. The State should consider major and minor stationary
sources, mobile sources, and area sources.
(v) 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 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) Smoke management techniques for agricultural and forestry
management purposes including plans 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.
(4) 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. This monitoring strategy must be
coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in Sec. 51.305 for
reasonably attributable visibility impairment. 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.
(e) Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements for
regional haze visibility impairment. The State must submit an
implementation plan containing emission limitations representing BART
and schedules for compliance with BART for each BART-eligible source
that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any
impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area, unless
the State demonstrates that an emissions trading program or other
alternative will achieve greater reasonable progress toward natural
visibility conditions.
(1) To address the requirements for BART, the State must submit an
implementation plan containing the following plan elements and include
documentation for all required analyses:
(i) A list of all BART-eligible sources within the State.
(ii) A determination of BART for each BART-eligible source in the
State that emits any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated
to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any mandatory
Class I Federal area. All such sources are subject to BART. This
determination must be based on the following analyses:
(A) An analysis of the best system of continuous emission control
technology available and associated emission reductions achievable for
each BART-eligible source within the State subject to BART. In this
analysis, the State must take into consideration the technology
available, the costs of compliance, the energy and nonair quality
environmental impacts of compliance, any pollution control equipment in
use at the source, and the remaining useful life of the source; and
(B) An analysis of the degree of visibility improvement that would
be achieved in each mandatory Class I Federal area as a result of the
emission reductions achievable from all sources subject to BART located
within the region that contributes to visibility impairment in the
Class I area, based on the analysis conducted under paragraph
(e)(1)(ii)(A) of this section.
(iii) If the State determines in establishing BART that
technological or economic limitations on the applicability of
measurement methodology to a particular source would make the
imposition of an emission standard infeasible, it may instead prescribe
a design, equipment, work practice, or other operational standard, or
combination thereof, to
[[Page 35768]]
require the application of BART. Such standard, to the degree possible,
is to set forth the emission reduction to be achieved by implementation
of such design, equipment, work practice or operation, and must provide
for compliance by means which achieve equivalent results.
(iv) A requirement that each source subject to BART be required to
install and operate BART as expeditiously as practicable, but in no
event later than 5 years after approval of the implementation plan
revision.
(v) A requirement that each source subject to BART maintain the
control equipment required by this subpart and establish procedures to
ensure such equipment is properly operated and maintained.
(2) A State may opt to implement an emissions trading program or
other alternative measure rather than to require sources subject to
BART to install, operate, and maintain BART. To do so, the State must
demonstrate that this emissions trading program or other alternative
measure will achieve greater reasonable progress than would be achieved
through the installation and operation of BART. To make this
demonstration, the State must submit an implementation plan containing
the following plan elements and include documentation for all required
analyses:
(i) A demonstration that the emissions trading program or other
alternative measure will achieve greater reasonable progress than would
have resulted from the installation and operation of BART at all
sources subject to BART in the State. This demonstration must be based
on the following:
(A) A list of all BART-eligible sources within the State.
(B) An analysis of the best system of continuous emission control
technology available and associated emission reductions achievable for
each source within the State subject to BART. In this analysis, the
State must take into consideration the technology available, the costs
of compliance, the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of
compliance, any pollution control equipment in use at the source, and
the remaining useful life of the source. The best system of continuous
emission control technology and the above factors may be determined on
a source category basis. The State may elect to consider both source-
specific and category-wide information, as appropriate, in conducting
its analysis.
(C) An analysis of the degree of visibility improvement that would
be achieved in each mandatory Class I Federal area as a result of the
emission reductions achievable from all such sources subject to BART
located within the region that contributes to visibility impairment in
the Class I area, based on the analysis conducted under paragraph
(e)(2)(i)(B) of this section.
(ii) A demonstration that the emissions trading program or
alternative measure will apply, at a minimum, to all BART-eligible
sources in the State. Those sources having a federally enforceable
emission limitation determined by the State and approved by EPA as
meeting BART in accordance with Sec. 51.302(c) or paragraph (e)(1) of
this section do not need to meet the requirements of the emissions
trading program or alternative measure, but may choose to participate
if they meet the requirements of the emissions trading program or
alternative measure.
(iii) A requirement that all necessary emission reductions take
place during the period of the first long-term strategy for regional
haze. To meet this requirement, the State must provide a detailed
description of the emissions trading program or other alternative
measure, including schedules for implementation, the emission
reductions required by the program, all necessary administrative and
technical procedures for implementing the program, rules for accounting
and monitoring emissions, and procedures for enforcement.
(iv) A demonstration that the emission reductions resulting from
the emissions trading program or other alternative measure will be
surplus to those reductions resulting from measures adopted to meet
requirements of the CAA as of the baseline date of the SIP.
(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
Sec. 51.302(c) related to BART for reasonably attributable impairment
from the pollutants covered under the emissions trading program or
other alternative measure.
(3) After a State has met the requirements for BART or implemented
emissions trading program or other alternative measure that achieve
more reasonable progress than the installation and operation of BART,
BART-eligible sources will be subject to the requirements of paragraph
(d) of this section in the same manner as other sources.
(4) Any BART-eligible facility subject to the requirement under
paragraph (e) of this section to install, operate, and maintain BART
may apply to the Administrator for an exemption from that requirement.
An application for an exemption will be subject to the requirements of
Sec. 51.303 (a)(2) through (h).
(f) Requirements for comprehensive periodic revisions of
implementation plans for regional haze. Each State identified in
Sec. 51.300(b)(3) must revise and submit its regional haze
implementation plan revision to EPA by July 31, 2018 and every ten
years thereafter. In each plan revision, the State must evaluate and
reassess all of the elements required in paragraph (d) of this section,
taking into account improvements in monitoring data collection and
analysis techniques, control technologies, and other relevant factors.
In evaluating and reassessing these elements, the State must address
the following:
(1) Current visibility conditions for the most impaired and least
impaired days, and actual progress made towards natural conditions
during the previous implementation period. The period for calculating
current visibility conditions is the most recent five year period
preceding the required date of the implementation plan submittal for
which data are available. Current visibility conditions must be
calculated based on the annual average level of visibility impairment
for the most and least impaired days for each of these five years.
Current visibility conditions are the average of these annual values.
(2) The effectiveness of the long-term strategy for achieving
reasonable progress goals over the prior implementation period(s); and
(3) Affirmation of, or revision to, the reasonable progress goal in
accordance with the procedures set forth in paragraph (d)(1) of this
section. If the State established a reasonable progress goal for the
prior period which provided a slower rate of progress than that needed
to attain natural conditions by the year 2064, the State must evaluate
and determine the reasonableness, based on the factors in paragraph
(d)(1)(i)(A) of this section, of additional measures that could be
adopted to achieve the degree of visibility improvement projected by
the analysis contained in the first implementation plan described in
paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B) of this section.
(g) Requirements for periodic reports describing progress towards
the reasonable progress goals. Each State identified in
Sec. 51.300(b)(3) must submit a report to the Administrator every 5
years 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 which may be
affected by
[[Page 35769]]
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 progress reports must be in
the form of implementation plan revisions that comply with the
procedural requirements of Sec. 51.102 and Sec. 51.103. Periodic
progress reports must contain at a minimum the following elements:
(1) A description of the status of implementation of all measures
included in the implementation plan for achieving reasonable progress
goals for mandatory Class I Federal areas both within and outside the
State.
(2) A summary of the emissions reductions achieved throughout the
State through implementation of the measures described in paragraph
(g)(1) of this section.
(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 and least impaired days expressed in terms of
5-year averages of these annual values.
(i) The current visibility conditions for the most impaired and
least impaired days;
(ii) The difference between current visibility conditions for the
most impaired and least impaired days and baseline visibility
conditions;
(iii) The change in visibility impairment for the most impaired and
least impaired days over the past 5 years;
(4) 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. Emissions changes should be
identified by type of source or activity. The analysis must be based on
the most recent updated emissions inventory, with estimates projected
forward as necessary and appropriate, to account for emissions changes
during the applicable 5-year period.
(5) 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.
(6) An assessment of whether the current implementation plan
elements and strategies are sufficient to enable the State, or other
States with mandatory Federal Class I areas affected by emissions from
the State, to meet all established reasonable progress goals.
(7) A review of the State's visibility monitoring strategy and any
modifications to the strategy as necessary.
(h) Determination of the adequacy of existing implementation plan.
At the same time the State is required to submit any 5-year 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 negative
declaration that further revision of the existing implementation plan
is not needed at this time.
(2) If the State determines that the implementation plan is or may
be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from
sources in another State(s) which participated in a regional planning
process, the State must provide notification to the Administrator and
to the other State(s) which participated in the regional planning
process with the States. The State must also collaborate with the other
State(s) through the regional planning process for the purpose of
developing additional strategies to address the plan's deficiencies.
(3) Where the State determines that the implementation plan is or
may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from
sources in another country, the State shall provide notification, along
with available information, to the Administrator.
(4) Where the State determines that the implementation plan is or
may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from
sources within the State, the State shall revise its implementation
plan to address the plan's deficiencies within one year.
(i) What are the requirements for State and Federal Land Manager
coordination?
(1) By November 29, 1999, the State must identify in writing to the
Federal Land Managers the title of the official to which the Federal
Land Manager of any mandatory Class I Federal area can submit any
recommendations on the implementation of this subpart including, but
not limited to:
(i) Identification of impairment of visibility in any mandatory
Class I Federal area(s); and
(ii) Identification of elements for inclusion in the visibility
monitoring strategy required by Sec. 51.305 and this section.
(2) The State must provide the Federal Land Manager with an
opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior to
holding any public hearing on an implementation plan (or plan revision)
for regional haze required by this subpart. This consultation must
include the opportunity for the affected Federal Land Managers to
discuss their:
(i) Assessment of impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I
Federal area; and
(ii) Recommendations on the development of the reasonable progress
goal and on the development and implementation of strategies to address
visibility impairment.
(3) In developing any implementation plan (or plan revision), 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 5-year progress reports, and on the implementation of
other programs having the potential to contribute to impairment of
visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas.
9. A new Sec. 51.309 is added to subpart P to read as follows:
Sec. 51.309 Requirements related to the Grand Canyon Visibility
Transport Commission.
(a) What is the purpose of this section? This section establishes
the requirements for the first regional haze implementation plan to
address regional haze visibility impairment in the 16 Class I areas
covered by the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission Report. For
the years 2003 to 2018, certain States (defined in paragraph (b) of
this section as Transport Region States) may choose to implement the
Commission's recommendations within the framework of the national
regional haze program and applicable requirements of the Act by
complying with the provisions of this section, as supplemented by an
approvable Annex to the Commission Report as required by paragraph (f)
of this section. If a transport region State submits an implementation
plan which is approved by EPA as meeting the requirements of this
section, it will be deemed to comply with the requirements for
reasonable progress for the period from approval of the plan to 2018.
[[Page 35770]]
(b) Definitions. For the purposes of this section:
(1) 16 Class I areas means the following mandatory Class I Federal
areas on the Colorado Plateau: Grand Canyon National Park, Sycamore
Canyon Wilderness, Petrified Forest National Park, Mount Baldy
Wilderness, San Pedro Parks Wilderness, Mesa Verde National Park,
Weminuche Wilderness, Black Canyon of the Gunnison Wilderness, West Elk
Wilderness, Maroon Bells Wilderness, Flat Tops Wilderness, Arches
National Park, Canyonlands National Park, Capital Reef National Park,
Bryce Canyon National Park, and Zion National Park.
(2) Transport Region State means one of the States that is included
within the Transport Region addressed by the Grand Canyon Visibility
Transport Commission (Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New
Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming).
(3) Commission Report means the report of the Grand Canyon
Visibility Transport Commission entitled ``Recommendations for
Improving Western Vistas,'' dated June 10, 1996.
(4) Fire means wildfire, wildland fire (including prescribed
natural fire), prescribed fire, and agricultural burning conducted and
occurring on Federal, State, and private wildlands and farmlands.
(5) Milestone means an average percentage reduction in emissions,
expressed in tons per year, for a given year or for a period of up to 5
years ending in that year, compared to a 1990 actual emissions
baseline.
(6) Mobile Source Emission Budget means the lowest level of VOC,
NOX, SO2 elemental and organic carbon, and fine
particles which are projected to occur in any area within the transport
region from which mobile source emissions are determined to contribute
significantly to visibility impairment in any of the 16 Class I areas.
(7) Geographic enhancement means a method, procedure, or process to
allow a broad regional strategy, such as a milestone or backstop market
trading program designed to achieve greater reasonable progress than
BART for regional haze, to accommodate BART for reasonably attributable
impairment.
(c) Implementation Plan Schedule. Each Transport Region State may
meet the requirements of Sec. 51.308(b) through (e) by electing to
submit an implementation plan that complies with the requirements of
this section. Each Transport Region State must submit an implementation
plan addressing regional haze visibility impairment in the 16 Class I
areas no later than December 31, 2003. A Transport Region State that
elects not to submit an implementation plan that complies with the
requirements of this section (or whose plan does not comply with all of
the requirements of this section) is subject to the requirements of
Sec. 51.308 in the same manner and to the same extent as any State not
included within the Transport Region.
(d) Requirements of the first implementation plan for States
electing to adopt all of the recommendations of the Commission Report.
Except as provided for in paragraph (e) of this section, each Transport
Region State must submit an implementation plan that meets the
following requirements:
(1) Time period covered. The implementation plan must be effective
for the entire time period between December 31, 2003 and December 31,
2018.
(2) Projection of visibility improvement. For each of the 16
mandatory Class I areas located within the Transport Region State, the
plan must include a projection of the improvement in visibility
conditions (expressed in deciviews, and in any additional ambient
visibility metrics deemed appropriate by the State) expected through
the year 2018 for the most impaired and least impaired days, based on
the implementation of all measures as required in the Commission report
and the provisions in this section. The projection must be made in
consultation with other Transport Region States with sources which may
be reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in the
relevant Class I area. The projection may be based on a satisfactory
regional analysis.
(3) Treatment of clean-air corridors. The plan must describe and
provide for implementation of comprehensive emission tracking
strategies for clean-air corridors to ensure that the visibility does
not degrade on the least-impaired days at any of the 16 Class I areas.
The strategy must include:
(i) An identification of clean-air corridors. The EPA will evaluate
the State's identification of such corridors based upon the reports of
the Commission's Meteorology Subcommittee and any future updates by a
successor organization;
(ii) Within areas that are clean-air corridors, an identification
of patterns of growth or specific sites of growth that could cause, or
are causing, significant emissions increases that could have, or are
having, visibility impairment at one or more of the 16 Class I areas.
(iii) In areas outside of clean-air corridors, an identification of
significant emissions growth that could begin, or is beginning, to
impair the quality of air in the corridor and thereby lead to
visibility degradation for the least-impaired days in one or more of
the 16 Class I areas.
(iv) If impairment of air quality in clean air corridors is
identified pursuant to paragraphs (d)(3)(ii) and (iii) of this section,
an analysis of the effects of increased emissions, including provisions
for the identification of the need for additional emission reductions
measures, and implementation of the additional measures where
necessary.
(v) A determination of whether other clean air corridors exist for
any of the 16 Class I areas. For any such clean air corridors, an
identification of the necessary measures to protect against future
degradation of air quality in any of the 16 Class I areas.
(4) Implementation of stationary source reductions. The first
implementation plan submission must include:
(i) Monitoring and reporting of sulfur dioxide emissions. The plan
submission must include provisions requiring the monitoring and
reporting of actual stationary source sulfur dioxide emissions within
the State. The monitoring and reporting data must be sufficient to
determine whether a 13 percent reduction in actual stationary source
sulfur dioxide emissions has occurred between the years 1990 and 2000,
and whether milestones required by paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section
have been achieved for the transport region. The plan submission must
provide for reporting of these data by the State to the Administrator.
Where procedures developed under paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this section
and agreed upon by the State include reporting to a regional planning
organization, the plan submission must provide for reporting to the
regional planning body in addition to the Administrator.
(ii) Criteria and procedures for a market trading program. The plan
must include the criteria and procedures for activating a market
trading program or other program consistent with paragraph (f)(1)(i) of
this section if an applicable regional milestone is exceeded,
procedures for operation of the program, and implementation plan
assessments and provisions for implementation plan assessments of the
program in the years 2008, 2013, and 2018.
(iii) Provisions for activating a market trading program.
Provisions to activate the market trading program or other program
within 12 months after the emissions for the region are determined to
exceed the applicable emission reduction milestone, and to assure that
[[Page 35771]]
all affected sources are in compliance with allocation and other
requirements within 5 years after the emissions for the region are
determined to exceed the applicable emission reduction milestone.
(iv) Provisions for market trading program compliance reporting. If
the market trading program has been activated, the plan submission must
include provisions requiring the State to provide annual reports
assuring that all sources are in compliance with applicable
requirements of the market trading program.
(v) Provisions for stationary source NOX and PM. The
plan submission must include a report which assesses emissions control
strategies for stationary source NOX and PM, and the degree
of visibility improvement that would result from such strategies. In
the report, the State must evaluate and discuss the need to establish
emission milestones for NOX and PM to avoid any net increase
in these pollutants from stationary sources within the transport
region, and to support potential future development and implementation
of a multipollutant and possibly multisource market-based program. The
plan submission must provide for an implementation plan revision,
containing any necessary long-term strategies and BART requirements for
stationary source PM and NOX (including enforceable
limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures) by no later than
December 31, 2008.
(5) Mobile sources. The plan submission must provide for:
(i) Statewide inventories of current annual emissions and projected
future annual emissions of VOc, NOX,
SO2, elemental carbon, organic carbon, and fine particles
from mobile sources for the years 2003 to 2018. The future year
inventories must include projections for the year 2005, or an
alternative year that is determined by the State to represent the year
during which mobile source emissions will be at their lowest levels
within the State.
(ii) A determination whether mobile source emissions in any areas
of the State contribute significantly to visibility impairment in any
of the 16 Class I Areas, based on the statewide inventory of current
and projected mobile source emissions.
(iii) For States with areas in which mobile source emissions are
found to contribute significantly to visibility impairment in any of
the 16 Class I areas:
(A) The establishment and documentation of a mobile source
emissions budget for any such area, including provisions requiring the
State to restrict the annual VOC, NOX, SO2,
elemental and organic carbon, and/or fine particle mobile source
emissions to their projected lowest levels, to implement measures to
achieve the budget or cap, and to demonstrate compliance with the
budget.
(B) An emission tracking system providing for reporting of annual
mobile source emissions from the State in the periodic implementation
plan revisions required by paragraph (d)(10) of this section. The
emission tracking system must be sufficient to determine the States'
contribution toward the Commission's objective of reducing emissions
from mobile sources by 2005 or an alternate year that is determined by
the State to represent the year during which mobile source emissions
will be at their lowest levels within the State, and to ensure that
mobile source emissions do not increase thereafter.
(iv) Interim reports to EPA and the public in years 2003, 2008,
2013, and 2018 on the implementation status of the regional and local
strategies recommended by the Commission Report to address mobile
source emissions.
(6) Programs related to fire. The plan must provide for:
(i) Documentation that all Federal, State, and private prescribed
fire programs within the State evaluate and address the degree
visibility impairment from smoke in their planning and application. In
addition the plan must include smoke management programs that include
all necessary components including, but not limited to, actions to
minimize emissions, evaluation of smoke dispersion, alternatives to
fire, public notification, air quality monitoring, surveillance and
enforcement, and program evaluation.
(ii) A statewide inventory and emissions tracking system (spatial
and temporal) of VOC, NOX, elemental and organic carbon, and
fine particle emissions from fire. In reporting and tracking emissions
from fire from within the State, States may use information from
regional data-gathering and tracking initiatives.
(iii) Identification and removal wherever feasible of any
administrative barriers to the use of alternatives to burning in
Federal, State, and private prescribed fire programs within the State.
(iv) Enhanced smoke management programs for fire that consider
visibility effects, not only health and nuisance objectives, and that
are based on the criteria of efficiency, economics, law, emission
reduction opportunities, land management objectives, and reduction of
visibility impact.
(v) Establishment of annual emission goals for fire, excluding
wildfire, that will minimize emission increases from fire to the
maximum extent feasible and that are established in cooperation with
States, tribes, Federal land management agencies, and private entities.
(7) Area sources of dust emissions from paved and unpaved roads.
The plan must include an assessment of the impact of dust emissions
from paved and unpaved roads on visibility conditions in the 16 Class I
Areas. If such dust emissions are determined to be a significant
contributor to visibility impairment in the 16 Class I areas, the State
must implement emissions management strategies to address the impact as
necessary and appropriate.
(8) Pollution prevention. The plan must provide for:
(i) An initial summary of all pollution prevention programs
currently in place, an inventory of all renewable energy generation
capacity and production in use, or planned as of the year 2002
(expressed in megawatts and megawatt-hours), the total energy
generation capacity and production for the State, the percent of the
total that is renewable energy, and the State's anticipated
contribution toward the renewable energy goals for 2005 and 2015, as
provided in paragraph (d)(8)(vi) of this section.
(ii) Programs to provide incentives that reward efforts that go
beyond compliance and/or achieve early compliance with air-pollution
related requirements.
(iii) Programs to preserve and expand energy conservation efforts.
(iv) The identification of specific areas where renewable energy
has the potential to supply power where it is now lacking and where
renewable energy is most cost-effective.
(v) Projections of the short- and long-term emissions reductions,
visibility improvements, cost savings, and secondary benefits
associated with the renewable energy goals, energy efficiency and
pollution prevention activities.
(vi) A description of the programs relied on to achieve the State's
contribution toward the Commission's goal that renewable energy will
comprise 10 percent of the regional power needs by 2005 and 20 percent
by 2015, and a demonstration of the progress toward achievement of the
renewable energy goals in the years 2003, 2008, 2013, and 2018. This
description must include documentation of the potential for renewable
energy resources, the
[[Page 35772]]
percentage of renewable energy associated with new power generation
projects implemented or planned, and the renewable energy generation
capacity and production in use and planned in the State. To the extent
that it is not feasible for a State to meet its contribution to the
regional renewable energy goals, the State must identify in the
progress reports the measures implemented to achieve its contribution
and explain why meeting the State's contribution was not feasible.
(9) Implementation of additional recommendations. The plan must
provide for implementation of all other recommendations in the
Commission report that can be practicably included as enforceable
emission limits, schedules of compliance, or other enforceable measures
(including economic incentives) to make reasonable progress toward
remedying existing and preventing future regional haze in the 16 Class
I areas. The State must provide a report to EPA and the public in 2003,
2008, 2013, and 2018 on the progress toward developing and implementing
policy or strategy options recommended in the Commission Report.
(10) Periodic implementation plan revisions. Each Transport Region
State must submit to the Administrator periodic reports in the years
2008, 2013, and 2018. The progress reports must be in the form of
implementation plan revisions that comply with the procedural
requirements of Sec. 51.102 and Sec. 51.103.
(i) The report 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 which 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 reports must
contain at a minimum the following elements:
(A) A description of the status of implementation of all measures
included in the implementation plan for achieving reasonable progress
goals for mandatory Class I Federal areas both within and outside the
State.
(B) A summary of the emissions reductions achieved throughout the
State through implementation of the measures described in paragraph
(d)(10)(i)(A) of this section.
(C) For each mandatory Class I Federal area within the State, an
assessment of the following: the current visibility conditions for the
most impaired and least impaired days; the difference between current
visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days and
baseline visibility conditions; the change in visibility impairment for
the most impaired and least impaired days over the past 5 years.
(D) 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. Emissions changes should be
identified by type of source or activity. The analysis must be based on
the most recent updated emissions inventory, with estimates projected
forward as necessary and appropriate, to account for emissions changes
during the applicable 5-year period.
(E) 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.
(F) An assessment of whether the current implementation plan
elements and strategies are sufficient to enable the State, or other
States with mandatory Federal Class I areas affected by emissions from
the State, to meet all established reasonable progress goals.
(G) A review of the State's visibility monitoring strategy and any
modifications to the strategy as necessary.
(ii) At the same time the State is required to submit any 5-year
progress report to EPA in accordance with paragaph (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:
(A) 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 negative
declaration that further revision of the existing implementation plan
is not needed at this time.
(B) If the State determines that the implementation plan is or may
be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from
sources in another State(s) which participated in a regional planning
process, the State must provide notification to the Administrator and
to the other State(s) which participated in the regional planning
process with the States. The State must also collaborate with the other
State(s) through the regional planning process for the purpose of
developing additional strategies to address the plan's deficiencies.
(C) Where the State determines that the implementation plan is or
may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from
sources in another country, the State shall provide notification, along
with available information, to the Administrator.
(D) Where the State determines that the implementation plan is or
may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from
within the State, the State shall develop additional strategies to
address the plan deficiencies and revise the implementation plan no
later than one year from the date that the progress report was due.
(11) State planning and interstate coordination. In complying with
the requirements of this section, States may include emission
reductions strategies that are based on coordinated implementation with
other States. Examples of these strategies include economic incentive
programs and transboundary emissions trading programs. The
implementation plan must include documentation of the technical and
policy basis for the individual State apportionment (or the procedures
for apportionment throughout the trans-boundary region), the
contribution addressed by the State's plan, how it coordinates with
other State plans, and compliance with any other appropriate
implementation plan approvability criteria. States may rely on the
relevant technical, policy and other analyses developed by a regional
entity (such as the Western Regional Air Partnership) in providing such
documentation. Conversely, States may elect to develop their own
programs without relying on work products from a regional entity.
(12) Tribal implementation. Consistent with 40 CFR Part 49, tribes
within the Transport Region may implement the required visibility
programs for the 16 Class I areas, in the same manner as States,
regardless of whether such tribes have participated as members of a
visibility transport commission.
(e) States electing not to implement the commission
recommendations. Any Transport Region State may elect not to implement
the Commission recommendations set forth in paragraph (d) of this
section. Such States are required to comply with the timelines and
requirements of Sec. 51.308. Any Transport Region State electing not to
implement the Commission recommendations must advise the other States
in the Transport Region of the nature of the program and the effect of
the program on visibility-impairing
[[Page 35773]]
emissions, so that other States can take this information into account
in developing programs under this section.
(f) Annex to the Commission Report. (1) A Transport Region State
may choose to comply with the provisions of this section and by doing
so shall satisfy the requirements of Sec. 51.308(b) through (e) only if
the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (or a regional
planning body formed to implement the Commission recommendations)
submits a satisfactory annex to the Commission Report no later than
October 1, 2000. To be satisfactory, the Annex must contain the
following elements:
(i) The annex must contain quantitative emission reduction
milestones for stationary source sulfur dioxide emissions for the
reporting years 2003, 2008, 2013 and 2018. The milestones must provide
for steady and continuing emission reductions for the 2003-2018 time
period consistent with the Commission's definition of reasonable
progress, its goal of 50 to 70 percent reduction in sulfur dioxide
emissions from 1990 actual emission levels by 2040, applicable
requirements under the CAA, and the timing of implementation plan
assessments of progress and identification of deficiencies which will
be due in the years 2008, 2013, and 2018. The emission reduction
milestones must be shown to provide for greater reasonable progress
than would be achieved by application of best available retrofit
technology (BART) pursuant to Sec. 51.308(e)(2) and would be approvable
in lieu of BART.
(ii) The annex must contain documentation of the market trading
program or other programs to be implemented pursuant to paragraph
(d)(4) of this section if current programs and voluntary measures are
not sufficient to meet the required emission reduction milestones. This
documentation must include model rules, memoranda of understanding, and
other documentation describing in detail how emission reduction
progress will be monitored, what conditions will require the market
trading program to be activated, how allocations will be performed, and
how the program will operate.
(2) The Commission may elect, at the same time it submits the
annex, to make recommendations intended to demonstrate reasonable
progress for other mandatory Class I areas (beyond the original 16)
within the Transport Region States, including the technical and policy
justification for these additional mandatory Class I Federal areas in
accordance with the provisions of paragraph (g) of this section.
(3) The EPA will publish the annex upon receipt. If EPA finds that
the annex meets the requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of this section
and assures reasonable progress, then, after public notice and comment,
will amend the requirements of paragraph (d)(4) of this section to
incorporate the provisions of the annex within 1 year after EPA
receives the annex. If EPA finds that the annex does not meet the
requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of this section, or does not assure
reasonable progress, or if EPA finds that the annex is not received,
then each Transport Region State must submit an implementation plan for
regional haze meeting all of the requirements of Sec. 51.308.
(4) In accordance with the provisions under paragraph (f)(1) of
this section, the annex may include a geographic enhancement to the
program provided for in paragraph (d)(4) of this section to address the
requirement under Sec. 51.302(c) related to Best Available Retrofit
Technology for reasonably attributable impairment from the pollutants
covered by the milestones or the backstop market trading program. The
geographic enhancement program may include an appropriate level of
reasonably attributable impairment which may require additional
emission reductions over and above those achieved under the milestones
defines in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section.
(g) Additional Class I areas. The following submittals must be made
by Transport Region States implementing the provisions of this section
as the basis for demonstrating reasonable progress for additional Class
I areas in the Transport Region States. If a Transport Region State
submits an implementation plan which is approved by EPA as meeting the
requirements of this section, it will be deemed to comply with the
requirements for reasonable progress for the period from approval of
the plan to 2018.
(1) In the plan submitted for the 16 Class I areas no later than
December 31, 2003, a declaration indicating whether other Class I areas
will be addressed under Sec. 51.308 or paragraphs (g)(2) and (3) of
this section.
(2) In a plan submitted no later than December 31, 2008, provide a
demonstration of expected visibility conditions for the most impaired
and least impaired days at the additional mandatory Class I Federal
area(s) based on emissions projections from the long-term strategies in
the implementation plan. This demonstration may be based on assessments
conducted by the States and/or a regional planning body.
(3) In a plan submitted no later than December 31, 2008, provide
revisions to the plan submitted under paragraph (c) of this section,
including provisions to establish reasonable progress goals and
implement any additional measures necessary to demonstrate reasonable
progress for the additional mandatory Federal Class I areas. These
revisions must comply with the provisions of Sec. 51.308(d)(1) through
(4).
(4) The following provisions apply for Transport Region States
establishing reasonable progress goals and adopting any additional
measures for Class I areas other than the 16 Class I areas under
paragraphs (g)(2) and (3) of this section.
(i) In developing long-term strategies pursuant to
Sec. 51.308(d)(3), the State may build upon the strategies implemented
under paragraph (d) of this section, and take full credit for the
visibility improvement achieved through these strategies.
(ii) The requirement under Sec. 51.308(e) related to Best Available
Retrofit Technology for regional haze is deemed to be satisfied for
pollutants addressed by the milestones and backstop trading program if,
in establishing the emission reductions milestones under paragraph (f)
of this section, it is shown that greater reasonable progress will be
achieved for these Class I areas than would be achieved through the
application of source-specific BART emission limitations under
Sec. 51.308(e)(1).
(iii) The Transport Region State may consider whether any
strategies necessary to achieve the reasonable progress goals required
by paragraph (g)(3) 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 no air quality environmental impacts of
compliance, or the remaining useful life of any existing source subject
to such requirements.
10. In the sections listed in the first column remove the reference
listed in the middle column and add the reference listed in the third
column in its place:
[[Page 35774]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section Remove Add
------------------------------------------------------------------------
51.301(v).................... Section 303.......... Sec. 51.303
51.302(c)(2)(i).............. Section 305.......... Sec. 51.305
51.302(c)(2)(i).............. Section 306.......... Sec. 51.306
51.302(c)(2)(i).............. Section 300(a)....... Sec. 51.300(a)
51.302(c)(4)(i).............. Section 304(b)....... Sec. 51.304(b)
51.303(a)(1)................. Section 302.......... Sec. 51.302
51.303(c).................... Section 303.......... Sec. 51.303
51.303(d).................... Section 303.......... Sec. 51.303
51.303(g).................... Section 303.......... Sec. 51.303
51.303(h).................... Section 303.......... Sec. 51.303
51.304(c).................... Section 306(c)....... Sec. 51.306(c)
51.306(a)(1)................. Section 300(a)....... Sec. 51.300(a)
51.306(c)(6)................. Section 303.......... Sec. 51.303
51.307(b)(1)................. Section 304.......... Sec. 51.304
51.307(b)(1)................. Section 304(d)....... Sec. 51.304(d)
51.307(c).................... Section 300(a)....... Sec. 51.300(a)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 99-13941 Filed 6-30-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U
