35714 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION strategies for improving in all Table of Contents AGENCY 156 mandatory Class I national parks I. Overview of Today’s Final Rule and wilderness areas. Specific II. Background Information on the Regional 40 CFR Part 51 provisions are included in the rule Haze Program allowing nine western States to [FRL±6353±4] A. Regional Haze implement the recommendations of the B. How Today’s Final Rule Responds to the RIN 2060±AF32 GCVTC within the framework of the CAA C. The 1980 Visibility Regulation— [Docket No A±95±38] national regional haze program. In addition, EPA encourages States to work Commitment to a Regional Haze Program Regional Haze Regulations together in regional partnerships to D. Sources of Scientific Information and develop and implement multistate Policy Recommendations on Regional Haze AGENCY: Environmental Protection strategies to reduce emissions of Agency (EPA). E. Relationship to Secondary NAAQS for visibility-impairing fine particle PM ACTION: Final rule. . F. Regional Planning and Integration with SUMMARY: Section 169A of the Clean Air DATES: The regulatory amendments Programs to Implement the NAAQS for Act (CAA) sets forth a national goal for announced herein take effect on August and Particulate Matter 30, 1999. III. Discussion of National Program visibility which is the ‘‘prevention of Requirements and Response to any future, and the remedying of any ADDRESSES: Docket. The public docket Comments existing, impairment of visibility in for this action is available for public A. Scope of Rule—Extending Coverage to Class I areas which impairment results inspection and copying between 8:00 All States from manmade .’’ There are a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through B. Timetable for Submitting the First 156 Class I areas across the country, Friday excluding legal holidays, at the Regional Haze SIP including many well-known national Air and Radiation Docket and C. Tracking Deciviews and Emissions parks and wilderness areas, such as the Reductions Information Center (6102), Attention: D. Regional Haze Implementation Plan Grand Canyon, Great Smokies, Docket A–95–38, Room M–1500, 401 M Shenandoah, Yellowstone, Yosemite, Principles Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, E. Determination of ‘‘Baseline,’’ ‘‘Natural’’ the Everglades, and the Boundary phone 202–260–7548, fax 202–260– and ‘‘Current’’ Visibility Waters. Regional haze is visibility 4400, email: A-and-R- F. Reasonable Progress Goals impairment caused by the cumulative [email protected]. A reasonable G. Long-Term Strategy air emissions from numerous fee for copying may be charged. The H. Best Available Retrofit sources over a wide geographic area. regional haze regulations are subject to Technology(BART) The EPA promulgated regulations in the rulemaking procedures under I. Monitoring Strategy and Other 1980 to address visibility impairment Implementation Plan Requirements section 307(d) of the CAA. The J. Periodic SIP Revisions and 5-Year that is ‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to one documents relied on to develop the or a small group of sources, but EPA Progress Reports regional haze regulations have been K. Coordination with Federal Land deferred action on regional haze placed in the docket. Managers regulations until monitoring, modeling, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For IV. Treatment of the GCVTC and scientific knowledge about the general questions regarding this notice, Recommendations relationship between and A. Background contact Richard Damberg, U.S. EPA, visibility effects improved. In 1993, the B. General Requirements of Section 51.309 MD–15, Research Triangle Park, NC National Academy of Sciences (NAS) C. Elements of the GCVTC-Based State and 27711, telephone (919) 541–5592, email: concluded that ‘‘current scientific Tribal Implementation Plans [email protected]. knowledge is adequate and control D. Requirements for States Electing Not To technologies are available for taking SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Follow All Provisions of the Section 51.309(e) regulatory action to improve and protect Electronic Availability E. Annex to the GCVTC Report visibility.’’ F. Additional Class I Areas On July 31, 1997 (62 FR 41138), EPA The official record for this V. Implementation of the Regional Haze published proposed amendments to the rulemaking, as well as the public Program in Indian Country 1980 regulations to set forth a program version, has been established under A. Background on Tribal Air Quality to address regional haze visibility docket number A–95–38 (including Programs impairment. The EPA also published a comments and data submitted B. Issues Related to the Regional Haze notice of availability of additional electronically as described below). A Program in Indian Country information on the proposed regional public version of this record, including VI. Miscellaneous Technical Amendments to printed, paper versions of electronic the Existing Rule haze regulation on September 3, 1998. VII. Administrative Requirements This notice took comment specifically comments, which does not include any A. Regulatory Planning and Review by the on new implementation plan timelines information claimed as Confidential Office of Management and Budget (OMB) set forth in the Transportation Equity Business Information, is available for (Executive Order 12866) Act for the 21st Century, Public Law inspection from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 105–178, and on a proposal from the Monday through Friday, excluding legal C. Paperwork Reduction Act—Impact on Western Governors’ Association (WGA) holidays. The official rulemaking record Reporting Requirements for addressing the recommendations of is located at the address in ADDRESSES D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act the Grand Canyon Visibility at the beginning of this document. E. Environmental Justice—Executive Order World Wide Web sites have been 12898 Commission (GCVTC) in the final rule. F. Congressional Review Act The EPA received more than 1300 developed for overview information on G. Protection of Children From comments overall on the proposal and visibility issues and related programs. Environmental Health Risks and Safety notice of availability. These web sites can be accessed from Risks—Executive Order 13045 Today’s final rule calls for States to Uniform Resource Locator (URL): H. Enhancing the Intergovernmental establish goals and emission reduction http://www.epa.gov/airlinks/. Partnership— Executive Order 12875

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35715

I. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and (PM) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic recognized as a significant issue by Coordination with Indian Tribal carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust) policymakers from Federal, State and Governments that impairs visibility by scattering and local agencies, industry and J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act absorbing light can cause serious health environmental organizations. effects and mortality in humans, and I. Overview of Today’s Final Rule B. How Today’s Final Rule Responds to contribute to environmental effects such the CAA This preamble provides the details as acid deposition and . and rationale for the final regional haze Data from the existing visibility The visibility protection program rule. Unit II includes background monitoring network show that visibility under sections 169A, 169B, and information on regional haze and on the impairment caused by air pollution 110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA is designed to legal and scientific basis for today’s occurs virtually all the time at most protect Class I areas 7 from impairment action. Unit III describes the provisions national park and wilderness area due to manmade air pollution. Congress of the national requirements for regional monitoring stations.3 Average visual adopted the visibility provisions in the haze and includes a discussion of the range in many Class I areas 4 in the CAA to protect visibility in these ‘‘areas comments received on the July 1997 Western United States is 100–150 of great scenic importance.’’ 8 The proposal. Unit IV discusses specific kilometers (13.6–9.6 deciviews), 5 or current regulatory program addresses regional provisions for 16 western Class about one-half to two-thirds of the visibility impairment in these areas that I areas that were the subject of a 1996 visual range that would exist without is ‘‘reasonably attributable’’ 9 to a report by the GCVTC. Unit V is a manmade air pollution. In most of the specific source or small group of discussion of issues related to east, the average visual range is less sources. In adopting section 169A, the implementation of the rule by Indian than 30 kilometers (25 deciviews or core visibility provisions adopted in the tribes. Unit VI summarizes several more), or about one-fifth of the visual 1977 CAA Amendments, Congress also technical amendments to existing range that would exist under estimated expressed its concern with visibility visibility regulations in order to natural conditions. The role of regional problems caused by pollutants that coordinate those requirements with the transport of fine particles in ‘‘emanate from a variety of sources.’’ It requirements of today’s final rule. Unit contributing to elevated PM levels and noted the problem of ‘‘hazes’’ from VII discusses how today’s final regional haze impairment has been well ‘‘regionally distributed sources,’’ 10 and rulemaking is in compliance with the documented by many researchers 6 and concluded that additional provisions requirements of various executive were needed to remedy ‘‘the growing orders and statutes. 3 National Park Service. Air Quality in the visibility problem.’’ The purpose of National Parks: A Summary of Findings from the today’s final rule is to revise the existing II. Background Information on the National Park Service Air Quality Research and visibility regulations 11 in order to Regional Haze Program Monitoring Program. Natural Resources Report 88– 1. Denver, CO, July 1988. integrate provisions addressing regional A. Regional Haze 4 Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal haze impairment. Today’s final rule Regional haze is visibility impairment areas are those national parks exceeding 6000 acres, establishes a comprehensive visibility that is produced by a multitude of wilderness areas and national memorial parks protection program for Class I areas. exceeding 5000 areas, and all international parks Figure 1 is a map indicating the sources and activities which emit fine which were in existence on August 7, 1977. particles and their precursors and which Visibility has been identified as an important value locations of the Class I areas. are located across a broad geographic in 156 of these areas. See 40 CFR part 81, subpart BILLING CODE 6560±50±U area.1 Twenty years ago, when initially D. The extent of a Class I area includes subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. adopting the visibility protection (CAA section 162(a)). States and tribes may Environmental Assessment. EPA/600/P–95/001bF. provisions of the CAA, Congress designate additional areas as Class I, but the Research Triangle Park, NC. 1996. specifically recognized that the requirements of the visibility program under section 7 For the purposes of this preamble, the term ‘‘visibility problem is caused primarily 169A of the CAA apply only to ‘‘mandatory Class ‘‘Class I area’’ will be used to describe the 156 I Federal areas,’’ and they do not directly address mandatory Class I Federal areas identified in by emission into the atmosphere of SO2, any additional areas. section 51.301(o) and in part 81, subpart D of this oxides of nitrogen, and particulate 5 ‘‘Deciview’’ is a visibility metric discussed title. further in unit III.C. of today’s notice, and defined matter, especially fine particulate 8 H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. at 205 in section 51.301(bb) of the rule. Higher deciview matter, from inadequate[ly] controlled (1977). 2 values indicate greater levels of visibility sources.’’ The fine particulate matter impairment. 9 ‘‘Reasonably attributable’’ visibility impairment, 6 See National Acid Assessment as defined in section 51.301(s), means ‘‘attributable 1 U.S. EPA. Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Program. Acid Deposition: State of Science and by visual observation or any other technique the Matter. Office of Research and Development, Technology. Report 24, Visibility: Existing and State deems appropriate.’’ It includes impacts to National Center for Environmental Assessment. Historical Conditions—Causes and Effects, Table Class I areas caused by plumes or layered hazes EPA/600/P–95/001bF. Research Triangle Park, NC. 24–6. Washington, DC 1991. See also U.S. EPA. Air from a single source or small group of sources. 1996. Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter. Office of 10 H.R. Rep. No. 95–294 at 204 (1977). 2 H.R. Rep. No. 95–294 at 204 (1977). Research and Development, National Center for 11 45 FR 80084 (December 2, 1980) and section 51.300–307.

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 35716 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

BILLING CODE 6560±50±C

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35717

C. The 1980 Visibility Regulation— The EPA believes that the technical petitions from groups of States Commitment to a Regional Haze tools and our scientific understanding of requesting formation of a visibility Program visibility impairment are now transport commission. Section 169A of the CAA, established sufficiently refined to move forward Section 169B(f) called for EPA to in the 1977 Amendments, sets forth a with a national program addressing establish a visibility transport national visibility goal that calls for ‘‘the regional haze in Class I areas. The EPA’s commission for the region affecting prevention of any future, and the position is supported by the NAS 1993 visibility of the Grand Canyon National remedying of any existing, impairment report, Protecting Visibility in National Park. The purpose of this commission of visibility in Class I areas which Parks and Wilderness Areas. One of the was to assess scientific and technical impairment results from manmade air principal conclusions of this report is information pertaining to adverse pollution.’’ The EPA’s initial visibility that ‘‘current scientific knowledge is impacts on visibility at the Park from regulations, developed in 1980, address adequate and control technologies are existing emissions and projected growth visibility impairment that is ‘‘reasonably available for taking regulatory action to in emissions. The statute specifically attributable’’ to a single source or small improve and protect visibility.’’ 14 called for a report to EPA group of sources. Under the 1980 rules, Section II.D. describes a number of other recommending measures to remedy the 35 States and 1 territory containing studies and information now available such impacts and to address long-term Class I areas 12 are required to: which provide the technical basis to strategies for addressing regional haze.18 (1) Revise their SIPs to assure move forward with a regional haze In 1991, EPA established the GCVTC,19 reasonable progress toward the national program. and the GCVTC issued its final report in visibility goal; In addition, EPA finds the visibility June 1996.20 The recommendations of (2) Determine which existing protection provisions of the CAA to be the GCVTC and their incorporation as stationary facilities should install the quite broad. Although EPA is addressing potential SIP requirements into the final best available retrofit technology visibility protection in phases, the rule, are discussed in greater detail in (BART) for controlling pollutants which national visibility goal in section 169A unit IV of the preamble. impair visibility; calls for addressing visibility Finally, section 169B(e) calls for the (3) Develop, adopt, implement, and impairment generally, including Administrator to consider past research evaluate long-term strategies for making regional haze.15 and the recommendations of visibility reasonable progress toward remedying Further, Congress added section 169B transport commissions in carrying out any existing and preventing any future as part of the 1990 Amendments to the the ‘‘regulatory responsibilities under impairment in the Class I areas; CAA to focus attention on regional haze (4) Adopt certain measures to assess issues; it calls for EPA to issue regional section 169A, including criteria for potential visibility impacts due to new measuring ‘reasonable progress’ toward haze rules within 18 months of receipt 21 or modified major stationary sources, of the final report from the GCVTC. In the national goal.’’ The EPA is including measures to notify Federal addition, section 169B includes required by the CAA to meet these land managers (FLMs) of proposed new provisions for EPA to conduct visibility regulatory responsibilities within 18 source permit applications, and to research with the National Park Service months of receiving the GCVTC report. consider visibility analyses conducted and other Federal agencies, to develop Today’s final rule fulfills EPA’s by FLMs in their new source permitting an interim findings report on the responsibility under section 169A, decisions; and visibility research,16 to develop a Report pending since 1980, to put in place a (5) Conduct visibility monitoring in to Congress on expected visibility national regulatory program that Class I areas. improvements due to implementation of addresses both reasonably attributable The 1980 rules addressing other air pollution programs,17 and to and regional haze visibility impairment. ‘‘reasonably attributable’’ visibility provide periodic reports to Congress on Today’s action is also EPA’s response to impairment were designed to be the first trends in visibility improvements. the GCVTC report as anticipated by phase in EPA’s overall program to Section 169B also provides the authority section 169B. protect visibility. The EPA explicitly to the Administrator to establish D. Sources of Scientific Information and deferred national rules addressing visibility transport commissions in Policy Recommendations on Regional regional haze impairment until some response to a petition from two or more Haze future date: States, or on her and/or his own motion. ** * when improvement in monitoring To date, EPA has not received any In developing today’s revisions to the techniques provides more data on source- visibility regulations, EPA has taken specific levels of visibility impairment, 14 National Research Council Committee on Haze into account a significant body of regional scale models become refined, and in National Parks and Wilderness Areas, Protecting scientific information and policy our scientific knowledge about the Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas, recommendations on visibility issues relationships between emitted air pollutants National Academy Press, 1993, p. 11. that have been developed over more and visibility impairment improves.13 15 State of Maine v. Thomas, 874 F.2d 883, 885 (1st Cir. 1989) (‘‘EPA’s mandate to control the than 20 years. This unit highlights key vexing problem of regional haze emanates directly sources of information upon which the 12 The States and one territory having at least one from the CAA, which ‘declares as a national goal final regional haze rule is based. Class I area are listed in section 51.300(b)(2). These the prevention of any future, and the remedying of States and one territory are as follows: Alabama, any existing, impairment of visibility in Class I For many years, visibility impairment Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, areas which impairment results from manmade air has been considered the ‘‘best Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, pollution.’ ’’) (citation omitted). Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, understood and most easily measured 16 U.S. EPA, Interim Findings on the Status of Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Visibility Research, Office of Research and New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, 18 Development, EPA/600/R–95/021, February 1995. CAA section 169B(d)(2)(C). Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, See also 60 FR 8659 notice announcing the report 19 56 FR 57522, November 12, 1991. Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Virgin availability and how to obtain copies (Feb. 15, 1995. 20 Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Islands, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. 17 Commission, Recommendations for Improving For a specific list of Class I areas located in each U.S. EPA, Effects of the 1990 CAA Western Vistas, Report to the U.S. EPA, June 10, state or territory, see 40 CFR 81.401–437. Amendments on Visibility in Class I Areas: An EPA Report to Congress, October 1993 (EPA–452/R–93– 1996 (hereafter referred to as ‘‘GCVTC Report’’). 13 45 FR 80086. 014). 21 CAA section 169B(e)(1).

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 35718 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations effect of air pollution.’’ 22 Visibility technical papers have been developed report by this Committee contributed degradation has also been recognized as using data collected by the network. significantly to the state of the science an indicator of multiple human-health In addition, in 1996 EPA began to regarding regional haze visibility effects and environmental effects include a chapter on visibility trends, impairment.30 The Committee issued resulting from air pollution all over the based on data collected throughout the several important conclusions in the world.23 Visibility conditions have been IMPROVE network, in the National Air report, including: (1) Current scientific monitored and evaluated for many Quality and Emissions Trends Report in knowledge is adequate and control years, using airport visibility data 1996.27 Data from 1988 to the present technologies are available for taking collected from the 1940’s to the are analyzed for the best 20 percent, regulatory action to address regional present.24 middle 20 percent, and worst 20 percent haze; (2) progress toward the national In October 1979, EPA published a days of the annual distribution, and goal will require regional programs that Report to Congress describing the state aggregated for eastern and western sites. operate over large geographic areas and of the science on visibility.25 The report, Annual summary data are also limit emissions of pollutants that can required under section 169A(a)(3), presented for each individual site in an cause regional haze; (3) a program to described available methods for appendix. address regional haze visibility visibility monitoring, modeling, and Visibility research continued impairment that focuses solely on assessment of strategies to make throughout the 1980’s and is determining the contributions of progress toward the national goal. This documented in many published articles individual emission sources to such report was developed in advance of the and the proceedings of three major visibility impairment is likely to fail, 1980 visibility regulations. As noted visibility conferences.28 In addition, the and instead, strategies should be above, EPA deferred action on regional NAPAP completed a comprehensive adopted to consider simultaneously the haze until monitoring techniques, review of the state of the science of effect of many sources on a regional 29 modeling capabilities, and the visibility in 1991. This peer-reviewed basis; (4) visibility impairment can be understanding of the pollutants report reached a number of important attributed to emission sources on a affecting visibility were improved. In conclusions, including: (1) Light regional scale through the use of several 1986, the IMPROVE (Interagency scattering is dominated by fine particles; kinds of models; (5) visibility and Monitoring of Protected Visual (2) sulfates are the dominant source of control policies might need to be Environments) visibility monitoring light extinction in the east, and one of different in the west than the east; (6) program was initiated in 30 Class I several major sources of extinction in efforts to improve visibility within Class areas. The IMPROVE program has been the west; (3) rural visibility varies I areas will benefit visibility outside coordinated through a cooperative, significantly between the east and west; these areas and could help alleviate multiagency approach with (4) average natural visibility conditions other types of air quality problems as participation by EPA, the FLMs, and are 150 kilometers visual range (9.6 well; (7) achieving the national visibility States. Through the IMPROVE program, deciviews) in the east and 230 goal will require a substantial, long-term significant progress has been made in kilometers visual range (5.3 deciviews) program; and (8) continued progress understanding the effect of various in the west; and (5) haze trends in the toward this goal will require a greater pollutants on current visibility eastern United States have been commitment toward atmospheric conditions and trends, in developing dominated by sulfur emission trends research, monitoring, and emissions well-accepted monitoring protocols, and since the late 1940’s. control research and development. in developing a sound approach for The NAS formed a Committee on calculating light extinction values from Haze in National Parks and Wilderness Also in 1993, EPA developed its and humidity data. The Areas in 1990 to address a number of Report to Congress on the projected IMPROVE program has issued two regional haze-related issues, including effects on visibility in Class I areas due methods for determining anthropogenic to implementation of the 1990 CAA major reviews of the monitoring data 31 collected to date,26 and numerous source contributions to haze and Amendments. The report concluded methods for considering alternative that conditions on the worst visibility 22 Council on Environmental Quality, Visibility source control measures. The 1993 days are expected to improve by Protection for Class I Areas: The Technical Basis, approximately 3 deciviews by 2010 Washington, DC, 1978. 27 U.S. EPA, National Air Quality and Emissions across the most impaired portions of the 23 National Research Council, NAS Committee on Trends Report, 1996, Office of Air Quality Planning Eastern United States. Most of this Haze in National Parks and Wilderness Areas, and Standards, EPA 454/R–97–013, January 1998. improvement is expected in the 1995– Protecting Visibility in National Parks and See also U.S. EPA, National Air Quality and Wilderness Areas, National Academy Press, 1993, Emissions Trends Report, 1997, Office of Air 2005 timeframe due to sulfur dioxide p. 23. Quality Planning and Standards, EPA 454/R–98– reductions under the program. 24 National Acid Precipitation Assessment 016, January 1999. In the Southwestern United States, the Program (NAPAP), Acid Deposition: State of 28 Atmospheric Environment, Proceedings of EPA visibility change was predicted to be Science and Technology. Report 24, Visibility: Symposium on Plumes and Visibility— less than 1 deciview in most Class I Existing and Historical Conditions—Causes and Measurements and Model Components, November Effects, Washington, DC, 1991. 1980, Atmos. Environ., 15:1785–2646. See also areas except San Gorgonio Wilderness 25 U.S. EPA, Protecting Visibility: An EPA Report Bhardwaja, P.J., ed., Visibility Protection: Research (which is located downwind of Los to Congress; Office of Air Quality Planning and and Policy Aspects. Transactions of APCA Angeles), for which a 1–2 deciview Standards, EPA–450/5–79–008, October 1979. Specialty Conference, September 1986, Grand improvement is expected. 26 Sisler, J. et al., Spatial and Seasonal Patters and Tetons National Park, WY. Air Pollution Control Long-Term Variability of the Chemical Composition Assoc., Pittsburgh, PA, 1987. See also Mathai, C.V., of the Haze in the U.S.: An Analysis of Data from ed., Visibility and Fine Particles. Transactions of 30 National Research Council, NAS Committee on the IMPROVE Network, Fort Collins, CO, AWMA specialty conference, October 1989, Estes Haze in National Parks and Wilderness Areas, Cooperative Institute for Research in the Park, CO. Air and Assoc., Protecting Visibility in National Parks and Atmosphere, Colorado State University, 1996. See Pittsburgh, PA, 1990. Wilderness Areas, National Academy Press, also Sisler, J., et al., Spatial and Temporal Patters 29 National Acid Precipitation Assessment Washington, DC, 1993. and the Chemical Composition of the Haze in the Program (NAPAP), Acid Deposition: State of 31 U.S. EPA, Effects of the 1990 Clean Air Act United States: An Analysis of Data From the Science and Technology, Report 24, Visibility: Amendments on Visibility in Class I Areas: An EPA IMPROVE Network, 1988–1991, Fort Callins, CO, Existing and Historical Conditions—Causes and Report to Congress, Office of Air Quality Planning 1993. Effects, Washington, DC, 1991. and Standards, EPA–452/R–93–014, October 1993.

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35719

As required by section 169B(a)(2) of Federal agencies, States and tribes in the The EPA does not interpret sections the CAA, EPA issued a report in 1995 region, and voluntary measures on the 169A and 169B as requiring all on interim findings on the status of part of public and private entities technical guidance to be issued by the visibility research completed since throughout the region. The GCVTC’s Agency before the rule is finalized. The 1990.32 This report reviewed four major recommendations also distinguish EPA is committed to working closely visibility related reports published since between recommended actions and with the States and other interested 1990,33 provided citations of published policy or strategy options for parties in developing effective guidance research papers, and summarized consideration. Unit IV addresses how documents within a reasonable period research under way by the GCVTC, four EPA took these recommendations, as of time after promulgation of the final Federal agencies, and the Electric Power well as the body of technical regional haze rule. Research Institute. As noted above, the information developed by the GCVTC, GCVTC issued a report in June 1996 into account in developing the final E. Relationship to Secondary NAAQS containing recommendations for rule. for PM protecting visibility at 16 Class I areas Response to comments. Some Today’s final rule is an important on the Colorado Plateau. Based on commenters on the regional haze element in EPA’s overall approach to EPA’s discretionary authority under proposal suggested that EPA had not protecting visibility under the CAA. In section 169B(c), it expanded the scope provided an adequate scientific or legal July 1997, EPA established national of the GCVTC: justification for developing a regional secondary ambient air quality standards ** * to include additional Class I areas in haze program. The commenters asserted (NAAQS) for particles with an the vicinity of the Grand Canyon National that the science of regional haze is not aerodynamic diameter less than or equal Park—-what is sometimes referred to as the understood well enough to develop to a nominal 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5) as ‘‘Golden Circle’’ of parks and wilderness regulations at this time. In addition, part of its final decision on revision of areas. This includes most of the national some commenters claimed that EPA has the existing NAAQS for particulate parks and national wilderness areas of the not provided adequate technical matter under section 109(d) of the 34 Colorado Plateau. guidance for implementation of the rule, CAA.38 The secondary standards were The GCVTC was charged with and that providing such guidance is a based on EPA’s determination that the assessing information about visibility legal prerequisite to promulgating a levels selected were ‘‘requisite to protect impacts in the region and making policy regional haze rule. The EPA does not the public welfare’’ against visibility recommendations to EPA to address agree with these claims. impairment on a nationally uniform such impacts. The CAA called for the First, EPA believes it has relied upon basis as provided in section 109(b). GCVTC to assess studies conducted a substantial amount of scientific Consistent with the purposes of section under section 169B as well as other evidence to support development of the 169A, however, EPA recognized that available information ‘‘pertaining to regional haze program. Many of the such nationally uniform standards adverse impacts on visibility from important studies, reports, and other would not eliminate all visibility potential or projected growth in scientific and technical information on impairment in all parts of the country.39 emissions for sources located in the which the regional haze rule is based The visibility impacts remaining in ** * Region,’’ and to issue a report to are referenced earlier in this section. In Class I areas are addressed by today’s EPA recommending what measures, if particular, the NAS Committee on Haze final rule. any, should be taken to protect in National Parks and Wilderness Areas 35 Today’s final rule has additional visibility. The CAA specifically concluded that ‘‘Current scientific benefits, as EPA expects the regional provided for the GCVTC’s report to knowledge is adequate and control strategies implemented as part of the address the following measures: (1) The technologies are available for taking regional haze program to improve establishment of clean air corridors, in regulatory action to improve and protect visibility outside of Class I areas as well. 37 which additional restrictions on visibility.’’ Thus, EPA believes that its Thus, the regional haze program should increases in emissions may be decision to move forward with contribute to the improvement of local appropriate to protect visibility in promulgation of the regional haze visibility impacts outside of Class I affected Class I areas; (2) the imposition program is reasonable, particularly in areas that may persist after attainment of of additional new source review light of the fact that the Agency’s the secondary standards. requirements in clean air corridors; 36 obligation to address regional haze and (3) the promulgation of regulations originated more than 20 years ago with F. Regional Planning and Integration addressing regional haze. passage of the 1977 CAA Amendments. With Programs to Implement the In unit IV of the proposal, EPA Second, as discussed in the response NAAQS for Ozone and Particulate discusses the major recommendations of to comments, today’s final rule provides Matter the GCVTC. The GCVTC’s the States with the necessary guidelines The regional haze program is being recommendations have components that to implement a regional haze program. promulgated in a manner that facilitates contemplate implementation through a The EPA believes that the supposition integration of emission management combination of actions by EPA, other that all technical guidance associated strategies for regional haze with the with a program be developed before a implementation of programs for new 32 U.S. EPA, Interim Findings on the Status of rule can be promulgated is unfounded. NAAQS for ozone and PM. This is being Visibility Research, Office of Research and The EPA recognizes the importance of done because of the existing scientific Development, EPA/600/R–95/021, February 1995. timely implementation guidance and is 33 These repdorts have already been mentioned in evidence that these air quality problems this section: the 1993 NAS report, the 1993 committed to providing such guidance, have common precursor pollutants, IMPROVE report (Sisler et al.), the 1993 EPA Report as appropriate, for the regional haze emission sources, atmospheric to Congress, and the 1991 NAPAP Report to program. Congress. processes, spatial scales for transport, 34 and geographic areas of concern. 56 FR 57523 37 National Research Council, NAS Committee on 35 CAA Section 169B(d). Haze in National Parks and Wilderness Areas, 36 A clean air corridor is defined as a region that Protecting Visibility in National Parks and 38 62 FR 38652 (July 18, 1997). generally brings clear air to a receptor region, such Wilderness Areas, National Academy Press, 39 See section 160(1); H.R. Rep. No. 95–294 at 205 as the Class I areas of the Golden Circle. Washington, DC, 1993, p. 11. (1977).

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 35720 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

Because of the key role of regional provided $4 million dollars to support attributable’’ impairment, which pollutant transport in contributing to regional planning activities. EPA is required the 35 States and the Virgin haze at Class I areas, most of which are currently involved with the States in a Islands containing Class I areas to in remote locations, the regional haze process to define the appropriate size submit SIP revisions and to revise them program recognizes the value of and composition of regional planning periodically to assure reasonable multistate coordination for regional bodies. The final planning guidance will progress toward the national visibility haze program planning and provide a discussion of several goal. Thus, under the proposal, the implementation. Consistent with the important issues related to regional following additional States and the recommendations of the Clean Air Act planning efforts. These issues include: District of Columbia would be required Advisory Committee, Subcommittee on • Taking credit for emissions to submit visibility SIPs: Nebraska, Ozone, Particulate Matter, and Regional reductions in other States; Kansas, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Haze Implementation Programs,40 EPA • Important principles for future Indiana, Ohio, Mississippi, New York, strongly encourages States to undertake regional planning efforts; Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Rhode multistate regional planning efforts • The technical assessment process; Island, Connecticut, and Maryland. The addressing regional haze in a way that and territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, • coordinates technical analyses and The strategy development process. American Samoa, and the Northern strategy development with the NAAQS Some important principles discussed in Mariana Islands were not included to the maximum extent possible. the guidance for conducting regional because their distance from any Class I Examples of ongoing coordination planning efforts include the following area significantly exceed the distance points. that their emissions could be expected among States to address visibility issues • include the Western Regional Air Regional planning efforts should be to be transported in order to contribute Partnership (WRAP) and the Southern a product of State (and, at the discretion to visibility impairment in any Class I Appalachian Mountain Initiative. of any tribe, tribal) leadership and, thus, area. However, Hawaii, Alaska, and the The EPA believes that States (and should be led by States (and tribes), not Virgin Islands would be subject to the tribes, at their discretion), in EPA. Representatives should have the regional haze provisions because of the partnership with other interested authority to speak for their potential for emissions from sources organizations. within their borders to contribute to stakeholders, should consider • conducting future regional air quality States (and tribes at their discretion) regional haze impairment in Class I planning efforts to address the should be prepared to make strong, areas also located within their own implementation of the ozone and PM early commitments to implementing the jurisdiction. NAAQS and regional haze program. We outcome of the regional process to In the proposal, EPA also ensure that SIP submittal dates are met. recommended that all States initially encourage States to continue to work • together to establish common protocols Participants in regional planning participate in regional planning efforts and approaches for emissions inventory efforts should set up a work plan to to more precisely characterize which development, emissions tracking, carry out their work. The work plan States are contributing to visibility application of regional models, and should contain clearly stated products impairment in other States, as well as development of effective emission of the process, dates for completion of the magnitude of such contributions. reduction strategies. those products and mechanisms for States could then develop strategies for funding the needed analyses. making reasonable progress in Class I The EPA plans to participate early • and actively in regional planning efforts. The technical assessment process areas throughout the region. The EPA The EPA recognizes that we must should include steps for problem noted that as a result of this process, all provide early input on issues and to definition, development of emissions States may not have to adopt control make our views known as issues arise. inventories, and development of tools to strategies. At the same time, EPA cited evaluate strategy alternatives. the 1993 NAS report, which observed The EPA has a responsibility to • independently review the adequacy of In the strategy development that the requirement for a State to revise implementation plans in the public process, participants should strive to its implementation plan if it ‘‘may rulemaking process and to consider all develop a consensus about (1) the set of reasonably be anticipated’’ to contribute public comments received on a plan in regional emissions reductions strategies to visibility impairment indicates that determining if it meets applicable needed to attain the NAAQS or make Congress intended that ‘‘the philosophy requirements. However, it is equally ‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the of precautionary action should apply to important that EPA be open in letting national visibility goal in Class I areas, visibility protection as it applies to participants know of our views and and (2) the degree to which each State other areas [such as the NAAQS].’’ concerns throughout the process. and relevant source category should be Thus, EPA proposed that, at a The EPA will soon issue final required to reduce emissions to minimum, all States should be required guidance on such regional planning implement the recommended strategies. to develop visibility SIPs in order to ‘‘prevent any future impairment’’ as efforts for the purposes of implementing III. Discussion of National Program called for by the national goal in section the ozone, particulate matter, and Requirements and Response to regional haze implementation 169A(a)(1). Comments Contracts received. The EPA received programs.41 Also, as a part of EPA’s • Scope of Rule—Extending Coverage a number of comments on the proposed 1999 fiscal year budget, Congress to All States applicability provisions. Many Proposed rule. In the regional haze commenters approved of EPA’s 40 Subcommittee for Ozone, Particulate Matter, and Regional Haze Implementation Programs, Final proposal, EPA proposed to amend approach to require SIPs from all States. Report on Subcommittee Discussions, May 1998. section 51.300(b)(3) to extend coverage Those who did not agree with the scope 41 See the November 17, 1998 draft of to all States (excluding certain of the program provided a number of Implementation Guidance for the Ozone and territories) for the purpose of addressing reasons for their opposition. Some Particulate Matter NAAQS and Regional Haze Program. EPA’s internet site for an electronic regional haze visibility impairment. commenters recognized the need for a version of this guidance: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ This approach differed from the 1980 regional haze program, but stated that oarpg/tlpgm.html. visibility regulations for ‘‘reasonably EPA must first conduct or review

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35721 additional scientific analyses in order to EPA believes that the court’s specific control measures a State must provide justification for requiring interpretation of this phrase may be implement in its initial SIP for regional additional States to submit visibility appropriately used in regard to program haze. That determination can only be SIPs. Other commenters felt that in the applicability as well. In its decision, the made by a State once it has conducted proposed applicability provisions, EPA court found that the language ‘‘may the necessary technical analyses of exceeded its statutory authority by reasonably be anticipated to cause or emissions, air quality, and the other extending the regional haze program to contribute’’ establishes an ‘‘extremely factors that go into determining States that have not been demonstrated low triggering threshold’’ for requiring a reasonable progress. As discussed in to ‘‘cause or contribute’’ to visibility source to control emissions, adding that section II(F), because of the regional, impairment. Some commenters ‘‘the NAS correctly noted that Congress multistate nature of visibility suggested that EPA rely on States with has not required ironclad scientific impairment in Class I areas,44 EPA Class I areas to engage nearby States, as certainty establishing the precise recommends that these analyses and the appropriate, in regional planning efforts. relationship between a source’s determination of the extent of emissions Some commenters in States containing emission and resulting visibility reductions needed from individual Class I areas suggested that, for their impairment. * * *’’ 43 In considering States be developed and refined through particular Class I areas, there was no whether additional States should be multistate planning efforts using the demonstrated visibility problem. They subject to the visibility program, EPA best available technical tools, such as asserted that because visibility levels believes the court’s reasoning supports regional-scale modeling. The EPA also should already be deemed acceptable, adoption of the predicate requirement recommends the coordination of there was no need for a regional haze that States develop the necessary resulting strategies for regional haze program in their States. Other provisions in their implementation with strategies needed to attain the commenters felt that EPA should plans to determine whether and to what PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA anticipates that include specific criteria (e.g., distance, extent control of emissions from sources as a result of the more refined analyses emissions, and visibility impact cutoffs) is needed. That is, given that the court required by this rule, some States may for excluding States or geographic areas believed this ‘‘low triggering threshold’’ conclude that control strategies from consideration as contributing to was sufficient to require a source to specifically for protection of visibility regional haze visibility impairment. control its emissions under BART, EPA are not needed at this time because the Final rule. Consistent with the believes it is reasonable that a similarly analyses may show that existing proposal, EPA has concluded in today’s low or even lower threshold applies to measures are sufficient to meet final rule that all States contain sources whether States should be required to reasonable progress goals. The EPA is whose emissions are reasonably engage in air quality planning and requiring States to document their anticipated to contribute to regional analysis as a prerequisite to determining analyses, including any consultations haze in a Class I area and, therefore, the need for control of emissions from with other States in support of their must submit regional haze SIPs. The sources within their State. The EPA conclusions that further controls are not rationale for this finding is discussed in believes this is particularly appropriate needed at this time. The EPA believes more detail below. since the requirement for SIPs does not that there is more than sufficient In making this finding, EPA mandate the actual control of emissions evidence to support our conclusion that considered three factors: (1) The specific from any source without further emissions from each of the 48 statutory language in the CAA; (2) the technical analysis by the State. contiguous States may be reasonably weight of evidence demonstrating long- Accordingly, EPA believes the concept anticipated to cause or contribute to range transport of fine particulate of an ‘‘extremely low triggering visibility impairment in a Class I area. pollution that affects visibility in Class threshold’’ can also apply in As stated in EPA’s proposal, a large I areas; and (3) current monitored determining which States should submit body of evidence demonstrates that conditions in Class I areas across the SIPs for regional haze. long-range transport of fine PM country. The EPA’s consideration of Section 169A(a)(1) sets forth a contributes to regional haze and other each of these factors is discussed below. national goal of ‘‘the prevention of any related effects such as acid rain. In the Two key provisions in section 169A future, and the remedying of any preamble to the proposal and in the support EPA’s finding that all States existing, impairment of visibility in relevant docket, EPA cited numerous must develop SIPs for regional haze. Class I areas which impairment results studies that contribute to this body of Section 169A(b)(2) requires EPA to from manmade air pollution.’’ Thus, in evidence.45 Indeed, EPA recognized the promulgate regulations to require SIPs addition to requiring a program to role of long-range transport in relation from those States where the emissions reduce existing impairment, the CAA to visibility impairment 20 years ago in ‘‘may reasonably be anticipated to cause requires SIPs to be established in order its 1979 Report to Congress on or contribute to any impairment of to prevent future impairment. This visibility.46 visibility’’ in a mandatory Class I preventative component of the national Among the more important studies on Federal area. The EPA believes that this goal requires that States have the which EPA relied are the 1991 report provision does not require the Agency framework in place to address future from the NAPAP, the 1993 NAS report to provide absolute certainty regarding growth in emissions from new sources Protecting Visibility in National Parks the effect of emissions from the State on or other activities that could impair visibility in a particular Class I area. visibility. For this reason, the EPA does 44 Refer to unit II of this final rule for additional not believe that it is appropriate to background on the long-range transport of pollution The Ninth Circuit has interpreted the contributing to regional haze. language, ‘‘may reasonably be establish criteria for excluding States or 45 See Unit II, Background Information. See also anticipated to cause or contribute to any geographic areas from consideration as July 29, 1997 memorandum to regional haze docket impairment of visibility,’’ in a case potential contributors to regional haze A–95–38, ‘‘Supporting Information for Proposed involving identical language in section visibility impairment. Applicability of Regional Haze Regulations,’’ by Richard Damberg, EPA, Office of Air Quality 42 As noted in the proposal, EPA is not 169A(b)(2)(A) relating to BART. The Planning and Standards. specifying in this final rule what 46 U.S. EPA, Protecting Visibility: An EPA Report 42 Central Arizona Water Conservation District v. to Congress, Office of Air Quality Planning and EPA, 990 F.2d 1531 (1993). 43 990 F.2d at 1541. Standards, EPA–450/5–79–008, October 1979.

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 35722 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations and Wilderness Areas, EPA studies disagrees with these comments for two eastern United States, sulfate is the key using the regional acid deposition reasons. contributor to visibility impairment, model (RADM), the 1996 GCVTC report First, the EPA did not base its responsible for between 45–90 percent Recommendations for Improving proposed applicability provisions only of light extinction due to on the Western Vistas, and two contractor on the referenced contractor reports. 20 percent most impaired days. This reports prepared for EPA.47 All of these The EPA based its decision on the fact is significant because the broad, reports are available in the docket. They assessments provided by these reports regional scale of long-range transport of were referenced and discussed in EPA’s as well as a number of other studies and sulfate has already been acknowledged proposal and in an additional sources of information. Second, as in many studies done for the acid rain memorandum to the docket. The explained above, EPA believes that all program. Based on these data, it appears NAPAP report included a States must have a visibility SIP to that although the acid rain program is comprehensive technical review of prevent, at a minimum, future expected to improve visibility by historical visibility trends.48 The NAS impairment of visibility. While EPA approximately 3 deciviews in the most report found that the range of fine agrees that portions of some States may impaired Class I areas in the Eastern particle transport is on the order of not need to implement additional United States by 2005,53 further regional 49 hundreds or thousands of kilometers. measures, at this time, to improve reductions in SO2 emissions may be Analyses using the RADM have visibility impairment in any Class I area, needed after the acid rain program is estimated that sulfate and nitrate the EPA believes that more refined complete to assure continued visibility deposition receptors are influenced by future assessments will be needed to improvement toward the national goal. sources located up to 600–800 support such a finding. Additionally, Thus, EPA finds it is reasonable to kilometers away.50 In its deliberations the EPA believes that a State wishing to require SIPs from the States without and in its final report, the GCVTC demonstrate that it does not contribute Class I areas which are located in the acknowledged the role of long-range to visibility impairment in any Class I central and eastern parts of the United transport from sources and activities area will need to provide information States since many, if not all, are located across a very large geographic showing that it has consulted with other expected to have sources contributing to potentially affected States to assist EPA area, and its effect on the Class I areas regional loadings of SO2 emissions, even on the Colorado Plateau.51 in assuring that the State’s after implementation of the acid rain Finally, two contractor modeling demonstration is not contradicted by program is completed. evidence presented by other States. reports prepared for EPA provided For all of the reasons stated above, Current monitoring information for information that preliminarily EPA has concluded in today’s final rule Class I areas shows that all of the that EPA’s statutory authority and demonstrated that each State not having monitored sites in the central and scientific evidence are sufficient to a Class I area had emissions eastern parts of the country have require all States to develop regional contributing to impairment in at least visibility impairment levels exceeding haze SIPs to ensure the prevention of one downwind Class I area. Some State estimated natural conditions for the 20 any future impairment of visibility, and commenters asserted that the contractor percent most impaired days, some by to conduct further analyses to determine reports referenced in the proposal show more than 20 deciviews. Although the whether additional emission reduction relatively low contributions from all or degree of impairment varies, the data measures are needed to ensure part of their States toward visibility demonstrate that no existing site has reasonable progress in remedying impairment in a nearby Class I area. As reached the goal in section 169A(a)(1) of existing impairment in downwind Class a result, these commenters suggested the CAA for ‘‘remedying * * * any I areas. that EPA had sufficient information to existing impairment of visibility.’’ 52 reach a conclusion that all or part of In light of this finding, EPA disagrees B. Timetable for Submitting the First their States could be excluded from the with the commenter who asserted that Regional Haze State Implementation regional haze program. The EPA because visibility levels in its State are Plan (SIP) already ‘‘acceptable,’’ there is no need 47 See Latimer and Associates, Particulate Matter for the State to implement a regional This final rule establishes a schedule Source—Receptor Relationships Between All Point haze program. The section 169A setting forth deadlines by which the and Area Sources in the United States and PSD national goal of the visibility program, States must submit their first regional Class I Area Receptors, Report prepared for EPA, haze SIPs and subsequent revisions to Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, a condition of no human-caused September 1996. See also ENVIRON International impairment, does not provide for that first SIP. In this unit, we discuss the Corporation, Development of Revised Federal Class judgments of acceptable visibility levels deadlines for the first regional haze SIP, I Area Groups in Support of Regional Haze which are poorer than natural the concerns raised in comments Regulations, Report prepared for EPA, Office of Air regarding these deadlines, and recent Quality Planning and Standards, September 1996. conditions in Class I areas. Through legislation affecting the deadlines. The 48 National Acid Precipitation Assessment adoption of section 169A(a)(1), Congress Program. Acid Deposition: State of the Science and established natural visibility conditions requirements for periodic revisions to Technology. Report 24, Visibility: Existing and this first regional haze SIP are discussed Historical Conditions—Causes and Effects, as the overall goal. The data also show that in the below in unit III.J. Washington, DC, 1991. Proposed rule. The proposed rule, 49 National Research Council, NAS Committee on monitored locations in the central and Haze in National Parks and Wilderness Areas, consistent with section 169B(e)(2) of the Protecting Visibility in National Parks and 52 Sisler, J. et al., Spatial and Seasonal Patterns CAA, would have required States to Wilderness Areas, National Academy Press, and Long-Term Variability of the Chemical submit revisions to their SIP to address Washington, D.C., 1993. Composition of the Haze in the United States: An regional haze within 12 months of the 50 Dennis, Robin L. ‘‘Using the Regional Acid Analysis of Data from the IMPROVE Network, Fort effective date of the rule. We had Deposition Model to Determine the Nitrogen Collins, CO, Cooperative Institute for Research in Deposition Airshed of the Chesapeake Bay the Atmosphere, Colorado State University, 1996. intended that these 12-month SIP Watershed,’’ in Atmospheric Deposition to the See also Sisler, J., et al., Spatial and Temporal Great Lakes and Coastal Waters, edited by Joel Patterns and the Chemical Composition of the Haze 53 U.S. EPA, Effects of the 1990 Clean Air Act Baker, 1996. in the United States: An Analysis of Data from the Amendments on Visibility in Class I Areas: An EPA 51 GCVTC, Recommendations for Improving IMPROVE Network, 1988–1991, Fort Collins, CO, Report to Congress, Office of Air Quality Planning Western Vistas, Report to the U.S. EPA, June 1996. 1993. and Standards, EPA–452/R–93–014, October 1993.

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35723 submittals serve as program planning prescribed in paragraph (2) of section 169B(e) designations within 1 year of the date SIPs in which the States would review of the CAA, the Administrator shall require that 3 years of PM2.5 data are available. existing regulatory authorities and State implementation plan revisions referred Because widespread monitoring for to in such paragraph (2) to be submitted at provide the framework for a number of PM2.5 is being implemented between the same time as State implementation plan January 1999 and December 31, 1999, future actions. revisions referred to in section 172 of the Comments received. Commenters CAA implementing the revised national we expect 3 years of data to be collected expressed the view that 12 months was ambient air quality standard for fine by December 31, 2001 for most areas an insufficient time period to meet the particulate matter are required to be and no later than December 31, 2002 for proposed requirements for the program submitted. For any area designated as the remaining areas. Taking into planning SIP. Moreover, commenters attainment or unclassifiable for such account additional time (not more than were concerned that the 12-month SIP standard, the Administrator shall require the 6 months) for quality assurance and requirement was not well coordinated State implementation plan revisions referred certification of the data, we expect 3 with similar program planning for the to in such paragraph (2) to be submitted 1 years of data to be available for States year after the area has been so designated. new PM2.5 standard. to use for designations between July Transportation Equity Act for the 21st The preceding provisions of this paragraph 2002 and July 2003. In the TEA–21 shall not preclude the implementation of the Century (TEA–21). After the close of the agreements and recommendations set forth in amendments, States have up to 1 year to comment period for the July 1997 the GCVTC Report dated June 1996. submit designations. Thus, we expect proposal, Congress passed the that the required date for submittal of Transportation Equity Act for the 21st To accompany the statutory changes designations generally will occur Century (TEA–21), Public Law 105–178. contained in the TEA–21 law, Congress between July 2003 and July 2004.57 The TEA–21 superseded the statutory released a Conference Report. With EPA action on State designations. The requirement for a 12-month SIP respect to the visibility provisions of EPA is required to act upon the deadline and established a specific TEA–21, the Conference Report states: designations no later than 1 year after schedule for regional haze SIP The Conferees recognize that the Regional the date States are required to submit submissions. In a September 3, 1998 Haze regulation has not been finalized and the designations, but not later than notice of availability, EPA provided the the Administrator of the Environmental December 31, 2005 in any case. If States public with an opportunity to comment Protection Agency (EPA) is still considering submit their designations between July the views of various stakeholders. The 2003 and July 2004, EPA would be on how the regional haze rule should Conferees agree with EPA’s public statements 54 required to designate areas between July address the TEA–21 requirements. that the schedule for the State The TEA–21 provisions establish a Implementation Plan due pursuant to section 2004 and July 2005. timetable for the regional haze SIPs by 169B(e)(2) of the * * * [Clean Air] * * * For areas designated as attainment or first creating certain deadlines for PM2.5 CAA should be harmonized with the unclassifiable, the TEA–21 amendments monitoring and area designations, and Schedule for State Implementation Plan require that States must submit SIPs for then by linking those deadlines to submissions required for PM2.5 ambient air regional haze within 1 year after EPA further deadlines for the regional haze quality standard promulgated in July, 1997.55 publishes the designations. As a result, program. The TEA–21 amendments, in This new statutory language has two for these areas, regional haze SIPs are section 4102(a), require EPA to fund a effects. First, it supersedes the section likely to be due generally between July 2005 and July 2006. PM2.5 monitoring network. In section 169B requirement for EPA to require For areas designated as nonattainment 4102(b), EPA and States are required to States to submit SIPs within 12 months for fine particulate matter, the TEA–21 put this network in place by no later of the promulgation of today’s final rule. amendments require States to submit than December 31, 1999. Second, it spells out a timetable for SIP SIP revisions addressing regional haze Section 4102(c)(1) of TEA–21 revisions that is linked to the dates of ‘‘at the same time as States submit SIPs establishes deadlines for States to use attainment/nonattainment designations as required by section 172 of the CAA the data collected by the network for for PM2.5. It is important to note that the implementing the July 1997 revision to purposes of formally designating areas timetable is based on the designation of the national ambient air quality as attaining the PM2.5 standard or as areas within a State. Thus, under the standard for fine particulate matter.’’ nonattainment or unclassifiable. Section legislation, one State could have Section 172(b) of the CAA requires SIPs 4102(c)(1) states: multiple SIP submission deadlines no later than 3 years after EPA publishes depending on the dates of designation of (1) The Governors shall be required to the nonattainment designation. If EPA submit designations referred to in section each area within the State. This issue, designates areas nonattainment between 107(d)(1) of the CAA for each area following and how EPA intends to address it, is July 2004 and July 2005, the regional promulgation of the July 1997 PM2.5 national further discussed later in this unit. haze SIPs for areas designated as ambient air quality standard within 1 year According to a Presidential nonattainment and the PM after receipt of 3 years of air quality memorandum dated July 16, 1997, the 2.5 monitoring data performed in accordance nonattainment SIPs would both be due EPA and States must collect 3 years of with any applicable Federal reference no later than the July 2007 to July 2008 monitoring data in order to have a method for the relevant areas. timeframe. sufficient basis for designations. This Section 4102(c)(2) of TEA–21 contains 56 The date for startup of PM2.5 point is reiterated in TEA–21. Routine monitoring may vary in different parts the following language which links the collection of monitoring data begins in timing requirements for the visibility of a given State. Accordingly, the EPA 1999. Hence, we expect the expects that States may not be able to program to the PM2.5 designation requirements of TEA–21, section process: submit designation requests at the same 4102(c)(1), to result in the following: time for the entire State. Rather, EPA (2) For any area designated as Submissions of designation requests nonattainment for the July 1997 PM2.5 by States. States must submit national ambient air quality standard in 57 We expect that some States will want to move accordance with the schedule set forth in this expeditiously with some designations, leading to 55 H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 550, 105th Cong., 2d. Sess. submissions and final action on some areas as early section, notwithstanding the time limit 519 (1998), reprinted in 1998 U.S.C.C.A.N., No. 6 as late 2002 or early 2003. Where this is the case, at 196. this would lead to earlier regional haze SIP 54 63 FR 46952. 56 See TEA–21, Section 4102(c)(1). submittal deadlines as well.

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 35724 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations expects that it is possible that regional haze programs, will support In the final rule, the timetable for SIP individual ‘‘areas’’ within a given State coordinated regional planning for both submittals is set forth in section may be designated at different times. programs, and will be consistent with 51.308(b) and (c). Section 51.308(b) Even if areas were all designated at the the statement of congressional intent. directly codifies the TEA–21 timetable. same time, in many States some areas Comments received. Some Section 51.308(c) provides States that will likely be designated attainment, commenters argued that TEA–21 does have committed to participate with with others designated nonattainment. not authorize EPA to defer other States in a regional planning In either case, the TEA–21 deadlines implementation of the regional haze process the option of choosing to defer would require separate regional haze program in this way. The basis for this submittal of a SIP which addresses the SIPs for each of these areas to be argument is the claim that the 1-year substantive requirements of the regional submitted at different times. deadline in section 169B(e)(2) applies haze program. States are not required to While the language in TEA–21 only to regulations promulgated exercise the option provided by section establishing the timetable for pursuant to the report of a visibility 51.308(c), but those which do must meet submission of regional haze SIPs is transport commission. These the deadlines set forth in that section for generally clear, the transportation commenters claim that EPA is obligated submitting a SIP which addresses the legislation does not address the under section 169A to provide for more distinct requirements in section situation where States are participating expedited implementation of measures 51.308(c) and a SIP revision which in a regional planning effort that to assure reasonable progress. addresses the substantive requirements incorporates numerous areas. On its The final rule. The regulations made of the regional haze program.59 face, TEA–21 requires the submission of final today are issued under the As a first step, States electing to separate regional haze SIPs on an area- authority of CAA sections 169A and participate in regional planning must by-area basis with varying deadlines 169B. As discussed in unit II.C above, submit a SIP demonstrating the State’s that could range over a period of several EPA in 1980 explicitly deferred issuing ongoing participation in a regional years. As noted above, however, regulations to address regional haze planning process. This SIP must address regional haze is the result of emissions until our scientific and technical all areas in the State and is due on the from a number of sources located over knowledge was better developed. In earliest date by which an a broad geographic area. Because of the 1990, Congress amended the CAA by implementation plan affecting any area long-range transport of pollutants adding section 169B. This section within the State would be due under the causing regional haze, EPA believes that authorizes the establishment of TEA–21 deadlines. Unless an entire well-coordinated regional planning visibility transport commissions which, State is designated as nonattainment, efforts are needed to make progress among other things, must issue a report this SIP will be due 1 year after EPA toward natural visibility conditions. As addressing ‘‘the promulgation of designates any area within the State as EPA noted in the September 3, 1998 regulations under [section 169A] to attainment or unclassifiable. This SIP notice of availability, we do not believe address long range strategies for submission must contain a number of that Congress intended to inhibit addressing regional haze.’’ Section 169B specific elements to demonstrate the regional planning efforts by requiring further establishes explicit timeframes State’s commitment to the regional area-by-area submittals. In light of this, in which EPA must, taking into account planning process and to ensure that by EPA requested comment on any reports of visibility transport the date of the SIP submittal, the States incorporating an optional approach into commissions, issue regulations under in the regional planning body have the final rule to facilitate regional section 169A, and in which States must taken the necessary steps to initiate the planning. respond by submitting revised SIPs. regional planning process. Notice of availability of additional Congress modified the timeframe for SIP The following briefly summarizes the information. The optional approach submission in TEA–21 to ensure the required elements of the first SIP EPA described in the September 3, 1998 ability of EPA to harmonize the submittal called for under the optional notice of availability would allow States implementation of today’s final rule approach for regional planning: which commit to participating in with the requirements for the new PM2.5 Need for regional planning. In the regional planning efforts to postpone NAAQS.58 Today’s final rule carries out SIP, the State must demonstrate the addressing certain of the requirements EPA’s obligation under sections 169A need for regional planning. The State of the regional haze program. Under this and 169B to issue regulations must make this demonstration by approach, States would have the option addressing regional haze according to showing that emissions from sources to first submit SIPs which contain the timeframe as set forth in section within the State contribute to visibility commitments to specific integrated 169B as modified by TEA–21. impairment in Class I areas in another regional planning efforts but which do The final rule includes the deadlines State, or by showing that other States not set forth control strategies. States for SIP submittals set forth in TEA–21 contribute to visibility impairment in committing to regional planning would and incorporates an optional set of the Class I areas in the State. The EPA subsequently submit SIP revisions requirements for States which commit does not intend for this to be an overly containing control strategies for to participate in regional planning. complex analysis. attainment, unclassifiable, and Commenters generally agreed with Description of regional planning nonattainment areas at the same time. EPA’s view in the notice of availability organization. The State must also This would allow multiple areas within that it is important to ensure that the submit a detailed description of the a single planning region to have PM2.5 program and regional haze regional planning process. In its SIP, the coordinated deadlines for regional haze program are fully integrated. The EPA State must show that the participating control strategies. In the supplemental believes that the approach taken in the notice, we noted that this approach final rule supports effective 59 The option for regional planning provided by could have the effect of delaying control coordination between these programs, section 51.308(c) is not available for Alaska, strategy plan submittal dates for some Hawaii, and the Virgin Islands. Class I areas within while also facilitating regional planning. their boundaries are not affected by emissions from areas, but we believe that such an any other State. As a result, regional planning will option will support more effective 58 See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 550, 105th Cong., 2d. not be needed to develop regional haze SIPs for coordination between the PM2.5 and Sess. 517. these areas.

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35725

States have a credible regional planning Enforceable commitment to submit one of 26 source categories and placed process in place which all parties are coordinated control strategy by 2008. into operation between 1962 and 1977 committed to follow. We have outlined The regional planning SIP must include that are potentially subject to BART. general principles for regional planning provisions requiring the State to submit This information will enable the State organizations in a document entitled a SIP revision meeting all of the and regional planning organization to Implementation Guidance for the requirements of the regional haze rule. begin evaluating options for meeting the Revised Ozone and Particulate Matter This SIP revision is due by the latest BART requirement or for implementing (PM) National Ambient Air Quality date an area within the planning region an emissions trading program or Standards (NAAQS) and the Regional would be required to submit an alternative measure that achieves greater Haze Program, which discusses features implementation plan under TEA–21, reasonable progress. of effective regional planning but in no event any later than December organizations, including a discussion of 31, 2008. The SIP must require that the Summary of timetable for submission organization and representation issues, SIP revision is developed in of the first regional haze SIPs. The issues related to developing workplans coordination with the other States in the following table is a summary of the and schedules, and issues related to regional planning body and that it fully deadlines for submitting the first ensuring that technical efforts are addresses the recommendations of that regional haze SIPs. consistent. This document is available body. on the internet at http://www.epa.gov/ List of BART-eligible sources. The ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html. State must identify those sources from

... States must submit the first regional For this case ... haze SIPs no later than: ... and the SIP must meet ...

Areas designated as attainment or 1 year after EPA publishes the designation ALL requirements of section 51.308(d) and unclassifiable for PM2.5. (generally 2004±2006). (e). Areas designated as nonattainment for PM2.5 ... At the same time as PM2.5 SIPs are due ALL requirements of section 51.308(d) and under section 172 of the CAA. (That is, 3 (e). years after EPA publishes the designation, generally 2006±2008). States participating in multistate regional plan- Two phases: ...... The regional planning requirements listed in ning efforts for combined attainment and non- Commitment to regional planning due 1 year section 51.308(c). attainment areas. after the EPA publishes the first designation for any area within the State, and. Complete implementation plan due at the The ``core requirements'' listed in section same time as PM2.5 SIPs are due under 51.308(d) and BART requirements in sec- section 172 of the CAA. (That is, 3 years tion 51.308(e). after EPA publishes the designation). States following the recommendations of the December 31, 2003 ...... SIPs must meet the specific provisions for GCVTC, as contained in section 51.309 of Grand Canyon Transport Region States list- the final rule. ed in section 51.309.

C. Tracking Deciviews and Emissions the tracking of pollutant emissions to but noticeable change in haziness under Reductions supplement the tracking of monitored most circumstances when viewing 61 Visibility impairment is caused by visibility changes for use in periodically scenes in Class I areas.’’ particles and gases in the atmosphere. reviewing State progress in achieving The proposal discussed that an Some particles and gases scatter light, visibility targets. The proposal included advantage to using the deciview over while others absorb light. The net effect the definition of the deciview metric for other scales is that it can be used to is called ‘‘light extinction.’’ The result of tracking visibility. The proposal also express changes in visibility impairment these processes is a reduction of the called for a review of emissions in a way that corresponds to human amount of light from a scene that is reductions achieved as part of the long- perception in a linear, or one for one, returned to the observer, creating a hazy term strategy. manner. For example, this metric is condition. Deciview. The proposal explained that designed such that a change of 3 Proposed rule. In the proposal, EPA the deciview is an atmospheric haze deciviews in a highly impaired established a regulatory framework by index that expresses changes in environment would be perceived as which a State would establish a visibility. This visibility metric roughly the same degree of change as a ‘‘reasonable progress target’’ for each expresses uniform changes in haziness 3 deciview change in a relatively clear Class I area within its borders for the in terms of common increments across environment. As noted in the preamble purpose of improving visibility on the the entire range of visibility conditions, to the proposed regulation, the deciview worst visibility days over the next 10 or from pristine to extremely hazy is mathematically related to other 60 15 years. The States would implement conditions. Because each unit change common metrics used to describe emission management strategies to in deciview represents a common visibility: the light extinction coefficient improve visibility in these Class I areas. change in perception, the deciview scale and visual range. However, the deciview The proposal also called for the States is like the decibel scale for sound. The metric can be used to compare changes to monitor progress in improving proposal also stated that ‘‘A one in perception in a way that the other visibility over time. The EPA proposed deciview change in haziness is a small two metrics cannot. This feature makes that visibility targets and tracking of the deciview a more useful metric for 60 Pitchford, M. and Malm, W., ‘‘Development regulatory purposes. For example, a 5- visibility changes over time be and Applications of a Standard Visual Index,’’ expressed in terms of the ‘‘deciview’’ Atmospheric Environment, v. 28, no. 5, March haze metric. The proposal also called for 1994. 61 62 FR 41145.

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 35726 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations mile change in visual range can in some adopted measures are reducing characterizing visibility impairment.65 cases be very significant, such as from emissions and is thus a useful indicator The EPA also recognized the deciview 5 to 10 miles in an impaired of progress in reducing visibility as an appropriate metric for regulatory environment (equal to a change of 6.9 impairment. The tracking of emissions purposes in chapter 8 of the 1996 Staff deciviews), whereas a 5-mile change without concurrently tracking changes Paper for the PM NAAQS review.66 Both may not be perceptible in a less in visibility, however, would be of these documents were reviewed and impaired environment, such as from 95 problematic because of the variable accepted by the Clean Air Scientific to 100 miles (equal to a change of 0.5 effect on visibility of each of the Advisory Committee. Visibility deciviews). The following sections principal constituents of PM, the more conditions at Class I areas have been discuss the comments received on significant light scattering efficiency of characterized in terms of deciview in specific issues and how such issues are fine PM versus coarse PM, and the summary reports on the IMPROVE addressed in the final rule. generally greater effect of nearby versus visibility monitoring network.67 Tracking emissions versus visibility. distant sources on visibility impairment. The EPA also supports use of the Many commenters supported the use of Since the national goal is expressed in deciview metric because it satisfies one the deciview metric to track changes in terms of air quality (i.e., visibility) of the recommendations of the NAS visibility improvement as a key aspect rather than emissions, we believe that it of the program. These commenters Committee on Haze in National Parks is very important to require the agreed with EPA’s proposal that under and Wilderness Areas. In its 1993 report quantitative tracking of visibility a visibility-oriented program, progress on visibility, the NAS recommended the impairment as an integral element in in fact should be tracked in terms of a development of an index that takes into measuring reasonable progress. Because visibility-based metric. Others felt the account both measurement of physical ambient monitoring data are subject to program could be successfully changes (i.e., changes in air quality) meteorological fluctuations, EPA 68 implemented by tracking emissions only with elements of human perception. designs standards and requirements for because this approach would not be Further, a report on the regional haze analysis of monitoring data to limit the greatly affected by meteorological proposal by the Congressional Research effects of unusual meteorological events. variations as would an approach based Service found that the deciview index For regional haze, we have provided in 69 on ambient monitoring. ‘‘conforms closely’’ to the NAS this final rule for the tracking of The final rule provides for the recommendation cited above. visibility trends based on 5-year tracking of both visibility improvement Some commenters stated that the final averages of annual deciview values for and emissions reductions.62 The final rule should not suggest that a one the most impaired and least impaired rule presents visibility improvement deciview change is the threshold of days. We believe that this approach and tracking of emissions as linked perception in all cases for all scenes. responds to commenters’ concerns elements of the program. The EPA has The EPA agrees with the comment that about significant unusual fluctuations in retained the use of the deciview metric a one deciview change should not be annual average values for the best and for tracking changes in visibility. The considered the threshold of perception worst days due to unusual EPA believes the tracking of actual in all cases for all scenes. The EPA meteorological conditions in any visibility improvements is necessary to believes that visibility changes of less particular year. However, it is also be responsive to the goals of the CAA. than one deciview are likely to be important to note that EPA has long Section 169A(a) of the CAA sets forth perceptible in some cases, especially held that normal meteorological the national goal of the ‘‘prevention of where the scene being viewed is highly variations should be explicitly any future, and the remedying of any sensitive to small amounts of pollution. accounted for in air quality analyses and existing, impairment of visibility in The EPA also acknowledges the control strategy design. Air quality Class I areas which impairment results technical point made by some improvement plans should be able to from manmade air pollution.’’ The CAA commenters that for other types of assure protection of public health and also requires EPA to establish scenes with other site-specific welfare under the normal and regulations to be implemented by the foreseeable range of meteorological States to ensure that ‘reasonable 65 conditions. U.S. EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate progress’ is made toward the national Matter, Research Triangle Park, NC, National Center goal. In addition, section 169B(e) of the Tracking visibility in deciviews. Some for Environmental Assessment. Office of Research CAA calls for EPA to carry out its commenters disagreed with the use of and Development, July 1996. 66 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Review ‘‘regulatory responsibilities under the deciview to measure changes in of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for section 169A, including criteria for visibility, claiming that the deciview Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific measuring ‘reasonable progress’ toward metric has not been adequately and Technical Information. OAQPS Staff Paper. the national goal.’’ 63 reviewed for use in a regulatory Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. July The EPA believes that tracking of program. The EPA disagrees with this 1996. 67 Sisler, J., et al., Spatial and Seasonal Patterns emissions reductions is also an assertion. The EPA believes the and Long-Term Variability of the Composition of important component of the regional deciview metric has been adequately the Haze in the United States: An Analysis of Data haze program. The mechanism for reviewed for use in the regional haze from the IMPROVE Network. Cooperative Institute achieving improvements in visibility program. The deciview concept was for Research in the Atmosphere, Colorado State University, 1996. See also Sisler, J., et al., Spatial will be the implementation of introduced in 1994 in an article and Temporal Patterns and the Chemical enforceable emissions reduction appearing in the peer-reviewed journal Composition of the Haze in the United States: An measures that have been adopted as part Atmospheric Environment.64 It was Analysis of Data From the IMPROVE Network, of the SIP. Tracking emissions will presented in the 1996 Criteria Document 1988–1991, Fort Collins, CO, 1993. 68 National Research Council, Protecting provide a good indicator of whether for the PM NAAQS as a valid metric for Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas, 1993, p. 354. 62 Tracking of visibility is addressed in section 64 Pitchford, M. and Malm, W., ‘‘Development 69 Congressional Research Service, Regional Haze: 51.308(d) and 51.308(g). Tracking of emissions and Applications of a Standard Visual Index,’’ EPA’s Proposal to Improve Visibility in National reductions is addressed in section 51.308(g). Atmospheric Environment, V. 28, no. 5, March Parks and Wilderness Areas, November 17, 1997, p. 63 Section 169B(e)(1). 1994. 17.

VerDate 18-JUN-99 19:00 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 01JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35727 conditions,70 a change of more than 1 visibility impairment, the EPA supports development processes. By deciview might be required in order for the use of a common approach for understanding the chemical the change to be perceptible. However, calculating visibility changes based on composition of particulate matter, we EPA wishes to emphasize that the monitored fine particle data as the can better define the manmade and overall goal of the regional haze primary monitoring method for tracking natural components contributing to program is not to track changes in visual air quality. overall light extinction. Second, direct visibility for only certain vistas at a Such an approach has been measurements of visibility from some specific Class I area. Rather, the program established and implemented for many optical instruments (e.g., is designed to track changes in regional years by the IMPROVE Steering transmissometer) are more frequently visibility for the range of possible views Committee. The IMPROVE approach disrupted by precipitation events (i.e., of sky and terrain found in any Class I uses a set of standard assumptions,71 rain or snow) than are aerosol area, and to assure progress toward the which have been tested and found to be measurements. national goal. For this purpose, EPA reasonable, in calculating light For all of the reasons discussed above, supports the use of the deciview metric extinction and deciviews from changes the final rule provides for the tracking as calculated from ambient monitoring in air quality. Two important aspects of of visibility and emissions reductions. data for tracking changes in regional the approach are: (1) Standard rates of The deciview will be the principal visibility. The monitoring network is light extinction per unit mass of visibility metric for use in implementing not designed to track changes in visibility-impairing pollutants (e.g., the regional haze program. The visibility for specific views in each sulfate, nitrate, organic carbon, deciview will be used for expressing Class I area. Rather, the network is elemental carbon, and crustal material); reasonable progress goals, defining designed to characterize visibility and (2) standard effects of humidity on baseline, current, and natural conditions that, for each site, are sulfate and nitrate. conditions, and tracking changes in representative of a fairly broad Through extensive analysis of visibility conditions over time. The geographic region. The EPA believes empirical data, a value (or ‘‘dry definition of deciview in the final rule this approach is consistent with the extinction coefficient’’) has been in section 51.301(bb) was modified nature of regional haze, which is developed for each aerosol component slightly to provide additional clarity and defined as a uniform haze caused by which represents the amount of light state that deciview values are to be numerous sources covering a broad area. extinction (expressed in inverse derived from calculated light extinction Thus, although a 1 deciview change megameters) caused by each microgram/ based on aerosol measurements in may not be the threshold of perception m3 of that component. Light extinction accordance with EPA guidance. in all situations, the fundamental is calculated by multiplying the aerosol mass for each component by its D. Regional Haze Implementation Plan advantage of using the deciview Principles remains: the deciview metric expresses extinction coefficient and summing the uniform changes in haziness in terms of products. Because sulfates and nitrates Section 169A of the CAA calls for common increments across the entire become more efficient at scattering light States to develop implementation plans range of visibility conditions, from as humidity increases, the values for ensuring reasonable progress toward the pristine to extremely hazy conditions. these two components are also national goal, including emission limits, The metric provides a useful means of multiplied by a relative humidity schedules of compliance and other expressing changes in visibility caused adjustment factor. It has been shown measures as necessary. At a minimum, by changes in air quality while also that annual and seasonal light the CAA calls for SIPs to include a long- providing a scale that relates visibility extinction values developed according term strategy and provisions for BART to perception. The final rule maintains to this method correlate well with for certain major stationary sources. We the deciview as the principle visibility averages of optical measurements of would like to emphasize several metric used in establishing reasonable light extinction for the same locations.72 overarching themes for the specific progress goals, in defining baseline, The EPA plans to issue future guidance implementation plan requirements in current, and natural conditions, and in describing the details of calculating the final rule: • tracking changes in visibility conditions visibility changes in this manner and Regional haze regulations and State over time. States may choose to express tracking visibility over time. implementation plans must address all visibility changes in terms of other Although light extinction can be of the statutory requirements outlined in metrics, such as visual range or light measured directly by certain optical 169A and 169B of the CAA. Regional extinction, as well as in terms of devices (i.e., transmissometers and haze requirements must address a deciview. The definition in the final nephelometers), EPA supports an number of specific statutory rule was modified slightly to provide approach based on the mass of PM requirements, including ‘‘criteria for additional clarity. components derived from ambient reasonable progress,’’ long-term Light extinction calculated from monitoring for calculating light strategies addressing all types of sources aerosol data. Some other commenters extinction for two main reasons. First, and activities, and best available retrofit did not support EPA’s proposed this approach provides for the tracking technology for certain stationary approach to calculating light extinction of actual changes in the components of sources. The implementation plan based on monitored fine particle data air pollution, and the information requirements in the final rule are (referred to as ‘‘reconstructed light obtained from analysis of the chemical designed to ensure that all of these extinction’’ in the proposal). These composition of PM is critical to the air statutory requirements will be met. • commenters preferred other methods, quality modeling and strategy Tracking ‘‘reasonable progress’’ such as direct measurement of light should involve the tracking of both scattering or light extinction with an 71 See Sisler, et al., Spatial and Seasonal Patterns emissions and visibility improvement. optical device. While such methods are and Long-Term Variability of the Composition of Regional haze implementation plans the Haze in the United States: An Analysis of Data must include provisions for tracking the desired in comprehensively monitoring from the IMPROVE Network. Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, Colorado State implementation of enforceable emission 70 For example, where the sight path to a scenic University, 1996. management strategies designed to make feature is less than the maximum visual range. 72 Id. reasonable progress toward the national

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 35728 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations visibility goal. Emission control best and worst days at the time the The EPA also concluded that it would measures will be the component that regional haze program is established. be preferable to have a baseline value will be enforceable to ensure reasonable Baseline conditions are calculated using based on more than 3 years in order to progress. Measuring reasonable progress multiyear averaging. establish a more robust baseline value. should involve tracking the actual • Natural conditions—As specified in The EPA agrees with commenters that a emissions achieved through the CAA, estimated natural conditions, 5-year period, rather than a 3-year implementation of such strategies, and or the visibility conditions that would period, provides for a more stable the tracking of visibility for the most be experienced in the absence of treatment of the inherent variability in impaired and least impaired days using human-caused impairment, constitute emissions and meteorology. This established monitoring and data the ultimate goal of the program. Under approach decreases the probability that analysis techniques. the regional haze program, natural the baseline period will be unduly • Strategies for improving visibility conditions need to be estimated for the affected by unusual or should address all types of sources. 20 percent best and worst days. nonrepresentative events. Section 169A provides for State long- • Current conditions—Current In deciding upon the specific baseline term strategies to address all types of conditions for the best and worst days period of 2000–2004, the Agency took sources and activities emitting are calculated from a multiyear average, into account the fact that EPA has pollutants that contribute to visibility based on the most recent years of obtained funding to provide several impairment in Class I areas, including monitored data. This value would be hundred monitors to the States for the stationary, mobile, and area sources. revised at the time of each periodic SIP purposes of characterizing PM2.5 Implementation plans also must give revision, and would be used to concentrations in urban and rural areas specific attention to certain stationary illustrate: (1) The amount of progress nationally. In accordance with the part sources built between 1962 and 1977 made since the last SIP revision, and (2) 58 monitoring provision enabling and provide for meeting the BART the amount of progress made from the IMPROVE protocol aerosol monitors to provisions for these sources. baseline period of the program. be used to characterize PM2.5 conditions • Successful implementation of the Baseline Conditions at background and transport sites, the regional haze program will involve long- IMPROVE network will be expanding term regional coordination among Proposed rule. The preamble to the from 30 to more than 100 sites by the States. Pollution affecting the air quality proposal discussed an approach for end of 1999 in order to characterize both in Class I areas can be transported long determining baseline visibility background PM2.5 levels and visibility distances, even hundreds of kilometers. conditions for the haziest 20 percent impairment levels in Class I areas. Thus, Therefore, States will need to develop and clearest 20 percent of days that EPA concluded that the baseline period strategies in coordination with one would allow using a minimum of 3 should begin in 2000, after monitoring another, taking into account the effect of years of monitored data, and up to a coverage for Class I areas is expanded emissions from one jurisdiction to air maximum of 9 years of data. significantly. quality in another. In addition, as noted Comments received. The EPA The approach to calculating baseline by the NAS study, ‘‘achieving the received some comments suggesting that values will also provide for more stable national visibility goal will require a it would be more equitable to use a values because the frequency of substantial, long-term program.’’ 73 standardized time period to establish monitoring samples in the IMPROVE Accordingly, the regional haze program baseline values for all Class I areas network will increase in 1999 to one requires the periodic review by each across the country. Other commenters sample every 3 days. In this way, the State of whether ‘‘reasonable progress’’ supported the use of baseline values frequency of sampling for IMPROVE is being achieved and revisions of based on a varying number of years from will be consistent with the PM2.5 implementation plans as needed to site to site. Some commenters also monitoring approach. Thus, annual continue progress toward the national supported the establishment of baseline values should become more robust since visibility goal. conditions based on a period of time 17 percent more samples will be longer than 3 years because a 3-year collected each year. Baseline conditions E. Determination of ‘‘Baseline,’’ period could be significantly influenced must be determined in terms of ‘‘Natural’’ and ‘‘Current’’ Visibility by unique meteorological deciviews for the years 2000–2004 for Background. The fundamental goal of circumstances. the ‘‘most impaired days’’ and the ‘‘least the visibility program, as provided by Final rule. After considering public impaired days.’’ The final rule defines Congress, is the prevention of future comments on the baseline issue, EPA these values as the average of the 20 visibility impairment and the remedying has determined that the most percent of monitored days with the of existing impairment in Class I areas. appropriate ‘‘baseline period’’ would be highest or lowest light extinction values, Thus, the regional haze program must a fixed, 5-year period extending from expressed in deciviews. The EPA will track progress toward the national goal. calendar year 2000 through calendar issue guidance for calculating baseline In order to facilitate this tracking year 2004. The EPA concluded that a visibility conditions based on ambient process, the proposed rule required each standard baseline period provides for monitoring data. The baseline value is State having one or more Class I areas greater national consistency in determined by calculating the average to establish, and update as necessary, establishing this important value, and deciview value for the 20 percent most three important visibility parameters for therefore, is preferable to a provision (or least) impaired days for each of the the best and worst visibility days at each allowing the baseline period to be a 5 years (2000 through 2004), and by Class I area within the State. Each variable number of years. Using a averaging those five values. parameter is discussed in detail below. common number of years and data The final rule also calls for baseline • Baseline conditions—Baseline points to calculate the baseline value for conditions to be established by the State conditions represent visibility for the each site is consistent with fundamental for any Class I area without on-site statistical principles and will provide monitoring by using ‘‘representative’’ 73 National Research Council, Committee on Haze for easy comparison of data from monitoring data for the site. In the SIP, in National Parks and Wilderness Areas, Protecting Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas, multiple sites as the program is the State will need to provide an National Academy Press, 1993. implemented. adequate demonstration supporting the

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35729 use of any ‘‘representative’’ data. The emphasized the difficulty in basis for estimates of natural conditions EPA will issue guidance to help the determining the estimated contribution improve. States address this issue. The IMPROVE of naturally-caused fire to natural The EPA believes that, as a starting Steering Committee (comprised of conditions. Some commenters suggested point, it will be appropriate to derive representatives from EPA, States, and that EPA provide guidance on how to regional estimates of natural visibility FLMs) is working to develop acceptable estimate natural conditions. conditions by using estimates of natural criteria to configure the expanded Final rule. The EPA understands that levels of visibility-impairing visibility monitoring network in such a estimating natural visibility conditions pollutants 76 in conjunction with the way that virtually all Class I areas will can involve many technically complex IMPROVE methodology for calculating either have an aerosol monitor or will be issues. The EPA is committed to light extinction from measurements of characterized by a ‘‘representative’’ site. working with the States, tribes, and the five main components of fine The IMPROVE Steering Committee, FLMs on this issue to develop technical particle mass (sulfate, nitrate, organic including State representatives, will guidance on estimating natural visibility carbon, elemental carbon, and crustal complete the process for identifying conditions. The EPA expects that these material). By using this approach with representative sites before monitoring estimates may be refined over time. In appropriate assumptions for annual for the expanded network begins in the addition, after the regional haze rule is average relative humidity, EPA year 2000. For this reason, it is expected promulgated, and in advance of SIP due estimates natural conditions for the that most States needing to rely on dates, EPA plans to revise the Interim worst visibility days to be representative data from another site Air Quality Policy on Wildland and approximately 11–12 deciviews in the will be able to meet the requirement of Prescribed Fires 74 to address a number east and 8 deciviews in the west. The section 51.308(d)(4) by referencing the of issues, including the contribution of EPA supports use of these estimating Visibility Monitoring Guidance fire to natural visibility conditions. techniques as a valid starting point Document, which will be released Consistent with the proposal, the final because they rely on peer-reviewed shortly after promulgation of this rule, rule retains the requirement that each estimates of the natural composition of and other technical support materials State provide an adequate estimate of fine particle mass,77 and analysis of data developed by the IMPROVE Steering natural visibility conditions for best and from the IMPROVE program’s well- Committee to support the determination worst visibility days in each Class I area established approach, refined over the of representative sites. within the State. These estimates will be past 10 years or more, for calculating Finally, States that submit SIPs for due at the time the State submits its light extinction from monitored PM regional haze by 2003 under section initial control strategy SIP for regional constituents. 51.309 (further discussion in unit IV) haze. However, because the requirement Because these values are expressed in must determine baseline conditions for a SIP revision within 12 months of regional terms only, further refinement based on the most recent 5-year period promulgation has been overridden by of these estimates will need to take for which monitoring data are available the provisions of TEA–21, there no place in the future on a site-specific for the Class I area. For an area without longer is a requirement for States to basis. However, because current monitoring data, the State may use data separately submit to EPA recommended conditions at most Class I areas with from another representative Class I area. procedures for estimating natural existing IMPROVE monitoring exceed conditions in advance of their control Natural Visibility Conditions the above estimates by at least several strategy SIPs.75 deciviews (with some of the more Proposal. The proposed rule called for The EPA recommends that the States impaired Class I areas having values each State having a Class I area, in work closely with the FLMs, tribes, and that exceed estimated natural conditions consultation with the appropriate FLMs, EPA in developing and documenting in by 20 deciviews or more), EPA does not to: (1) Develop a procedure to estimate their SIPs appropriate methods for believe that such refined values are natural conditions for the 20 percent estimating natural conditions. Estimates necessary for the initial 10-year program most impaired and least impaired days of natural visibility conditions are implementation period. As the at each Class I area within the State; and needed to aid all interested parties, difference between current and natural (2) provide this estimate with the State’s including the general public, in conditions for a particular Class I area first SIP revision for regional haze (in understanding how ‘‘close’’ or ‘‘far’’ a becomes smaller, it will be important to the 2003–2005 timeframe as stated in particular Class I area is in relation to develop more precise techniques for the proposal). The estimates for natural the ultimate goal of the program. estimating natural conditions. conditions would be expressed in Understanding the estimated relative deciviews. The preamble cited as a contributions of natural PM constituents Current Conditions default annual average, estimates of (such as organic carbon and crustal Proposal. The proposed rule required natural visibility that were included in material) also can help the States and the State to revise its long-term strategy the 1991 NAPAP chapter on visibility. tribes in understanding the extent of the every 3 years and to compare current When converted to deciview values, contribution from manmade conditions to the visibility conditions these annual average estimates are 9.6 components, and thus can help in existing at the time of its previous long- deciviews in the Eastern United States designing appropriate emission term strategy revision. Current and 5.3 deciviews in the Western management strategies in the future. conditions would be established for the United States. With each subsequent SIP revision, the most impaired and least impaired days, Comments received. A number of estimates of natural conditions for each and would be expressed in deciviews. commenters noted that there are several Class I area may be reviewed and factors which can make the revised as appropriate as the technical 76 See National Acid Precipitation Assessment determination of natural conditions Program. Acid Deposition: State of Science and difficult. For example, organic aerosols 74 Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Technology. Report 24, Visibility: Existing and resulting from biogenic sources, Prescribed Fires, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Historical Conditions—Causes and Effects, Table Planning and Standards, May 1998. 24–6. Washington, DC. 1991. windblown dust, and natural causes of 75 See unit III.B. for a detailed discussion of the 77 The NAPAP estimates were cited in both the fire all contribute to natural visibility TEA–21 provisions and their affect on the timing Criteria Document and EPA Staff for the PM conditions. Several commenters for implementation of the regional haze program. NAAQS.

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 35730 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

Comments received. Many the 5 most recent years of monitoring calculate the difference between current commenters supported EPA’s approach data available at the time a SIP revision conditions and several other parameters to periodic tracking of changes in or progress report is submitted. The so that this information can be taken visibility to determine reasonable approach for calculating current into account when the State is revising progress. Some commenters felt that conditions is similar to the approach for its SIP and considering new reasonable averaging 5 years of data, rather than 3, calculating baseline conditions progress goals. A discussion of these would be preferable. discussed above: the value is calculations is provided in unit III.J of Final rule. Section 51.308(f)(1) of the determined by calculating the average this preamble addressing periodic SIP final rule retains the requirement for for the 20 percent most impaired days revisions and progress reports. each State, at the time of any SIP for each of the 5 most recent years for Summary revision, to determine the current which quality-assured data are visibility conditions for the most available, and then by calculating the The following summary table further impaired and least impaired days for average of those five values.78 illustrates the uses of ‘‘baseline,’’ each Class I area within the State. Sections 51.308(f)(1) and 51.308(g)(3) ‘‘natural,’’ and current conditions in the Current conditions are to be based on of the final rule also require the State to regional haze program.

Term What does it mean? How is it used in the regional haze program?

``Baseline conditions'' ...... Visibility (in deciviews) for the 20 percent ``Baseline'' conditions are used in two ways: most-impaired days, and for the 20 percent (1) For the first regional haze SIPs, due in least-impaired days, for the years 2000 about 2006±2008, baseline conditions are through 2004. the reference point against which visibility improvement is tracked. (2) For subsequent SIP updates (in the year 2018 and every 10 years thereafter), base- line conditions are used to calculate progress from the beginning of the regional haze program. ``Natural conditions'' ...... The level of visibility (in deciviews) for the 20 ``Natural conditions'' represents the absence percent most-impaired days, and for the 20 of visibility impairment due to human- percent least-impaired days, that would caused emissions, the ultimate goal of the exist if there were no manmade impairment.. regional haze program. ``Current conditions'' ...... ``Visibility (in deciviews) for the 20 percent For the initial planning SIPs, ``current'' and most-impaired days, and for the 20 percent ``baseline'' conditions are the same. least-impaired days, for the most recent 5- For subsequent 5-year progress reports, ``cur- year period. rent conditions'' describe the amount of progress that has been made at the mid- course review point halfway through an im- plementation 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 pe- riod.

F. Reasonable Progress Goals areas toward the national visibility goal. The EPA noted that the 10- and 15- The EPA proposed presumptive The previous section discussed three year time periods for tracking important visibility parameters for ‘‘reasonable progress targets,’’ expressed improvement were consistent with tracking ‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward in terms of deciviews, for the purposes section 169A(b)(2)(B), which calls for the national visibility goal. In this of improving visibility on the 20 percent States to develop long-term strategies section, EPA describes the requirements worst days and allowing no degradation covering 10 to 15 years. The EPA also of section 51.308(d)(1) of the final rule of visibility on the 20 percent best days. emphasized the importance of achieving for States to establish ‘‘reasonable Two options were presented for the a perceptible change in visibility over progress goals’’ for each Class I area presumptive target for the most the time period of a long-term strategy. within the State. In addition, this impaired days: (1) A rate of In addition, EPA stated that gradual section also discusses important improvement equivalent to 1.0 deciview improvements in visibility as defined by analyses and other factors for States to over a 10-year period, and (2) a rate of reasonable progress targets were take into consideration in setting these improvement equivalent to 1.0 deciview consistent with the GCVTC definition of goals. over a 15-year period. For the least reasonable progress, which is Proposed rule. In the proposed rule, impaired days, EPA proposed a target of ‘‘achieving continuous emissions EPA presented a framework for a long- no degradation, defined as less than a necessary to reduce existing impairment term program under which continued 0.1 deciview increase. and attain steady improvement of progress would be achieved in Class I visibility in mandatory Class I areas.

78 See the section on Baseline Conditions for a discussion of the rationale for selecting a 5-year period.

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35731

* * *’’ 79 As noted in unit III.C., EPA a citizen lawsuit for not meeting a statutory factors, and informed by input also proposed to track progress in reasonable progress target. from all stakeholders. relation to the targets through the use of Final rule. In considering how to Required analysis of rate of progress monitored air quality data and address the reasonable progress target which would attain natural conditions calculation of light extinction values issue in the final rule, EPA was mindful in sixty years. The EPA received from this aerosol data. of the balance that must be maintained numerous comments expressing the The proposal also provided a process between the need for strategies that will concern that a rate of progress that by which a State could establish achieve meaningful improvements in air would result in reaching the national alternate reasonable progress targets, quality and the need to provide goal in 200 years should not be expressed in deciviews, provided the appropriate flexibility for States in considered ‘‘reasonable.’’ These State justified the alternate target based designing strategies that are responsive comments are based on the fact that the on a review of the relevant statutory to both air quality and economic most impaired Eastern United States factors.80 These factors are: concerns. After considering the Class I areas have current conditions for • The costs of compliance; comments on the ‘‘presumptive target’’ the worst days (around 26–31 • The time necessary for compliance; issue, EPA has revised the rule to deciviews) that exceed estimated eliminate ‘‘presumptive targets.’’ There natural conditions (approximately 10– • The energy and nonair quality is no presumptive target that States are 12 deciviews) by 16–20 deciviews or environmental impacts of compliance; required to meet to achieve reasonable more. At the proposed presumptive rate and • progress. States have flexibility in of progress of 1 deciview per 10 years, The remaining useful life of any determining their reasonable progress it would take 200 years or more to reach existing source subject to such goals based on consideration of the the national visibility goal in many requirements. statutory factors. However, as discussed Eastern Class I areas. In addition, Comments received. A number of below, the final rule requires States to several commenters felt that rates of commenters advocated a faster rate of conduct certain analyses to ensure that progress should vary between the east improvement than the proposed they consider the possibility of setting and the west because many parts of the presumptive rate of 1 deciview every 10 an ambitious reasonable progress goal, western United States have much lower or 15 years since, as proposed, they one that is aimed at reaching natural levels of visibility impairment than the claimed it could take more than 200 background conditions in 60 years. east. For example, they asserted that a years to reach the national visibility goal The final rule calls for States to 1 deciview improvement over 10 years in some eastern locations. They felt that establish ‘‘reasonable progress goals,’’ 81 may not be very ambitious in an eastern this rate of progress should not be expressed in deciviews, for each Class I location, whereas it could be very considered ‘‘reasonable.’’ Many of these area for the purpose of improving ambitious in some of the least impaired commenters supported a rate of visibility on the haziest days and not Class I areas in the west. improvement for the worst days equal to allowing degradation on the clearest In order to address the diverse 10–20 percent of the current deciview days over the period of each concerns of commenters on the value (i.e., 3–6 deciviews per 10 years implementation plan or revision. The proposal, EPA is establishing an in an average eastern location with a EPA believes that requiring States to analytical requirement that takes into worst day value of 30 deciviews, and establish such goals is consistent with account the varying levels of visibility 1.5–3.0 deciviews for an average section 169A of the CAA, which gives impairment in Class I areas around the southwestern location with a worst day EPA broad authority to establish country while ensuring an equitable value of 15 deciviews). A number of regulations to ‘‘ensure reasonable approach nationwide. To determine an other commenters interpreted the progress,’’ and with section 169B of the equitable analytical approach, we proposed rule as requiring an inflexible CAA, which calls for EPA to establish considered the CAA amendments of visibility ‘‘standard’’ of 1 deciview ‘‘criteria for measuring reasonable 1990, which require actions to attain air improvement every 10 or 15 years. They progress’’ toward the national goal. quality health standards over a 20-year maintained that such a standard would This approach is designed to address period for the 1-hour ozone standard, be infeasible to achieve in some areas of the concerns of those commenters depending on the severity of the area’s the country, and that EPA had failed to interested in greater State flexibility in problem, and over a 10-year period for justify such a presumption through an setting visibility goals, as well as the new standards, such as the new 8-hour analysis of the statutory factors in concerns of those commenters who ozone standard and the PM2.5 standards. section 169A(g). These commenters believed that the presumptive 1 The CAA also requires reductions over wanted the States to have greater deciview target approach could actually the same time period to address acid flexibility in setting visibility goals. provide a disincentive for some States to rain. In the eastern United States, EPA’s Some commenters stated that 1 pursue more ambitious rates of progress, analyses show that the reductions from deciview is not the threshold of particularly for the most impaired Class these and other CAA programs will perception in all situations, and that for I areas in the East. The EPA has taken result in a rate of improvement this reason the one deciview this approach in the final rule because estimated at approximately 3 deciviews presumptive target in the proposal the CAA national visibility goal and over the period from the mid-1990’s to should be dropped. Other commenters ‘‘reasonable progress’’ provisions do not about 2005.82 The EPA calculated that if asserted that the no degradation target mandate specific rates of progress, but this rate of improvement could be for the best visibility days would instead call for ‘‘reasonable progress’’ sustained, these areas would reach the prevent new source growth in some toward the ultimate goal of returning to national goal in 60 years.83 The EPA areas. Some commenters also opposed natural background conditions. Today’s the presumptive target because of the final rule requires the States to 82 U.S. EPA, Effects of the 1990 Clean Air Act concern that a State could be subject to determine the rate of progress for Amendments on Visibility in Class I Areas: An EPA remedying existing impairment that is Report to Congress. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA–452/R–93–014, 1993. 79 GCVTC Report, June 1996, p. x. reasonable, taking into consideration the 83 Calculated by dividing 3 deciviews (per 10 80 See CA A section 169A(g)(1) and 169A(g)(2). years) into an average of 18 deciviews away from See also 62 FR 41145–41148. 81 See section 51.308(d)(1). Continued

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 35732 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations concluded that it would be reasonable period that would be needed to attain then must provide a demonstration as to establish an analytical requirement natural background conditions by the part of its SIP submission showing why based on this rate of progress given that year 2064. For the example case noted a less ambitious goal is reasonable, this rate of improvement is expected to above, where 18 deciviews is the based on the statutory factors. The EPA be achieved due to emissions under amount for the 60-year period, this intends to issue guidance interpreting CAA programs. would result in a uniform rate of the statutory factors and providing The EPA also believes that the progress for each year of (18/60), or 0.3 examples of ways in which they may be analytical requirement of the rate of deciviews for a year. applied. improvement needed to reach natural Third, the State must identify the The State must also provide to the conditions in 60 years is reasonable amount of progress that would result if public, in accordance with section because in the near-term, cost-effective this uniform rate of progress were 51.308(d)(1)(ii), an assessment of the controls will continue to be available to achieved during the period of the first number of years it would take to reach reduce emissions that contribute to regional haze implementation plan. For natural conditions if the State continued visibility impairment in Class I areas example, if the first implementation to make progress at the alternative rate across the country. Recent analyses for plan covers a 10-year period, then for of progress it selected. For example, if other air quality programs show that the above example, the State would average worst day visibility at the class significant emissions can be achieved identify a 3 deciview amount of I area is 18 deciviews from estimated through cost-effective control measures. progress over that time period. natural conditions, the uniform rate of In addition, in the longer term, it can Fourth, the State must identify and progress needed to reach natural be expected that continued progress in analyze the emissions measures that conditions is 3 deciviews per 10 years. visibility will be possible as industrial would be needed to achieve this amount If the State determined that 3 deciviews facilities built in the latter half of the of progress during the period covered by is not reasonable but 2 deciviews is, 20th century reach the end of their the first long-term strategy, and to then the State would have to include a ‘‘useful lives’’ and are retired and/or determine whether those measures are statement in its SIP that it would take replaced by cleaner, more fuel-efficient reasonable based on the statutory 90 years to reach natural conditions if facilities. Significant improvements in factors. These factors are the costs of this rate is maintained. techniques, compliance with the measures, the time It should be noted that in developing emissions control technologies, and necessary for compliance with the the first regional haze implementation renewable energy have been made over measures, the energy and nonair quality plan (and subsequent revisions), there is the past 30 years, and continue to be environmental impacts of the a time period of several years between made. History strongly suggests that compliance with the measures, and the the time period for which data are further innovations in control remaining useful life of any existing available and the date of plan technologies are likely to continue in source subject to the measures. submission. The first regional haze future decades, leading to the ability of In doing this analysis, the State must implementation plans for most of the new plants to meet lower emissions consult with other States which are United States will use the years 2000 rates. anticipated to contribute to visibility through 2004 as the baseline for In light of this analysis of progress impairment in the Class I area under monitoring and emission inventories, that could potentially be achieved, EPA consideration. Because haze is a while the first implementation plan for has established in section regional problem, States are encouraged much of the country will not be due 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B) an analytical to work together to develop acceptable until a deadline that occurs between requirement for setting reasonable approaches for addressing visibility 2006 to 2008. In identifying the amount progress goals that should provide for problems to which they jointly of progress needed by the end of the greater equity between goals set for the contribute. If a contributing State cannot implementation period (the third step more impaired Eastern United States agree with the State establishing the described above), States must account and the less impaired Western United reasonable progress goal, the State for this time period. Assume, for States. This analytical requirement has setting the goal must describe the example, for the case discussed above the following four steps. actions taken to resolve the (i.e., a 30 deciview baseline, and a First, the State (or regional planning disagreement. uniform rate of progress of 0.3 group) must compare the baseline If the State determines that the deciviews per year to reach natural visibility conditions in the years 2000– amount of progress identified through conditions in 60 years) that the first 2004 (in deciviews) for the most the analysis is reasonable based upon regional haze SIPs covers the years 2009 impaired days with the natural the statutory factors, the State should through the year 2018. For this case, background conditions, for each identify this amount of progress as its there would thus be a 4-year period relevant Class I area. From this reasonable progress goal for the first (2005 through 2008) that would occur comparison, the State must determine long-term strategy, unless it determines between the baseline and the date of SIP the amount of progress needed to reach that additional progress beyond this submission. The uniform rate of natural background conditions in 60 amount is also reasonable. If the State progress of 0.3 deciviews per year over years, that is, by the year 2064. For determines that additional progress is this time period would result in 1.2 example, if the baseline visibility is 30 reasonable based on the statutory deciviews of improvement before the plan submission. Hence, for this deciviews, and the natural background factors, the State should adopt that example, in identifying the amount of is 12 deciviews, then this step would amount of progress as its goal for the progress needed between the baseline show the need for an 18 deciview first long-term strategy. If the State determines, based on the and the end of the implementation improvement between 2004 and 2064. statutory factors, that the identified Second, the State must identify the period (i.e., the year 2018), the State uniform rate of progress needed to reach uniform rate of progress over the 60 year must evaluate strategies that provide for natural conditions is not reasonable, the a total of 4.2 deciviews: 1.2 deciviews natural conditions, and multiplying 6 increments State must provide in its plan between the last year of the baseline by 10 years, assuming 10 years to achieve each submission the analysis and rationale period and plan submission, and 3 increment. supporting this determination. The State deciviews for the implementation

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35733 period. The effect of this provision is reasonable progress goals according to would not meet the national goal.84 that States must be mindful of the information available at the time the Other commenters stated that a ‘‘no expected activities that take place before plan is submitted about benefits from degradation’’ target for the clearest days plan submission. Generally, we expect the existing CAA programs. Each State could result in limitations to economic for the first plan submission period that should set its goal(s) taking into growth. progress in visibility improvement will consideration input from its The final rule maintains the approach continue to occur during the 2004 to stakeholders and based on the statutory used in the proposed rule, which 2008 period due to implementation of factors described above. In addition, the established a goal of no degradation for other CAA programs. State must also conduct a BART the best visibility days. The EPA Rationale for the required 60-year determination for each source subject to believes this approach is consistent with analysis. The EPA has adopted this BART as required in section 51.308(e) of the national goal in that it is designed analytical requirement for two reasons. the rule and described in section III.H. to prevent future impairment, a First, a common analytical framework of the preamble. In considering whether fundamental concept of section 169A of that recognizes regional differences reasonable progress will continue to be the CAA. The EPA recognizes that the meets the concerns of several maintained, States will need to consider best days are still impaired in many commenters by providing greater equity during each new SIP revision cycle Class I area locations, particularly in the between the Eastern United States and east. The EPA encourages States to Western United States. whether additional control measures for improving visibility may be needed to evaluate monitoring data to determine Second, EPA believes this analysis whether the same types of sources are will provide important additional make reasonable progress based on the statutory factors. affecting both the clear days and the information for the public to consider as hazy days. If the relative contribution of States establish progress goals. The EPA Some commenters expressed concern different particle types to light believes this analysis will provide for a that the State would be subject to extinction is similar for both clear and more informed and equitable decision sanctions or enforcement actions in the hazy days, as it is for many sites making process by giving the public event that a State fails to meet a currently monitored, then by developing information about the level of emissions reasonable progress target. As noted strategies to improve conditions on the needed, related costs, and other factors above, the reasonable progress goal is a worst visibility days, the States will associated with improvements in goal and not a mandatory standard likely improve the entire distribution of visibility. The EPA recommends that as which must be achieved by a particular hazy and clear days. Thus, under the part of this process, the States use date as is the case with the NAAQS. final rule, the clean days for most Class computer-based scene optics modeling Once a State has adopted a reasonable I areas are expected to improve over tools to present to the general public the progress goal and determined what time. Indeed, recent analyses of anticipated change in Class I area progress will be made toward that goal visibility trends have shown that at visibility that would result from one over a 10-year period, the goal itself is many Class I areas, deciview values for reasonable progress goal versus another. not enforceable. All that is Consideration of other CAA measures. the 20 percent least impaired days are ‘‘enforceable’’ is the set of control In determining the emissions and declining. visibility improvement achieved during measures which the State has adopted If at a Class I area the average each implementation period, States to meet that goal. If the State’s strategies conditions for clear days degrades over should include all air quality have been implemented but the State time, the State must provide in the next improvements that will be achieved by has not met its reasonable progress goal, plan revision an explanation of why this other programs and activities under the the State could either: (1) revise its happened, a set of measures designed to CAA and any State air pollution control strategies in the SIP for the next long- reverse this trend, and a plan for requirements. Therefore, any reasonable term strategy period to meet its goal, or implementation during the next 10-year progress goal for a Class I area should (2) revise the reasonable progress goals period. The State should review the reflect at least the rate of visibility for the next implementation period. In effectiveness of these measures in improvement expected from the either case, the State would be required subsequent 5-year progress reviews. implementation of other ‘‘applicable to base its decisions on appropriate Integral vistas. The scenic vistas requirements’’ under the CAA during analyses of the statutory factors enjoyed by visitors to many parks often the period covered by the long-term included in section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) extend to important natural features strategy. Consequently, States must take and (B) of the final rule. outside these parks. The 1980 rules into account, at a minimum, the effect If a State fails to submit an approvable included a provision whereby the States could identify specific vistas for of measures to meet the NAAQS, the SIP, or if it fails to implement and protection. For this reason, EPA national mobile source program, and enforce strategies adopted into its SIP, solicited comment on whether the other applicable requirements under the the State could be subject to sanctions integral vistas concept should be CAA on Class I area visibility. under the CAA. If the State continues to extended to the regional haze program. While, as noted above, based on our fail in meeting its obligations, EPA Some commenters supported current understanding, EPA expects in could be required to develop and reopening the vista identification the eastern United States that the implement a Federal implementation program because such vistas are a reductions from measures implementing plan (FIP). the CAA requirements will provide the significant resource of a Class I area. visibility improvement and emissions Allowing no degradation for the best Several others opposed extending the needed for reasonable progress during days. Some commenters supported the program for a variety of reasons. the first regional haze implementation goal of no degradation at a minimum, plan, EPA also recognizes that States but they asserted that in many Class I 84 Data from the IMPROVE network show that for will not be submitting their regional areas, particularly in the east, the ‘‘best several sites in the Eastern United States, the haze plans for several years. In days’’ are in fact still quite impaired. In deciview values for the best days are greater than their view, a rule requiring only 14 deciviews, which is higher than even the developing its submittal, each State will NAPAP estimate of annual average conditions in need to conduct analyses to support its preservation of existing clean days the Eastern United States (9.6 deciviews).

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 35734 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

The final regional haze rule does not any future impairment (protecting meeting the national goal specified in extend the integral vista concept to the clearest days) and remedying any ** * [section 169A(a)] * * *’’ In regional haze program. As noted earlier existing impairment (improving the section 169A(b)(2)(B), the CAA requires in the background section of this already impaired days). This approach that these SIPs must include a ‘‘long- preamble, regional haze is caused by a is also supported by the legislative term (ten to fifteen years) strategy for multitude of sources across a broad history of the 1990 CAA and the making reasonable progress toward geographic area, and it can create a reasonable progress definition. The meeting the national goal.’’ The EPA uniform haze in all directions. The legislative history provides that, ‘‘At a interprets the term ‘‘long-term strategy’’ regional haze program is designed to minimum, progress and improvement as the control measures that are needed bring about improvements in regional must require that visibility be to ensure reasonable progress, together visibility for the range of possible views perceptibly improved compared to with a demonstration that those of sky and terrain found in any Class I periods of impairment, and that it not be measures will provide for reasonable area. Accordingly, the program does not degraded or impaired during conditions progress during the 10 to 15 year period. protect only specific views from a Class that historically contribute to relatively The proposed rule required the State to I area. To address haze, regional unimpaired visibility.’’ 86 The GCVTC develop a long-term strategy for regional strategies will be needed, and emissions interpreted ‘‘reasonable progress’’ to be haze with the initial regional haze SIP, resulting from these strategies are ‘‘achieving continuous emissions and to provide for regular updates. expected to improve visibility across a reductions necessary to reduce existing (Issues regarding updates of the long- broad region, not just within a Class I impairment and attain a steady term strategy are discussed below in area. Thus, although the regional haze improvement in visibility in mandatory unit III.J). program does not include a specific Class I areas, and managing emissions The proposal also required States to provision regarding integral vistas, the growth so as to prevent perceptible consider a specific list of factors when long-term strategies developed to meet degradation of clear air days.’’ 87 In they developed their long-term reasonable progress goals would also today’s final rule, EPA is similarly strategies for regional haze. Under the serve to improve scenic vistas viewed providing for ‘‘attaining a steady proposal, in developing long-term from and within Class I areas. improvement in visibility’’ and strategies for regional haze, States Use of 20 percent most-impaired days ‘‘preventing degradation of clean air would be required to consider the six and 20 percent least-impaired days. The days’’ through the requirement to items listed in section 51.306(e) of the final rule maintains the approach improve the haziest days and prevent 1980 rule, and the five items listed in discussed in the proposal of improving degradation of the clearest days. section 51.306(g) of the 1980 rule. We the most-impaired visibility days (i.e., Tracking progress based on 5-year proposed to add a seventh item to the average of the 20 percent most averages. To determine whether section 51.306(e), ‘‘the anticipated effect impaired days over an entire year), and reasonable progress in improving on visibility due to projected changes in allowing no degradation in the visibility is being achieved, States will point, area and mobile source emissions ‘‘cleanest’’ or least impaired days (i.e., need to collect and analyze air quality over the next 10 years.’’ the average of the 20 percent least data each year and review progress at 5- impaired days over an entire year). In Comments received. Public year intervals. Because the regional haze commenters on the long-term strategy deciding upon an appropriate program represents a long-term effort to characterization of the ‘‘most’’ and requirement expressed concerns that the improve visibility in Class I areas, EPA proposed rule had over-emphasized ‘‘least’’ impaired days, EPA considered believes that monitoring and the typical frequency of aerosol stationary source contributions, and had assessments of progress should not be under-emphasized contributions from monitoring in the IMPROVE network 85 unduly influenced by short-term events (once every 3 days), and the number of minor sources, area sources, mobile or unusual meteorological conditions, sources and prescribed fires. Other samples that would be available for but should reflect trends in air quality analysis annually (122 possible samples commenters expressed concerns that which are robust and insensitive to control strategies would be ineffective per year). The EPA believes that minor fluctuations. For this reason, the calculating annual ‘‘best’’ and ‘‘worst’’ in cases where contributions from final rule calls for measuring progress international sources were causing conditions on the basis of an average of by tracking changes in 5-year average the 20 percent best and worst visibility visibility impairment. Commenters also deciview values for the haziest and emphasized that States be able to take days represents a reasonable approach clearest days, and comparing these to characterizing the typical best and credit in their long-term strategies for current conditions against baseline the effects of existing CAA programs. worst conditions without having these conditions as well as impairment levels values unduly influenced by a single We did not receive any comments on at the time of the last SIP revision. (See the specific list of factors to consider in anomalous data point. unit III.E above for further discussion The EPA’s basis for maintaining the developing long-term strategies. about establishing baseline and current Final rule. As discussed further below proposed approach is supported by the conditions based on 5-year averages.) CAA and its legislative history, and by in unit III.J of today’s notice, the final the approach used by the GCVTC in its G. Long-Term Strategy rule requires control strategies to cover technical assessment work and in its Proposed rule. Under Section an initial implementation period definition of reasonable progress. The 169A(b)(2) of the CAA, EPA’s visibility extending to the year 2018, with a EPA believes that a rule that requires regulations must require States to reassessment and revision of those strategies for improving the worst days include in their SIPs ‘‘such emission strategies, as appropriate, every 10 and allowing no degradation on the limitations schedules of compliance and years. The final rule, in section clean days is consistent with the other measures as may be necessary to 51.308(d)(3), includes a requirement for national visibility goal in section 169A make reasonable progress toward regional haze SIPs to include a long- of the CAA, which calls for preventing term strategy. The long-term strategy 86 136 Cong. Rec. S2878 (daily ed. March 21, must include specific enforceable 85 The IMPROVE network is described in unit 1990) (statement of Sen. Adams). measures that are sufficient to meet the III.I. of the preamble. 87 GCVTC Report, p. x. ‘‘reasonable progress goals’’ for all Class

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35735

I areas affected by emissions from the planning efforts if the State prefers to conduct analyses to understand the State. develop a long-term strategy on its own. importance of area sources. For Multistate contributions— We note that any State that acts alone example, the GCVTC report cited requirements for consultation and in this regard must conduct the emissions from road dust as a possible apportionment. As noted in section necessary technical support to justify contributor to impairment. Depending 51.308(d)(3)(i), when a State’s emissions their apportionment, which generally on the nature of the visibility problem, are reasonably anticipated to cause or will require regional inventories and a road dust and other area sources may at contribute to impairment in a Class I regional modeling analysis. times make a significant contribution to area located in another State or States, Additionally, any such State must visibility impairment. States should the rule requires that the State consult consult with other States before include area sources in emission with the other State or States in order submitting its long-term strategy to EPA. inventories and control strategy to develop coordinated emission Consideration of all anthropogenic analyses as warranted. management strategies. Regarding the sources. In the final rule, we have Fire. Commenters expressed a number Class I areas within the State, section clarified in section 51.308(d)(3)(iv) that of concerns with respect to the 51.308(d)(3)(i) also requires States to the State should consider all types of appropriate consideration of emissions consult with any other State having anthropogenic sources including from fire in the development of long- emissions that are reasonably stationary, minor, mobile, and area term strategies. anticipated to contribute to impairment sources in developing its long-term The EPA notes that fire emissions in any Class I area within the State. strategy. The State should review all have both a natural and a manmade For Class I areas where the State and such sources in identifying the emission component. In addressing fire emissions other States cause or contribute to reduction measures to be included in in long-term strategies, EPA believes impairment in a mandatory Class I area, the strategy. In addition, we provide the that States must take into account the section 51.308(d)(3)(ii) requires that the following points of clarification: degree to which fire emissions cause or State must demonstrate that it has Minor sources. Because of the focus of contribute to ‘‘manmade’’ visibility included in its implementation plan all the BART provision on major stationary impairment and its contribution to measures necessary to obtain its share of sources, EPA believes that commenters natural background conditions. the emissions needed to meet the may have the impression that EPA has Reducing ‘‘manmade’’ visibility progress goal for the area. Section concluded that minor sources with impairment is the focus of sections 51.308(d)(3)(iii) requires that States emissions, below the BART cutoff of 169A and 169B of the CAA. The EPA must document the technical basis, 250 tons per year, are not significant recognizes the natural role of fire in including modeling, monitoring and contributors to regional haze. This is not forest ecosystems, and the fact that emissions information, that it uses to the case. The EPA believes that States forest fuels have built up over many determine its apportionment of should take the cumulative emissions years due to past management practices emission reduction obligations for the from minor sources into account in designed to protect public health and Class I areas the State affects. It is developing their regional haze long-term safety through fire suppression. important that EPA and stakeholders strategies. For example, if growth in Research has shown that these practices understand the modeling, monitoring minor source emissions for a particular have led to an increased risk of and emission information that the State category had a substantial impact on catastrophic as well as reduced used to support its conclusion that the emission trends and a corresponding forest health. In response to this long-term strategy provides for effect on regional haze in a given situation, the Federal land management reasonable progress. geographic area, States should consider agencies, as well as some States and The EPA expects that much of the emission control strategies for such private landowners, have recommended consultation, apportionment source categories as part of their long- the increased use of prescribed fire in demonstrations, and technical term strategies. order to return certain forest ecosystems documentation will be facilitated and Mobile sources. In cases where to a more natural fire cycle and to developed by regional planning pollutants emitted by mobile sources reduce the risk of adverse health and organizations. We expect, and contribute to regional haze, States must environmental impacts due to encourage, these efforts to develop a include in their SIPs mobile source catastrophic wildfire. common technical basis and emissions inventories representing The EPA also recognizes that fire of apportionment for long-term strategies current conditions, as well as all kinds (wildfire, prescribed fire, etc.) that could be approved by individual comparisons of those emissions with contributes to regional haze, and that State participants, and translated into future emissions projected for the end of there is a complex relationship between regional haze SIPs for submission to the covered by the long-term strategy. It what is considered a natural source of EPA. While States are not bound by the will be particularly important for States fire versus a human-caused source of results of a regional planning effort, nor to address the effects of population fire. For example, the increased use of can the content of their SIPs be dictated growth and accompanying increases in prescribed fire in some ecosystems may by a regional planning body, we expect vehicle miles traveled on their ability to lead to PM emissions levels lower than that a coordinated regional effort will provide for reasonable progress. The those that would be expected from likely produce results the States will EPA agrees with commenters that catastrophic wildfire. Given that the find beneficial in developing their national mobile source emission purpose of prescribed fire in many regional haze implementation plans. standards also will be an important instances is to restore natural fire cycles Any State choosing not to follow the factor in projecting mobile source to forest ecosystems, it would be recommendations of a regional body emissions. The EPA intends to support appropriate to consider some portion of would need to provide a specific States in their efforts to estimate mobile prescribed fire as ‘‘natural.’’ technical basis that its strategy source emissions (including the effects Consequently, in determining natural nonetheless provides for reasonable of Federal rules) of pollutants that lead background for a Class I area, EPA progress based on the statutory factors. to regional haze. believes States should be permitted to At the same time, EPA cannot require Area sources. States also need to consider some amount of fire in the States to participate in regional develop emission inventories and calculation to reflect the fact that some

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 35736 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations prescribed fire effects serve merely to and to the same extent, as any that air regulators and land managers offset what would be expected to occur nongovernmental entity. States therefore can use to reach agreement on naturally. The EPA will work with the have the authority to address emissions development of smoke programs. The FLMs, States and other stakeholders to from prescribed Federal burns in the GCVTC included a number of long-term develop guidance on ways in which fire same manner, and to the same extent, strategies for fire in its report and can be considered in the determination they regulate prescribed fires generally. recommendations, including emissions of natural background, and in the Additionally, to the degree that States tracking and emission goals for fire, determination baseline and current determine in the development of long- smoke management programs, and full conditions. range strategies that the manmade consideration for alternatives to fire. Commenters asserted that in the component of fire is a significant The GCVTC’s strategy is illustrative of proposed rule, EPA ignored the contributor to regional haze, States have the available mitigation approaches for contribution of fires and thus a substantial degree of flexibility under emissions from fire that other States overlooked the most important haze- the CAA and in the final rule. The final may consider. The GCVTC’s approach is contributing emission source in many rule provides States flexibility in contained in section 51.309(d)(6) of the Class I areas. The EPA agrees that fire determining the amount of progress that final rule and discussed further in unit is an important emission source to is ‘‘reasonable’’ in light of the statutory IV.C of this notice. The BACM include in the analysis, but current data factors, and also provides flexibility to document, Prescribed Burning do not show that fire is the predominant determine the best mix of strategies to Background Document and Technical source of visibility impairment in any meet the reasonable progress goal they Information Document, EPA–450/2–92– Class I area. Annual data from the select. Nothing in the final rule requires 003, is organized to discuss various IMPROVE network show that elemental States to develop long-term strategies aspects of State smoke management carbon (which we generally use as the that reduce emissions from other programs. The document includes main indicator of emissions from fire sources by amounts equivalent to any information on how States administer and other sources such as increases from the manmade fraction of and enforce programs for burn/no-burn diesel emissions), accounts for only prescribed fires. We do expect that days, and information on various topics about 3–7 percent of PM2.5 mass on the States consider and analyze the full including emission inventories, cost worst visibility days in eastern sites. In range of available control measures and estimation, and public information western sites, elemental carbon that they consider the causes of programs. accounts for about 4–7 percent of total visibility impairment when evaluating Transboundary emissions from PM2.5 mass on the worst days. The the potential measures to include in sources outside the United States. Some contribution from fires can be their long-term strategies. Class I areas located near international substantial over short-term periods, but The EPA encourages the development borders are particularly prone to fires occur relatively infrequently and of smoke management programs influence by emissions beyond the thus have a lower contribution to long- between air regulators and land United States border. Commenters term averages. Fire events making managers as a means to manage the expressed concerns that EPA should substantial contributions to haze in a impacts of wildland and prescribed take into account that States are not able given Class I area have occurred burning. The sources of information to control international sources in relatively infrequently, and as a described above, as well as other reviewing a State’s proposal for a practical matter will contribute less than developmental efforts currently reasonable progress target. Additionally, sources for which emissions are more underway, provide effective, flexible commenters urged EPA to work with continuous. As noted previously, the approaches to smoke management. Mexico and Canada to reduce emissions final rule requires States to develop Where smoke impacts from fire are from sources that States determine to be long-term strategies for regional haze identified as an important contributor to significant contributors to regional haze that address 5-year averages of the 20 regional haze, smoke management in their Class I areas. percent worst days. These 5-year programs should be a key component of The EPA agrees that the projected averages will also be used in evaluating regional and State regional haze emissions from international sources monitoring results. The frequency with planning efforts and long-term will in some cases affect the ability of which fires occur will effect the strategies. States to meet reasonable progress goals. importance of their emissions on There are a number of sources of The EPA does not expect States to predicted future 5-year averages for information on mitigation approaches restrict emissions from domestic sources visibility conditions on the 20 percent for fire emissions, including: (1) The to offset the impacts of international worst days. EPA Interim Air Quality Policy on transport of pollution. We believe that Commenters expressed concerns with Wildland and Prescribed Burning, (2) States should evaluate the impacts of the expected increase in emissions from fire-related strategies developed by the current and projected emissions from prescribed burning on Federal lands. GCVTC and (3) the best available international sources in their regional Specifically, the commenters asserted control methods (BACM) document for haze programs, particularly in cases that States would not be able to address prescribed burning. In the Interim Air where it has already been well emission increases from these Quality Policy on Wildland and documented that such sources are prescribed burns, and that stationary Prescribed Burning, EPA, in important. At the same time, EPA will sources would be required to collaboration with a national work with the governments of Canada compensate for the increased amount. stakeholder group comprised of Federal, and Mexico to seek cooperative The EPA believes these commenters State, and private land managers, State solutions on transboundary pollution are mistaken in their view of State’s air regulators, environmental groups, problems. authority to address emissions from tribes, and others, developed a Factors to consider for long-term prescribed Federal burns. Pursuant to framework for managing the impacts of strategies. In section 51.308(d)(3)(v) (A) section 118 of the CAA, when States smoke from increased prescribed fire through (G) in the final rule, we have impose requirements on sources, programs across the country. This incorporated a list of seven factors that Federal agencies must comply with policy describes the elements and States must consider in developing those requirements in the same manner, process of smoke management planning long-term strategies. The final rule

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35737 includes six factors in the July 1997 Item (D): Source retirement and regional haze strategies are in place. proposal that are derived from section replacement schedules. Second, once the first regional haze 51.306(e) of the existing rule, and the Item (D) requires the consideration of strategy is in place, the final rule, in additional item, ‘‘the anticipated net source retirement and replacement section 51.306(c) requires the State to effect on visibility due to projected schedules in developing the long-term develop a coordinated long-term changes in point, area, and mobile strategies, particularly, where these strategy which address both reasonably source emissions over the period schedules would have a significant attributable impairment and regional addressed by the long-term strategy’’ impact on regional emission loadings haze. that was specifically added by the July and on a State’s ability to achieve H. Best Available Retrofit Technology 1997 proposal. We have decided not to reasonable progress. (BART) include the five proposed items that are Item (E): Smoke management derived from section 51.306(g), because techniques for agricultural and forestry Background. One of the principal four of these items are included on the management purposes including plans elements of the visibility protection list of ‘‘reasonable progress’’ factors in as they currently exist within the State provisions of the CAA is the provision section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) of the final for these purposes. in section 169A addressing the rule, and because we believe that the Item (E) highlights the widely installation of BART for certain existing fifth factor ‘‘effect of new sources’’ is recognized importance of prescribed sources. The conference committee part of ‘‘projected changes in point burning programs on regional haze. report accompanying the 1977 CAA source emissions.’’ Issues related to fire and forestry amendments indicates that a major In their regional haze SIP management practices are discussed concern motivating the adoption of the submissions, States must describe how above. visibility provisions was ‘‘the need to each of these seven factors is taken into Item (F): Enforceability of emissions remedy existing pollution in the Federal account in developing long-term limitations and control measures. mandatory class I areas from existing strategies. We believe it is useful to States must ensure that control sources.’’ 88 The BART provision in clarify several of these factors, and measures are written in a way that EPA section 169A(b)(2)(A) demonstrates EPA’s expectations on how SIPs can and citizens may enforce as a practical Congress’ intention to focus attention address them. matter. Guidance on practical directly on the problem of pollution Item (A): Emissions due to ongoing air enforceability issues is readily available from a specific set of existing sources. pollution control programs, including in EPA policy guidance memoranda, for This provision provides that EPA’s measures to address reasonably example Guidance on Limiting Potential regulations to protect visibility must attributable visibility impairment. to Emit in New Source Permitting, June require States to revise their SIPs to It is expected that for some areas of 13, 1989. contain such measures as may be the country, such as parts of the eastern Item (G): The anticipated net effect on necessary to make reasonable progress United States, emissions achieved for visibility due to projected changes in toward the national visibility goal, the acid rain program and for meeting point, area, and mobile source including a requirement that certain the PM2.5 NAAQS, will lead to emissions over the next 10 years. existing stationary sources procure, substantial improvements in visibility Item (G) requires that States must install, and operate the ‘‘best available as well. Item (A) makes clear that States address the anticipated net effect on retrofit technology.’’ must take these other emissions into visibility due to projected changes in The CAA defines the sources account in developing their long-term point, area, and mobile source potentially subject to BART as major strategies for regional haze. We expect emissions over the next 10 years when stationary sources, including that some States may be able to developing emissions strategies that will reconstructed sources, from one of 26 demonstrate reasonable progress based meet the reasonable progress identified source categories which have on these emissions alone, particularly requirements. In some areas, these the potential to emit 250 tons per year for the first 10-year period. changes in emissions would be expected or more of any air pollutant, and which Item (B): Measures to mitigate the primarily from population growth, were placed into operation between impacts of construction activities. while in others, emissions changes may August 1962 and August 1977.89 This Item (B) requires that in developing result from potential new industrial, set of sources potentially subject to long-term strategies, States must energy, natural resource development, BART was defined in the 1977 CAA and consider the impacts of construction or land management activities. These will not be modified by rule. The 26 activities. States, for example, should changes in emissions would also source categories are: include these activities in emission include the changes due to measures (1) Fossil-fuel fired steam electric inventories used for long-term strategy developed specifically for the regional plants of more than 250 million British development. haze program. thermal units per hour heat input, Item (C): Additional measures and Relationship to long-term strategies (2) Coal cleaning plants (thermal limitations and schedules for under the existing rule. The final rule dryers), compliance to achieve the reasonable provides for coordination of the long- (3) Kraft pulp mills, progress goal. term strategies to address regional haze (4) Portland cement plants, Where emissions from ongoing impairment with any existing long-term (5) Primary zinc smelters, requirements, addressed by item (A), are strategies under the 1980 visibility rule. (6) Iron and steel mill plants, (7) Primary aluminum ore reduction not sufficient to achieve the reasonable Some long-term strategies are already in plants, progress goal, States must identify place to address reasonably attributable (8) Primary copper smelters, additional measures that will ensure visibility impairment under the existing (9) Municipal incinerators capable of that the goal will be met. Schedules for 1980 regulation. Coordination of the two charging more than 250 tons of refuse compliance for these additional programs is addressed in section per day, measures must be included in the SIP, 51.306(c) of the final rule. This section and measures considered for inclusion clarifies two points. First, that the 88 H.R. Rep. No. 564, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. at 155 must be identified in the SIP provisions of existing long-term (1977) (emphasis added). submission. strategies will continue to apply until 89 See CAA sections 169A (b)(2)(A) & (g)(7).

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 35738 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

(10) Hydrofluoric, sulfuric, and nitric and establishing BART emission Comments received. Commenters acid plants, limits.92 These guidelines apply to identified a number of issues (11) Petroleum refineries, situations in which visibility concerning how EPA should address the (12) Lime plants, impairment in the Class I area is BART requirement under the regional (13) Phosphate rock processing plants, determined to be ‘‘reasonably haze program. Some commenters (14) Coke oven batteries, attributable’’ to a single source or a asserted that the BART requirement (15) Sulfur recovery plants, small group of sources. simply should not apply under the (16) Carbon black plants (furnace Proposed rule. The proposed regional regional haze program. These process), haze rule discussed a process for commenters argued that the (17) Primary lead smelters, addressing BART in the context of procurement, installation, and operation (18) Fuel conversion plants, regional haze and requested comment of BART is not explicitly required under (19) Sintering plants, on how the requirement should be section 169B, and that section 169B is (20) Secondary metal production implemented. The first step in this the primary statutory authority for the facilities, process was a requirement that the State regional haze program. Other opponents (21) Chemical process plants, identify all sources potentially subject of the BART requirement contended (22) Fossil-fuel boilers of more than to BART early in the planning process. that the proposal placed too much 250 million British thermal units per The second step required the State to emphasis on stationary sources, and on hour heat input, submit a plan and schedule for BART sources in particular, as opposed (23) Petroleum storage and transfer evaluating BART and the corresponding to other sources of visibility-impairing facilities with a capacity exceeding potential emissions for those existing pollutant emissions, such as mobile and 300,000 barrels, sources which may reasonably be area sources. The commenters (24) Taconite ore processing facilities, anticipated to contribute to regional contended that BART should not be the (25) Glass fiber processing plants, and principal control strategy employed (26) Charcoal production facilities. haze visibility impairment. The notice proposed to provide 3 years for under the regional haze program. In section 51.301(e) of the 1980 completing this evaluation so that the Another group of commenters visibility regulations, a source meeting results could be taken into supported EPA’s proposed approach for the above criteria was defined as an consideration by States as they develop addressing the BART requirement. ‘‘existing stationary facility.’’ In today’s coordinated strategies for attaining the Some pointed out that while existing regional haze rule, EPA has added the stationary sources are not the only PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS. definition of a ‘‘BART-eligible source’’ In setting out the proposed approach contributors to regional haze, in section 51.301(hh) that is identical to to the BART requirement, EPA proposed controlling these sources is an essential the definition of ‘‘existing stationary that the test for determining whether a element of a national regional haze facility.’’ This new definition is used BART-eligible source ‘‘may reasonably program. These commenters also throughout the regional haze rule and be anticipated to contribute’’ to regional supported the approach of evaluating preamble in order to avoid the potential haze should be evaluated in the context BART-eligible sources collectively to misinterpretation of the ‘‘existing of the overall emissions reduction determine their overall contribution to stationary facility’’ definition as strategy. The EPA also noted that it visibility impairment within a given representing a collection of sources believed that a similar approach should airshed. Several commenters recommended that BART be equivalent broader than the subset of sources be taken in addressing ‘‘the degree of to, or more stringent than, new source potentially subject to BART. improvement in visibility which may performance standards (NSPS) for sulfur The regulations issued in 1980 define reasonably be anticipated’’ from the dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Some BART as ‘‘an emission limitation based imposition of BART controls. The EPA commenters suggested allowing an on the degree of reduction achievable proposed a cumulative approach emissions cap-and-trade program to through the application of the best because of the nature of the regional meet the BART requirement. One system of continuous emission haze problem (i.e., the cumulative commenter described a process whereby reduction for each pollutant which is product of emissions from many sources 90 States would conduct an assessment of emitted’’ by a BART eligible facility. over a broad area) and because of the The BART emission limitation must be the availability of retrofit controls for all time and expense necessary to try to BART-eligible sources in a region, established, on a case-by-case basis, determine, one source at a time, the taking into consideration the following calculate the cumulative emissions percentage contribution of each BART- possible from application of BART to factors: eligible source to regional haze. In • The technology available, eligible sources, establish a cap for each addition, EPA noted the substantial • The costs of compliance, visibility-reducing pollutant, and technical difficulties associated with • The energy and nonair implement a 10-year program to achieve estimating the degree of visibility environmental impacts of compliance, emissions equivalent to the emissions • Any pollution control equipment in improvement resulting from a single cap. use at the source, source. The EPA broadly requested Response to comments. The EPA • The remaining useful life of the comments on effective approaches for disagrees with the commenters who source, and States and sources to meet the BART argued that the BART requirements • The degree of improvement in requirement under the regional haze should not apply to the regional haze visibility which may reasonably be program in the most appropriate program. The statutory authority for anticipated from the use of such manner, and in particular how BART, developing a regional haze program technology.91 once determined, should be emanates from section 169A of the CAA, The EPA published guidelines in 1980 implemented. and any SIPs that are to be developed which outline the general procedures under a regional haze program must for States to follow in analyzing sources 92 See EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and include provisions that meet the Standards, Guidelines for Determining Best Available Retrofit Technology for Coal-Fired Power requirements of this section, including 90 Section 51.301(c). Plants and Other Existing Stationary Facilities, the requirement that certain sources 91 Id. EPA–450/3–80–009b, November 1980. procure, install, and operate BART.

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35739

Since 1977, section 169A of the CAA The EPA believes that commenters upholding EPA’s final decision, EPA has authorized EPA to address regional asserting that EPA overemphasized the acted within its discretion in adopting haze. Section 169A(a)(1) of the CAA control of stationary sources and, in an alternative emission control standard establishes as the national visibility particular, the role of BART in the ‘‘that would produce greater visibility protection goal ‘‘the prevention of any regional haze program misinterpreted improvement at a lower cost. Congress’s future, and the remedying of any the proposal. The EPA did not intend to use of the term ‘including’ in [section existing, impairment of visibility in emphasize controls on BART-eligible 169A(b)(2)] prior to its listing BART as Class I areas which impairment results sources over, or to the exclusion of, a method of attaining ‘reasonable from manmade air pollution.’’ Visibility other sources. While the BART progress’ supports EPA’s position that it impairment is defined broadly in the requirement is limited to a specified has the discretion to allow States to CAA and includes that caused by population of major stationary sources, adopt implementation plan provisions regional haze.93 This language does not States will need to consider measures other than those provided by source- distinguish between reasonably addressing a wide range of sources and specific BART analyses in situations attributable impairment and regional activities, including mobile sources, where the agency reasonably concludes haze, but provides for visibility area sources, activities involving fire, that more ‘reasonable progress’ will protection generally. This reading of the and other major and non-major thereby be attained.’’ 99 Under today’s statute is consistent with the legislative stationary point sources in their long- final rule, States may elect to adopt an history; in adopting section 169A, term strategies. The unit on long-term emissions trading program or other Congress evinced its intent to address strategies includes further discussion of alternative measures in lieu of BART so impairment caused by ‘‘hazes’’ and the this point. long as greater reasonable progress is potential corresponding need to control Final Rule. The final rule requires made. a ‘‘variety of sources’’ and ‘‘regionally each implementation plan to be revised List of BART-eligible sources. To distributed sources.’’ 94 While EPA to contain two basic elements related to ensure adequate time for developing deferred addressing regional haze in BART. The first is the requirement that long-term strategies to ensure reasonable 1980 when it promulgated the first the States submit a list of the ‘‘BART- progress, we recommend that States phase of visibility regulations, it did so eligible sources’’ in the State. Second, begin identifying and evaluating the list because of technical obstacles, not the State must determine and include in of potential BART sources as soon as because of a limitation on its legal the plan the ‘‘best available retrofit possible after promulgation of the final authority.95 Indeed, in the 1980 rule, technology,’’ taking into account certain rule. Identifying the BART-eligible EPA expressed its intent to address factors identified in section 169A(g)(2) sources will require States to collect regional haze in a future rulemaking of the CAA, for each BART-eligible information as to the dates that emission under section 169A. Thus, EPA’s source in the State reasonably units at stationary sources were placed decision to address visibility anticipated to cause or contribute to any into operation, the pollutants emitted, impairment in separate phases does not impairment of visibility. and the potential to emit of these units. change the fact that the BART In recognition of the control and cost We suggest that, at the same time that requirement is an integral part of the efficiencies that can be achieved they begin refining their emissions statutory scheme in section 169A. through trading programs and other inventories for PM2.5 and its precursors, The provisions in section 169B of the alternative measures, EPA is providing States request that stationary sources CAA, adopted in 1990, do not override States with the opportunity to adopt provide them with these dates. While EPA’s statutory authority to require alternative measures in lieu of BART such information is generally available State plans to remedy regional haze. where such measures would achieve for electric utilities through data bases These provisions grew out of Congress’ even greater reasonable progress toward maintained by the Energy Information frustration that EPA had not more the national visibility goal. The Administration, this information is not expeditiously addressed regional haze overarching requirement of the visibility normally maintained in national data under its section 169A delegated protection provisions of section 169A is bases for the other 25 source categories rulemaking authority. Thus, section to make reasonable progress toward the subject to BART. However, EPA believes 169B(e) explicitly requires EPA to carry national goal of eliminating visibility that much of this information is likely out its ‘‘regulatory responsibilities impairment. If greater reasonable to be available in States permitting data under section [169A]’’ within a set time progress can be made through an bases or other inventories. To assist the period. The legislative history confirms approach that does not require source States in this task, we will continue that Congress did not intend section specific application of BART, EPA efforts to identify other helpful sources 169B to impinge upon EPA’s long- believes that approach would comport of information. with this statutory goal. The EPA standing authority to address regional Determination of sources subject to reached this conclusion in determining haze visibility impairment,96 including BART. After the State has identified the the appropriate measures to address the authority to require BART. BART-eligible sources, the next step is visibility impairment in the Grand determining whether these sources emit 93 See CAA section 169A(g)(6); see also Maine v. Canyon National Park resulting from the any air pollutant ‘‘which may 97 Thomas, 874 F.2d.883, 885 (1st Cir. 1989) (‘‘EPA’s Navajo Generating Station. In that reasonably be anticipated to cause or mandate to control the vexing problem of regional case, EPA ultimately chose not to adopt contribute’’ to any visibility impairment haze emanates directly’’ from CAA section 169A). the emission control limits indicated by in a Federal Class I area. As noted in the 94 H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 204 its BART analysis.98 Instead, as proposal, EPA believes that this (1977). explained by the Ninth Circuit in 95 45 FR 80084 (Dec. 2, 1980). determination should not require 96 See 136 Cong. Rec. S2878 (daily ed. March 21, extremely costly or lengthy studies of 1990) (statement of Sen. Adams) (‘‘[t]he authority to (daily ed. Oct. 26, 1990) (statement of Rep. Wyden) the contribution of specific sources to establish visibility transport regions and (‘‘[n]either the original House language nor the regional haze. Unlike the 1980 commissions is a supplement to the administrators Senate language adopted in conference repealed or [sic] obligation under current law. * * * The lessened EPA’s obligations under the 1977 law’’). regulatory program, which addresses the Administrator may not delay requirements under 97 See Central Arizona Water Conservation section 169A because of the appointment of a District v. EPA, 990 F.2d 1531, 1543 (1993). 99 Central Arizona Water Conservation District v. commission for a region under section 169B’’) 98 See 56 FR at 50178. EPA, 990 F.2d 1531, 1543 (1993).

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 35740 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations visibility impairment that is reasonably regional or national in scope. For from the use of such technology. Taking attributable to a specific source or small example, in the recent NOX SIP call these factors into account, the State may group of sources, today’s final rule addressing the regional transport of NOX conclude that BART is the best level of addresses the problem of visibility emissions (an ozone precursor) in the emissions reduction that can be impairment resulting from emissions Eastern United States, EPA adopted a achieved by available retrofit technology from a multitude of sources located ‘‘collective contribution’’ approach to or some other level of control. In some across a wide geographic area. As the determining whether sources cases, the State may determine that a regional haze rule is not limited to ‘‘contribute’’ to ozone nonattainment in source has already installed sufficiently addressing visibility impairment that downwind areas. In this rulemaking, stringent emission controls for can be attributed to a specific source or EPA concluded that because ozone compliance with other programs (e.g., small group of sources, EPA believes it nonattainment results from the the acid rain program), such that no would be inappropriate to focus on the collective contribution of many entities additional controls would be needed for contribution of one source or a small over a broad geographic area, even compliance with the BART requirement. group of sources. First, the States will relatively small (in an absolute sense) In establishing BART for a particular not face the same need to define the contributions from upwind entities facility, the State must make available precise contribution from one particular should be considered to be during public review of the SIP at the source to the visibility problem. Second, ‘‘significant.’’ 101 State level the materials supporting its establishing the contribution from one The EPA has concluded that a similar BART determination. The State must particular source to the problem of approach in the regional haze program also include this documentation in the regional haze would require lengthy and is appropriate. Where emissions from a technical support materials expensive studies and pose substantial region are considered to contribute to accompanying the SIP. technical difficulties. The EPA has thus regional haze in a Class I area, any In establishing source specific BART concluded that a detailed source- emissions from BART-eligible sources emission limits, the State should receptor analysis would not be in that region should also be considered identify the maximum level of emission appropriate in determining whether a to cause or contribute to the regional reduction that has been achieved in source ‘‘may reasonably be anticipated haze problem. The EPA will issue and other recent retrofits at existing sources to contribute’’ to regional haze in a Class update guidance, including EPA in the source category. As noted above, I area. modeling guidelines,102 to assist the the visibility regulations define BART as In implementing today’s final rule, a States in analyzing whether sources ‘‘an emission limitation based on the State should find that a BART-eligible contribute to regional haze. degree of reduction achievable through source is ‘‘reasonably anticipated to Establishing source-specific BART the application of the best system of cause or contribute’’ to regional haze if emission limits. The second element of continuous emission reduction.’’ Recent it can be shown that the source emits the BART requirement is for the States retrofits at existing sources provide a pollutants within a geographic area from to establish emission limitations for good indication of the current ‘‘best which pollutants can be emitted and those BART-eligible sources which may system’’ for controlling emissions. Thus, transported downwind to a Class I area. reasonably be anticipated to cause or for example, recent retrofits for large The EPA believes that this test is an contribute to regional haze. To meet this utility sources (e.g., sources under the appropriate one for determining requirement, the State must develop acid rain program and the Navajo whether a source can reasonably be source-specific emission limits which Generating Station) have commonly anticipated to cause or contribute to the reflect the application of the best system achieved a 90 percent or better rate of problem of regional haze. As the Ninth of continuous emission reduction for SO2 emissions (at an average cost of 105 Circuit stated in considering this each pollutant which is emitted by a $265 per ton of SO2 removed). For language: source subject to BART.103 As stated source categories with recently above, the State can also choose to promulgated NSPS, that standard may Congress mandated an extremely low develop an emissions trading program, triggering threshold, requiring the also provide a good indication of the installment of stringent emission controls or other alternative measure, that current ‘‘best system’’ for controlling when an individual source ‘‘emits any air achieve greater reasonable progress emissions. In addition, current pollutant which may reasonably be rather than require source specific information concerning control anticipated to cause or contribute to any BART emission limits on each source technology performance for many impairment of visibility’’ in a Class I Federal subject to BART. source categories is available from area. 42 U.S.C. sec. 7491(b)(2)(A). The NAS In developing source specific EPA’s Clean Air Technology Center, correctly noted that Congress has not emission limits for BART, the State http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc. EPA plans required ironclad scientific certainty in must take into consideration the establishing the precise relationship between to issue revised BART guidance to a source’s emission and resulting visibility technology available and a number of provide updated guidance to the States impairment.* * * 100 specific factors set forth in the statute. on how to calculate BART for purposes The approach taken here is consistent These factors are the costs of of regional haze within a year of with that taken in the programs for acid compliance, the energy and nonair promulgation of this rule. The EPA will rain and ozone, programs which also environmental impacts of compliance, be developing this guidance through a address regional air quality problems any existing pollution control national stakeholder process. caused by transported pollutants. These technology in use at the source, the Once the State has identified the programs do not require a specific remaining useful life of the source, and retrofit technology that provides the demonstration of each source’s the degree of improvement in visibility maximum degree of continuous contribution to the overall problem, but which may reasonably be anticipated instead focus efforts on developing cost- 104 See CAA section 169A(g)(2). effective solutions to reducing 101 63 FR 57356, 57376 (Oct. 27, 1998). 105 Ellerman A. Danny et al., Emissions Trading 102 See 40 CFR part 51, appendix W for Under the U.S. Acid Rain Program: Evaluation of emissions over a broad area that is information on EPA’s modeling guideline for Compliance Costs and Allowance Market conducting regional-scale modeling for particulate Performance, Massachusetts Institute of 100 Central Arizona Water Conservaiton District v. matter and visibility. Technology, Center for Energy and Environmental EPA, 990 F.2d 1531, 1541 (9th Cir. 1993). 103 See section 51.301(c). Policy Research, 1997.

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35741 emission reduction, it should take into developing reasonable progress goals, in CAA. As noted above, within a year, consideration the costs of compliance, setting a regional emissions target for a EPA will be issuing revised BART the energy and nonair quality trading program, and in developing the guidance to provide States with environmental impacts of compliance, overall long-term strategies for making assistance in determining BART for any existing pollution control reasonable progress. regional haze. equipment in use at the source, and the To calculate the degree of Alternative Measures in Lieu of BART. remaining useful life of the source. improvement in visibility that would be In today’s final rule, States may elect to Taking these factors into account allows expected at each Class I area as a result adopt alternative measures, such as a the State to arrive at an estimate of the of imposing BART on all sources subject regional emissions trading program, in ‘‘best system’’ of retrofit control to BART, the State should estimate the lieu of BART so long as the alternative technology for a particular source and a possible emissions reductions resulting measures achieve more reasonable corresponding estimate of the likely from the application of BART at all progress than would application of emissions which would be achieved by subject sources located within the source-specific BART. The EPA believes the imposition of BART. These factors region that contributes to visibility that a regional emissions trading should be taken into account for each impairment in the Class I area. The State program would be the most efficient source subject to BART in order to should work on its own or in means of achieving BART-level compare tradeoffs between the control conjunction with other States, such as emission reductions and the emission efficiencies and costs associated with in a regional planning body, to reductions needed to meet the States’ various control alternatives. determine the geographic scope of the reasonable progress goals as The remaining factor which the States region that contributes to each Class I implemented through the States’ long- must take into account in determining area. The States should consult with one term strategies. BART is ‘‘the degree of improvement in another to determine the emission The EPA believes that this approach visibility which may reasonably be reductions achievable from sources is consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s anticipated to result from the use of subject to BART in other States. decision in Central Arizona Water such technology.’’ In applying this The estimate of possible emission Conservation District v. EPA.108 In this factor in the context of the regional haze reductions from sources subject to case, the court upheld EPA’s exercise of program, a State should use the degree BART should be based on the discretion to adopt an alternative of improvement in visibility that would application of the technology, cost, time emission standard that achieved greater be expected at each Class I area as a for compliance, energy and nonair reasonable progress than would have result of imposing BART, as determined environmental impacts, and remaining been achieved through the imposition of through the application of the factors useful life factors discussed above. BART. Allowing States to adopt discussed above, on all sources subject Using this estimate, the State will then alternative measures such as an to BART. For the same reasons that the need to calculate the resulting degree of emissions trading program rather than determination of whether a BART- visibility improvement that would be to require BART will provide the States eligible source may be reasonably achieved at Class I areas. The EPA with the flexibility to achieve greater anticipated to cause or contribute to a expects that this exercise will be in the reasonable progress towards the visibility problem should be made on a form of a regional modeling analysis. national goal at a lower cost, while still cumulative basis, EPA believes that a The State should use this estimated addressing the Congressional concern regional analysis is appropriate for degree of visibility improvement in that existing sources contributing to determining the degree of visibility determining the appropriate BART visibility impairment be required to improvement that can be achieved emission limitations for specific control emissions appropriately. The through application of BART. Moreover, sources. EPA believes that this best fulfills the the statute requires the States to Unless a State commits to regional overarching statutory requirement in consider ‘‘the degree of improvement in planning, a State must include its section 169A(b) that States make visibility which may reasonably be source-specific BART determinations in reasonable progress toward the national anticipated to result from the use of its initial SIP revision for the area in visibility goal, but also ensures that, at such technology.’’ 106 EPA interprets the which the source is located.107 Where a minimum, the degree of visibility language ‘‘from the use of such the State commits to regional planning, impairment attributable to BART technology’’ to refer to the application a State may defer submitting its source- sources is addressed by the States of BART level controls to all sources specific BART determinations during the first long-term strategy. subject to BART. As a result, EPA consistent with the timing requirements Moreover, while an appropriately believes that it is reasonable to interpret described in unit III.B. However, the designed alternative might result in this provision as requiring the State to State must submit its list of BART- differing levels of control at particular consider, as part of its source-specific eligible sources at the same time it sources than a source-by-source BART analysis, the cumulative impact of submits its committal SIP. requirement, the environment will applying retrofit controls to all sources The SIP revision must include the benefit through the achievement of subject to BART to estimate the degree emission limitations determined to be greater reasonable progress. of visibility improvement which may BART for sources subject to BART and As noted above, to take advantage of reasonably be anticipated to result from a compliance schedule for each source. the flexibility offered by this provision, the use of BART. Each source subject to the BART the State must demonstrate that the The EPA also believes that such a requirement will have to meet the BART alternative measures adopted in lieu of regional analysis provides important emission limitation within 5 years of meeting the BART requirements achieve information to the State and to the SIP approval, as required under the greater reasonable progress than would public about the magnitude of potential result from the installation of source- emissions from sources subject to 107 For areas designated attainment or specific BART. One way of making this BART. This information could be used unclassifiable for PM2.5, this SIP will be due 12 showing is for a State to show in its SIP months after the areas are designated. For areas to help inform the public debate in designated as nonattainment, this SIP will be due demonstration that the alternative no later than 3 years after the area is designated CAA section 169A(g)(2) (emphasis added). nonattainment. 108 990 F.2d 1531, 1543 (1993).

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 35742 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations measures will achieve greater emission progress toward visibility improvement. control emissions from a specific set of reductions and visibility improvement Once the State has arrived at an estimate existing sources. Because of the than would result from meeting the of the emissions that would result from Congressional focus on control of these BART requirements. application of source-specific BART, it sources, any emissions trading program In making this showing, States may should then compare the degree of must include, at a minimum, the rely on the assessments and analyses visibility improvement expected to be sources within the trading region developed by regional planning groups achieved in Class I areas through the subject to BART. The one exception to that are formed to address regional haze. application of BART to the degree of this is where a source has already To compare the emissions reductions visibility improvement projected to be installed BART-level pollution control and visibility improvement that would achieved by the alternative measures technology and the emission limit is a result from application of source proposed by the State.109 It is not federally-enforceable requirement. In specific BART to that resulting from necessary to go through an additional that case, States may elect to allow a implementation of alternative measures, analysis of the BART factors in source the option of not participating in such as a regional emissions trading considering the effects of alternative the trading program. program, the State must estimate the measures. Second, a trading program adopted in emissions reductions that would result The EPA believes that the most likely lieu of BART must be fully from the use of BART-level controls. To alternative measures adopted by the implemented within the period of the do this, the State could undertake a States will be an emissions trading first long-term strategy. To ensure this, source-specific review of the sources in program. There are several advantages States must provide schedules for the State subject to BART, or it could associated with a regional trading implementing emissions trading use a modified approach that simplifies approach in lieu of meeting a source- programs with their SIP submittal. the analysis. specific BART requirement. First, it While EPA is allowing States to fully To simplify the process of arriving at provides flexibility to participating implement a trading program within the an estimate of emissions, EPA believes sources in deciding whether to purchase period addressed by the State’s first that one approach that would be credits or to implement on-site emission long-term strategy, under section 169A, acceptable in place of a source by source reduction strategies, while being BART emission limits are to be BART analysis would be to consider designed to achieve an equivalent level implemented within 5 years. To provide some of the BART factors on a category- of emissions. Many commenters felt the States with the additional flexibility wide basis. For example, the average proposal did not provide this type of they may need to implement a trading cost per ton of complying with alternate flexibility. Second, trading allows program, EPA has concluded that it is control technologies and associated sources to assess the costs of control appropriate for States to have the full energy and nonair environmental technology, alternative fuels, and period of the long-term strategy to impacts could be considered on a process changes across a broad array of category-wide basis. It may be more achieve the full measure of necessary sources and source categories. Thus, a emissions. The basis for allowing this appropriate to consider other factors on trading program typically will result in a source-by-source basis. For example, longer implementation period is the lower cost per ton of pollutant reduced provision that the trading program the State could identify the current than a program which mandates plant- control technology in operation at each achieve greater reasonable progress than specific technological control. For would be achieved by source-specific source and calculate the emissions that example, EPA’s experiences in the acid would be achieved at each source with application of BART within 5 years of rain program have shown that sulfur plan submittal. The EPA will consider a given retrofit control technology or dioxide reductions achieved through determine and consider the remaining the estimated period of time to market-based programs within the implement the program in determining useful life of individual sources. electric utility sector continue to be Alternatively, EPA believes it may be whether the alternative measures quite cost effective, in the $170—320 appropriate for the State to combine a ‘‘achieve more reasonable progress.’’ In per ton range.110 A program which category-wide BART assessment with a any event, a trading program adopted in allows broader trading among sources in source-specific assessment for certain lieu of BART must be implemented other industrial categories as well sources. For example, if a State can during the period of the first long-term would likely lead to even greater cost verify that a source will be retired strategy. effectiveness for individual sources. Third, the reductions in emissions within a short period of time, it could In designing emissions trading take this into account in determining required of BART sources must be programs that will achieve the requisite BART-level emissions reductions for surplus to other Federal requirements as improvement in visibility, States must that facility while assessing the of the baseline date of the SIP, that is, ensure that such programs meet several remaining sources subject to BART on a the date of the emissions inventories on criteria. First, as noted above, the category-wide basis. which the SIP relies. In addition, legislative history demonstrates The States accordingly have flexibility sources must be required to monitor Congress’ recognition of the need to in developing a method to determine their emissions in a way that allows the emission reductions that could be States and EPA to assure that the 109 The State should be able to compare the achieved through the application of degree of visibility improvement through modeling. reductions are being achieved. The basic BART. Whatever methodology is chosen For example, for an emissions trading program, the concept of an emission trading program by the State to evaluate possible State may undertake a regional modeling analysis is to allow for alternative, cost-effective emissions reductions from BART, the that simulates least-cost market trades to predict the ways of achieving equal or greater geographic distribution of the emission reductions estimate must reflect at least the that could be achieved through a market trading overall emissions. To ensure that the minimum level of emissions reductions program and the resultant improvement in visibility trading program does achieve a greater that can be expected. This estimate at different Class I areas. overall emission reduction, it is becomes the point of comparison for 110 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy important that the emission credits are Information Administration, ‘‘The Effects of Title IV determining whether an alternative of the Clean AIr Act Amendments of 1990 on created by genuine reductions in measure, such as an emission trading Electric Utilities: An Update,’’ DOE/EIA–0582(97), emissions. We will be issuing further program, achieves greater reasonable March 1997. guidance to assist States in designing

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35743 their trading programs to ensure that would be technically credible, yet requirement. The EPA will grant or programs provide such accountability. convenient to implement in the deny an application after providing Fourth, the regional trading program timeframe needed for transactions to be notice and opportunity for a public may include sources not subject to efficient. This analysis is further hearing. Any exemption granted by EPA BART. Inclusion of such sources complicated by the fact that the must have the concurrence from all provides for a more economically visibility impact that each pollutant can affected Federal land managers. efficient and robust trading program. have varies with humidity, so that Timing for Submittal of BART The EPA believes the program can control of different pollutants can have Elements. Because TEA–21 changed the include diverse sources, including markedly different effects on visibility schedule for submittal of visibility SIPs, mobile and area sources, so long as the in different geographic areas and at EPA is not requiring States to submit a reductions from these sources can be different times of the year. Despite the list of BART-eligible sources to EPA accurately calculated and tracked. technical difficulties associated with within 12 months, as proposed. Under Fifth, EPA encourages States wishing interpollutant trading today, EPA would the final rule, the emission limits or to develop such programs to consider be willing to consider such trading other measures to address BART under the emission reduction requirements of programs in the future that demonstrate the regional haze program must be other air quality programs. To an acceptable technical approach. included in the State’s initial SIP implement reductions in a fully Application for Exemption from submittal(s), as discussed further in unit integrated fashion, the State should BART. Even where a source may III.B of this notice, except where the consider the extent to which some reasonably be anticipated to cause or State commits to regional planning. In sources should be limited in their contribute to visibility impairment, the case where a State opts to work with ability to trade. Examples of such factors section 169A(c) allows for the other States to develop a coordinated include the significant contribution to a exemption of any source from the BART approach to regional haze by local nonattainment situation and the requirements if it can be demonstrated participating in a regional planning extent to which trading may assist or that the source, by itself or in process, SIP revisions containing the undermine the achievement of greater combination with other sources, is not BART emission limits or alternative progress toward attainment of the reasonably anticipated to cause or measures in lieu of BART will be due NAAQS or the national visibility goal. contribute to significant visibility generally at the time PM2.5 A related issue is the connection impairment. In addition, as specified in nonattainment SIPs are submitted, but between determinations of BART under section 169A(c)(2) of the CAA, any in no case later than December 31, 2008. the reasonably attributable regulations fossil-fuel fired power plant with a total As discussed in unit III.B, States that and a trading program adopted in lieu generating capacity of 750 megawatts or submit a commitment to participate in of BART. The EPA has adopted a more may receive an exemption only if regional planning are required to submit provision in the final rule that allows the owner demonstrates that the power the list of BART-eligible sources as part States to include a geographic plant is located at such distance from all of that submittal. enhancement in such a trading program Class I areas that it does not, or will not, to accommodate reasonably attributable in combination with other sources, emit I. Monitoring Strategy and Other BART. The purpose for including this any pollutant which may be reasonably Implementation Plan Requirements provision is to address concerns anticipated to contribute to significant Monitoring Strategy regarding ‘‘hot spots’’—the concern that visibility impairment. some part of visibility impairment in a As with the question of whether a Proposed rule. In the proposed rule, specific Class I area is attributable or source can be reasonably anticipated to we included a requirement for States to uniquely attributable to a single source cause or contribute to any visibility develop a monitoring strategy. We or small group of sources because of the impairment, EPA believes that the believe that actual monitoring data are nature and location of the pollution question of whether a source causes or a critical component of any air quality from the source(s). Should action be contributes to significant visibility management approach to visibility taken by a State (or EPA) to address impairment requires an analysis of the impairment. Data on individual reasonably attributable impairment, cumulative effects of emission sources components of PM (nitrates, sulfates, these provisions would allow the State on a region. Regional modeling will be elemental carbon, organic carbon, to incorporate methods, procedures, or one appropriate method to determine crustal material) are crucial to processes in a market-based strategy to whether a source could qualify for the understanding the causes of visibility accommodate such action. exemption from the BART impairment at a given location, and Sixth, interpollutant trading should requirements. If a significant cumulative accordingly are necessary for long-term not be allowed until the technical impact is demonstrated from the sources strategy development. Reviewing these difficulties associated with ensuring across the relevant regional modeling data with time, and additional data equivalence in the overall domain, then any BART-eligible source provided by monitoring sites, are environmental effect are resolved. Some in the region would most likely be necessary to understand whether the other emissions trading programs (e.g., found to be reasonably anticipated to long-term strategies are effective. trading under the acid rain program) cause or contribute to significant Under the proposed rule, an initial prohibit emission trades between visibility impairment. monitoring strategy was due 12 months pollutants. An emissions trading The proposed regional haze rule was after promulgation, with periodic program for regional haze might also structured such that the BART updates every 3 years thereafter. need to restrict trades to common exemption provisions in section 51.303 Requirements for visibility monitoring pollutants. Each of the five pollutants of the existing visibility regulations are authorized under section which cause or contribute to visibility would also apply to sources subject to 110(a)(2)(B), requiring SIPs to provide impairment has a different impact on BART under the regional haze for the monitoring of ambient air light extinction for a given particle regulation. In the final rule, EPA has quality, and under section 169A(b)(2), mass, making it therefore extremely taken the same approach. Consistent which authorizes EPA to establish difficult to judge the equivalence of with section 51.303, a source may apply regulations requiring SIPs to address interpollutant trades in a manner that to EPA for an exemption from the BART ‘‘other measures as may be necessary.’’

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 35744 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

Four separate provisions were well as to more broadly characterize term strategies for making reasonable included in the monitoring strategy visibility impairment in Class I areas for progress. requirement: (1) a requirement for States implementation of the regional haze The rule also requires monitoring to provide for additional that is program, EPA is funding the strategies for States without Class I monitoring ‘‘representative of all Class I deployment of an additional 78 areas. We believe it is equally important areas,’’ (2) a requirement for States with IMPROVE sites for Class I areas by the for those States to understand and Class I areas to assess the relative end of 1999. As a result of this describe the implications of monitoring contributions of sources within and anticipated network expansion, we data. First, it is important for those outside the State to any Class I area expect that few, if any, State-funded States to review monitoring information, within the State, (3) requirements for monitors will be needed in including data on the chemical States without Class I areas to include implementing today’s final rule. The composition of individual species a procedure by which monitoring data IMPROVE Steering Committee is concentrations, to help understand the will be used to determine the coordinating closely with the States on relative contribution of emissions from contribution of emissions from within the selection of sites for the expanded their State to Class I areas in other the State to Class I areas outside the network to help ensure that the new States. Second, it is important for these State, and (4) a requirement to report all sites will meet States’ needs for SIP States to understand and describe how visibility monitoring data to EPA at least development. The EPA expects that as they will use the monitoring data to annually, in accordance with EPA a result of the IMPROVE Steering review progress and trends. guidance. Committee process, the expanded Periodic Updates to Strategy. The rule Comments received. Commenters on network should provide for data that requires an initial monitoring strategy this requirement raised a number of can be considered representative of and periodic updates. The initial concerns. One concern raised by State most if not all Class I areas. monitoring strategy is due with a State’s first SIP submission. Additionally, the and local agencies was that the costs of The monitoring strategy must, rule requires that the monitoring monitoring could be substantial and however, provide for additional strategy be reviewed every 5 years. We urged EPA to provide funding. Other monitoring sites if the IMPROVE believe that when progress is reviewed commenters urged EPA to exercise network is not sufficient to determine and control strategies are updated, it flexibility in determining the degree to whether reasonable progress goals will will be important to review the which monitors in one Class I area be met. This provision requires States monitoring strategy. For the periodic could be considered representative of with Class I areas to work with EPA and other nearby areas. Other commenters updates, States should review the the FLMs to ensure that monitoring raised concerns about the feasibility of existing monitoring strategy with the networks provide monitoring data that monitoring in remote areas and for areas FLMs and other participating agencies are representative of visibility with difficulty in gaining access to to assess the need for additional conditions in each affected Class I area monitors during the winter. monitoring sites or modifications to within the State. We want to clarify that Commenters also expressed concerns existing sites, as well as the need for this provision does not require a over the timetable for the monitoring updated guidance on monitoring monitor in each Class I area, only that plan and the requirement for updating protocols. a monitor be representative of a Class I the strategy. Monitoring Guidance. The EPA plans Final rule. Section 51.308(d)(4) of the area. Accordingly, a monitor in or to issue a visibility monitoring guidance final rule includes the requirement for adjacent to one Class I area can be document soon after promulgating this a monitoring strategy. Under the final representative of one or more other rule that will be designed to assist the rule, this monitoring strategy is due Class I areas, based on certain criteria. States in developing monitoring with the first regional haze SIP, and it Additionally, EPA agrees with strategies. The document will include must be reviewed every 5 years. commenters that a few Class I areas may technical criteria and procedures for Additional sites. Since the 1980’s, have severe accessibility problems for conducting aerosol, optical, and scene EPA has cooperatively managed and which monitoring may not be feasible. monitoring of visibility conditions in funded the IMPROVE network with Use of Monitoring Data to Understand Class I areas. The protocols of the FLMs and States. Today, the IMPROVE Contributions to Class I Areas. States IMPROVE network will be included in network of 30 Class I sites (and an with Class I areas are required to this guidance. additional network of about 40 sites that include in the regional haze SIP a use the IMPROVE methods) collects monitoring strategy that is tailored to a Reporting of Monitoring Data data on fine particle concentrations and given representative site. The strategy Proposed Rule. The proposed rule on individual particle species. These must identify the ways that the visibility required States to report all visibility individual species (sulfates, nitrates, monitoring and chemical composition monitoring at least annually for each elemental carbon, organic carbon, analysis will be used to understand the Class I area having such monitoring. We crustal material) are important for emission sources that contribute to proposed that States report data in understanding causes and trends of visibility impairment at a given accordance with EPA guidance and visibility impairment at a given monitoring site. Additionally, the through electronic data transfer location. The network also employs monitoring strategy should identify the techniques to the extent possible. There optical monitoring methods for the procedures for reviewing monitoring were no adverse comments on this direct measurement of light extinction, data and coordinating with other reporting requirement. and scene monitoring methods using 35 technical experts. We believe that Final Rule. We have retained a millimeter photography. continued coordination of visibility general requirement in section The EPA is funding the deployment of monitoring and chemical composition 51.308(d)(4) that States submit as part of several hundred PM2.5 monitors by the analysis among States, FLMs, and EPA the SIP a monitoring strategy that end of calendar year 1999. In order to will be important for future regional addresses the reporting of visibility meet the requirements for some planning activities. Analysis of trends in monitoring data to EPA. As noted above, monitors to characterize background emissions of those constituents can EPA expects that few, if any, additional conditions and transport patterns, as assist States in the development of long- State-funded sites will be necessary to

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35745 fully implement the regional haze rule. all elements of section 110(a)(2). are deemed adequate for making Where States do choose to fund However, section 51.308(d)(4)(iv) of the reasonable progress at that time. additional sites, however, EPA believes final rule requires the State to maintain Other commenters supported SIP it is important for the States to make and update periodically a statewide revisions every 3 years, citing EPA’s data from these sites available to EPA inventory of emissions of pollutants that preamble language, which noted that and other agencies. contribute to visibility impairment. implementing mid-course corrections For monitoring sites in the IMPROVE Where a State is also revising its SIP after the 5-year mark may in fact be too network, the IMPROVE Steering to incorporate changes to address the late to correct situations where Committee oversees network contractors PM2.5 NAAQS, many of these revisions impairment is steadily increasing. Some who quality assure and consolidate data may be sufficient to address both PM2.5 of these commenters also supported the from chemical composition analysis of and regional haze. The EPA encourages 3-year cycle for regional haze SIPs since filter samples. Such data are made States to consider the needs of both it would be consistent with the available to all interested parties programs when updating the provisions requirement for 3-year reviews of long- through various electronic formats and required by section 110 of the CAA to term strategies in the existing 1980 online websites. Assuming this practice minimize any administrative burdens. visibility rules. continues with the IMPROVE Steering Authority for Periodic Updates. The Committee, States will experience little J. Periodic SIP Revisions and 5-year EPA does not agree with commenters or no burden in meeting this Progress Reports that it lacks the authority to require requirement for reporting to EPA. Proposed Rule. The proposed rule periodic SIP revisions. Section Annual consolidation of these data required States to periodically review 110(a)(2)(F) of the CAA provides that will serve several purposes. First, a and revise their SIPs every 3 years. The SIPs are to require ‘‘periodic reports on central data base will allow the States preamble to the proposal stated that the nature and amounts of emissions and other interested parties to track ‘‘[t]he EPA believes that a requirement and emissions-related data’’ and progress over time in relation to for regular SIP revisions will result in a ‘‘correlation of such reports * * * with reasonable progress goals. It will also more effective program over time and any emission limitations or standards assist the States in understanding provide a focus for demonstrating established pursuant to this chapter.’’ current visibility conditions as well as ongoing progress and making mid- Moreover, section 110(a)(2)(H) requires past trends. Consolidation of the data course corrections in emission SIPs to provide for revision when found will assist EPA, the State, other strategies.’’ 111 Each SIP revision would to be substantially inadequate to agencies, and the public in reviewing include a comprehensive review of the ‘‘comply with any additional the effectiveness of the State’s long-term long-term strategy, and a review of requirements established under * ** strategy for regional haze. Additionally, [the CAA].’’ Both of these provisions emissions reductions estimates relied on consolidation of the data will enable provide EPA with the authority to in the previous plan if the State does not EPA to better characterize national and require periodic SIP revisions. achieve any reasonable progress target. regional visibility trends in its annual The CAA calls for regulations to The proposal also requested comment air quality trends report. Finally, a protect visual air quality in the Class I centralized data base will provide for on whether SIP revisions should instead areas in a way that assures prevention the integration of monitoring data from be required every 5 years. Regarding this of future impairment in addition to option, EPA also took comment on the new PM2.5 monitoring network and remedying existing impairment. A one- the visibility monitoring network, both whether it should revise the existing time review of impairment and requirement in the ‘‘reasonably of which will include PM2.5 and PM10 development of strategies to address mass, as well as compositional analysis attributable’’ regulations for long-term that impairment cannot provide such by aerosol species. Class I area particle strategy reviews from every 3 years to continuing assurance and, at best, can mass and chemical composition data every 5 years, such that SIP revision only focus on remedying currently can fill important data gaps in defining schedules for both regional haze and known manmade visibility impairment regional concentrations for air quality reasonably attributable impairment within the limits of resources and modeling analyses. would be coordinated. technology. A program that did not Requirements Under Section 110(a)(2) Public Comments. Some commenters anticipate and provide for the need for of the CAA. Visibility SIP submittals stated that the CAA does not allow EPA future periodic review and revisions, must document certain program to require periodic SIP revisions. would not be responsive to the national infrastructure capabilities consistent Several commenters felt that a goal of preventing any future manmade with the requirements of section requirement to submit comprehensive visibility impairment. 169B(e)(2) and section 110(a)(2) of the SIP revisions every 3 years would be The requirement for periodic review CAA. Section 169(B)(e)(2) requires overly burdensome, and would not of SIP measures also directly responds States to revise their section 110 SIPs to provide enough time to properly to the CAA goal for States to develop ‘‘contain such emission limits, evaluate changes in air quality and strategies to ensure reasonable progress schedules of compliance, and other emissions resulting from toward the national goal of no human- measures as may be necessary’’ to carry implementation of strategies to meet caused impairment. Given that the out regulations promulgated pursuant to reasonable progress targets. For this statutory factors which States must this section. The EPA believes that this reason, a number of commenters consider in determining a reasonable language authorizes EPA to ensure that supported a 5-year period between SIP progress goal include costs of control States review their existing program revisions. Several participants in the and availability of controls, among infrastructures to ensure that the types GCVTC supported a 5-year review of others, and given that technology of elements required by section progress that meets the procedural changes can affect costs and availability 110(a)(2) for programs addressing the requirements of a SIP revision, but that of controls over time, EPA believes that NAAQS are also sufficient for adoption also allows for the State to make a the requirement for a periodic SIP and implementation of SIP measures for negative declaration if current strategies revision is appropriate. The periodic regional haze. The final rule does not revisions will assure that the statutory include specific provisions addressing 111 62 FR 41151. requirement for reasonable progress will

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 35746 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations continue to be met. The EPA believes goals for the next 10-year years ago, and (3) the difference that the need for periodic updates is implementation period, (2) between current and natural conditions. also clear from the NAS conclusion that determination of current conditions and Visibility Change from Baseline ‘‘achieving the national visibility goal review of estimates for natural Conditions. Section 51.308(f) calls for will require a substantial long-term conditions, (3) a revised long-term States to consider, at the time of any (emphasis added) program.’’ 112 strategy, as necessary to achieve the future SIP revision after the initial Three-year versus 5-year period. In reasonable progress goal for the next 10- implementation plan, the amount of considering the public comments, EPA year implementation period, and (4) visibility improvement achieved from also took into account the body of revised emission inventories, technical baseline visibility conditions evidence indicating a need for analyses and monitoring strategies. The (established over the period 2000-2004) multistate regional planning efforts EPA wishes to clarify the following in developing future reasonable progress under the regional haze program. Past points with respect to the basic core goals and associated strategies. The final experience with regional air quality provisions of section 51.308(d) for the rule requires the State to do this by planning efforts, such as the GCVTC or purpose of periodic comprehensive plan comparing ‘‘current conditions’’ for the the Ozone Tranport Assessment Group updates. 5 years of most recent visibility data (OTAG), has shown that regional air Reasonable progress goals. For with baseline conditions. (See quality planning efforts often take 2 or purposes of the periodic plan revisions, discussion in unit III.E on definition of more years to complete, with additional the State must select a reasonable ‘‘current.’’) Any lack of progress in time needed for State adoption of progress goal based upon the statutory improvement of visibility from baseline measures and for review and approval factors discussed above in unit III.F. In conditions will need to be explained in by EPA. determining the goal for the next the SIP revision and considered by the After consideration of the comments implementation cycle, the State must State in the establishment and/or described above, and the timeframes include an analysis of the rate of revision of new reasonable progress needed for regional planning, EPA improvement needed to reach natural goals and/or emission management concluded that a 5-year progress review conditions by the year 2064 as an strategies. Similarly, greater than and SIP revision cycle is more analytical framework for the plan expected improvements should be appropriate than a 3-year cycle. The revision. To conduct this required considered by the State in setting new EPA determined that the States will be analysis, the State must follow the same visibility goals and emission better able to assess the effectiveness of four steps discussed in unit II.F for the management strategies. emission management strategies by initial plan revision, that is (1) If little or no perceptible visibility considering 5 years of data rather than identification of the difference between improvement has occurred in 3 years since a 5-year period provides baseline conditions and natural comparison to baseline conditions, or if for more stable trend lines for emissions conditions (noting any updates to the conditions have actually degraded, then and air quality changes than a 3-year estimate of natural conditions based the State will need to explain the reason period. The EPA also concluded that a upon technical refinements), (2) for this degradation in the SIP, and 5-year period should result in identification of the uniform rate of should seriously consider establishing significantly less administrative burden progress over the 60-year period that more ambitious goals and additional on the States than a 3-year period. would be needed to attain natural enforceable measures to achieve these Final rule requirements for conditions by the year 2064, (3) goals. The EPA will take into account comprehensive plan revisions and identification of the amount of progress the amount of progress achieved to date progress reports. The EPA has included from the baseline period in determining that would result if this uniform rate of in the final rule, two main requirements whether any future strategy would progress were achieved during the for comprehensive periodic plan ensure ‘‘reasonable progress.’’ If period of the regional haze revisions (section 51.308(f)) and significant visibility improvement has implementation plan,113 and (4) progress reviews (section 51.308(g)). occurred from baseline conditions, then identification of reasonable progress Section 51.308(f) requires the States to EPA can also take this into account in goals in light of the statutory factors, submit a comprehensive SIP revision in reviewing future reasonable progress taking the 60-year analysis into account. 2018 and every 10 years thereafter. It goals and strategies. must meet all of the core requirements The State must also calculate the Visibility Change Since Last SIP of section 51.308(d). The BART number of years it would take to attain Revision. Section 51.308(f) also calls for provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted natural conditions if visibility States, in developing reasonable above, apply only to the first improvement continues at the rate of progress goals for the next 10 years, to implementation period. Section progress selected by the State as take into account how visibility 51.308(g) requires progress reports for required in section 51.308(d)(1)(ii). conditions have actually changed since each Class I area in the State in the form Reporting of Baseline and natural establishment of the previous of SIP revisions every 5 years. visibility conditions. In the SIP reasonable progress goal. (This Requirements for comprehensive submission for the comprehensive provision would apply beginning in the periodic plan revisions. Comprehensive periodic plan updates, the State must second SIP revision cycle under the SIP revisions under section 51.308(f) identify (1) the visibility change from regional haze program.) If conditions must include all of the implementation baseline conditions, (2) the visibility degraded or failed to meet reasonable plan elements found in section change since the last SIP revision 10 progress goals, the State would be 51.308(d) of the final rule. These required to analyze the cause of the elements include, but are not limited to, 113 Referring to the example in unit III.F, if the second implementation plan covers a 10-year shortfall, and address it as appropriate the following: (1) reasonable progress period from 2019 through 2028, then the State in future strategies. If the State has would identify a 3 deciview rate of improvement, failed to achieve its reasonable progress 112 National Research Council, NAS Committee and the amount of visibility improvement that must goal for the prior implementation on Haze in National Parks and Wilderness Areas, be analyzed for the year 2028 would be the 3 period, the State would be required to Protecting Visibility in National Parks and deciview improvement for the years 2019 through Wilderness Areas, National Academy Press, 1993, 2028, plus the 4.2 deciviews of improvement for the include in its revision a comparison of page 10. years 2004 through 2018. the visibility improvement the State

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35747 expected to achieve to the visibility measures implemented within the State deficiency in plan implementation improvement the State actually in order to achieve reasonable progress resulting primarily from interstate achieved. goals for Class I areas within and emissions, section 51.308(h)(2) calls for Difference between current and outside the State. the State to re-initiate the regional natural conditions. Section 51.308(f) of • For each Class I area located in the planning process with other States so the final rule requires the State, at the State, the report must include that the deficiency can be addressed in time of any comprehensive SIP revision, calculations of the following the next comprehensive SIP revision to calculate the difference between parameters: due in 5 years. If the State finds that current conditions and natural —Current visibility conditions for the international emissions sources are conditions for the most impaired and most impaired and least impaired responsible for a substantial increase in least impaired days. ‘‘Current days. emissions affecting visibility conditions conditions’’ means the conditions for —The difference between current in any Class I area or causing a the most recent 5-year period preceding conditions and baseline conditions for deficiency in plan implementation, the the required date of the implementation the most impaired and least impaired State must submit a technical plan submittal. This calculation is days. demonstration to EPA in support of its needed to determine the total amount of —The change in visibility for the most finding. If EPA agrees with the State’s improvement that States will ultimately impaired and least impaired days over finding, EPA will take appropriate need to address in their long-term the past 5 years. action to address the international strategies. emissions through available • An emissions tracking report that Long-term strategies. As for the first mechanisms. Appropriate mechanisms analyzes the change over the past 5 implementation plan, subsequent for addressing visibility-impairing years in emissions of pollutants comprehensive updates must identify emissions from international sources are contributing to visibility impairment, the enforceable emissions reductions further discussed in unit III.G on the disaggregated by source category and that will provide for meeting the long-term strategy. reasonable progress goal for Class I areas emissions activity, for significant If EPA finds that the State has not categories of sources or activities. within the State and for Class I areas • been implementing certain measures outside the State which may be affected An assessment of whether current adopted into its SIP, or that the State by emissions from the State. Unit III.G implementation plan strategies are has submitted a SIP that is not provides additional detail on the sufficient for the State or affected States approvable, or that the State has failed requirements of the long-term strategies. to meet their reasonable progress goals. to submit any required progress report Update of monitoring strategies and Based on the required calculations or SIP revision at all, the State could be other requirements. The comprehensive and assessments in the progress report, subject to sanctions in accordance with updates are also required to meet the the State must take one of four actions sections 179(b) and 110(m) of the CAA. requirements of section 51.308(d)(4) for as specified in section 51.308(h). If the If the State does not resolve the updated monitoring strategies, updated State finds that an additional situation expeditiously, EPA may be emission inventories, and other required substantive SIP revision is not required, obligated to take further appropriate technical analyses. then it may submit a ‘‘negative action to resolve the situation, including Requirements for 5-year progress declaration’’ to EPA after opportunity promulgation of a FIP within 2 years in reports. Section 51.308(g) describes the for public review and comment. The accordance with section 110(c) of the required elements for progress reports EPA anticipates that if the State is CAA. The EPA believes that in this due every 5 years. For States that implementing a reasonable set of regionally-oriented program, it will be participate in regional planning and strategies according to the schedule as important for States to implement submit initial SIPs in 2008, the first developed in the previous measures designed to improve visibility progress report will be due in 2013. If comprehensive SIP revision, and that for Class I areas outside of their State, a State submits its initial SIP in the visibility trends show that reasonable as well as to improve visibility within 2004–2008 timeframe, its first progress progress goals should be achieved over the State. The EPA will exercise its FIP report would be due before 2013. These the 10-year long-term strategy period, authority as appropriate and necessary progress reports must follow the same then the State should be able to certify, to ensure that States fulfill their procedural requirements required for through a negative declaration, that no obligations such that Class I areas make implementation plan revisions, and the additional control measures are needed reasonable progress toward the national State must provide the opportunity for at the time of this mid-course review. visibility goal. public review and comment. However, If the State finds that over the past 5 K. Coordination With Federal Land the rule also allows the State to submit years there has been a substantial Managers this progress report in the form of a increase in emissions by intrastate negative declaration if the State finds sources, or there has been a deficiency Section 51.308(i) of the final rule that emission management measures in in plan implementation, the final rule requires that States consult with FLMs the SIP are being implemented on requires the State to revise the SIP before adopting and submitting their schedule, and visibility improvement within 1 year, rather than waiting for regional haze SIPs. This requirement is appears to be consistent with existing the next 10-year comprehensive review. consistent with the proposed regional reasonable progress goals. The EPA Such a mid-course correction would be haze rule and the 1980 regulation for intends for progress reports to involve designed to achieve the existing ‘‘reasonably attributable’’ visibility significantly less effort than a reasonable progress goal for the relevant impairment. A number of commenters comprehensive SIP revision. Class I area. The EPA believes that it is expressed a concern that this provision Each 5-year progress report must appropriate for the State to take prompt was not equitable, in that States are contain the following elements as action to address intrastate problems required to consult with FLMs, but the specified in section 51.308(g): since they would not need to participate rule does not require FLMs to consult • The status of implementation, and in further regional planning. with States before they take action, even summary of the emissions reductions If the State finds that there is a when actions such as prescribed achieved, for all emission management substantial increase in emissions or a burning could have a significant impact

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 35748 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations on a State’s visibility program. These IV. Treatment of the GCVTC • Emissions reductions in and near commenters recommended that the Recommendations Class I areas; proposed rule be amended to mandate • Capping of mobile source emissions A. Background a two-way communication. for areas contributing to visibility The EPA established the GCVTC on impairment, and State support for The EPA agrees that it is important November 13, 1991.114 The purpose of national measures aimed at further and necessary for FLMs to consult with the GCVTC was to assess information reducing tailpipe emissions; States on visibility-related issues. Land- about the adverse impacts on visibility • Further assessment of the use activities on Federal lands can have in and around 16 Class I areas on the contribution of road dust to visibility impacts on nearby areas of a State, and Colorado Plateau region and to provide impairment; there have been significant air quality policy recommendations to EPA to • Future binational collaboration to issues related to these activities. In address such impacts. Section 169B of resolve technical and policy concerns recent years, FLMs have undertaken the CAA called for the GCVTC to about contributions to visibility activities to improve communications evaluate visibility research as well as impairment on the Colorado Plateau with States. There are a number of other available information ‘‘pertaining resulting from emissions from pollution examples of these efforts. The IMPROVE to adverse impacts on visibility from sources in Mexico; steering committee, the group that • potential or projected growth in Implementation of smoke oversees FLM efforts to monitor emissions from sources located in the management programs to minimize visibility in Class I areas, includes region.’’ effects of all fire activities on visibility; representation from State agencies. The GCVTC was required to issue a and Recently, State representation on this • report to EPA recommending what The need for a future regional committee was expanded by adding two measures, if any, should be taken to coordinating entity to follow through on more State members. Another example protect visibility.115 The CAA required implementing the recommendations. are the memoranda of understanding Proposed rule. In the July 31, 1997 that, at a minimum, this report was to that FLMs have entered into with States proposal of the regional haze rule, EPA consider: (1) The establishment of clean to coordinate prescribed burning included an extensive review of the air corridors,116 (2) the need to impose activities. The EPA believes that the recommendations of the GCVTC.118 The additional new source review FLM agencies generally recognize the preamble discussed how several requirements in any clean air corridors, importance of involving States in the concepts from the GCVTC’s and (3) additional restrictions on development and implementation of recommendations were incorporated increases in emissions which may be land use policies and other actions that into the proposed framework for the appropriate to protect visibility in affect States’ abilities to make air quality national regional haze program. For affected Class I areas. The GCVTC was improvements. example, EPA proposed an approach for also required to address the tracking reasonable progress, based on The EPA believes that it is promulgation of regulations addressing improving conditions on the worst unnecessary to impose an long-range strategies to address regional visibility days and not allowing administrative requirement on another haze in the region. In June 1996, the conditions on the best days to degrade, agency of the sort requested by GCVTC issued its recommendations to that was consistent with both the commenters in a Federal rule, because EPA. GCVTC’s definition of ‘‘reasonable Federal agencies are already subject to The GCVTC recommendations progress’’ and with the CAA national compliance with SIP requirements in covered a wide range of control strategy visibility goal of remedying any existing the same manner, and to the same approaches, planning and tracking impairment and preventing any future extent as any nongovernmental entity activities, and technical findings. The impairment. The proposal also called through section 118, as discussed primary recommendations of the for tracking of continuous emissions to below. The EPA will, however, be GCVTC covered nine categories of inform State control strategy decisions working with FLMs and States to assist activities: 117 on a periodic basis.119 in their communications over air quality • Air pollution prevention and issues. However, in its proposal, EPA chose reduction of per capita pollution as a not to incorporate the GCVTC’s specific Commenters also expressed concerns high priority, including non-binding emission management strategies as that emissions from Federal agencies are targets on production of electricity from direct requirements for SIPs. The EPA beyond their jurisdiction. These renewable energy sources; • followed this approach because the commenters felt that if States were not Tracking the effect of new sources proposed rule was designed to establish able to regulate such emissions, then of emissions on clean air corridors; • a national framework for development other sources within the State would be Closely monitoring stationary of SIPs to remedy regional haze treated inequitably under the final rule. source emissions, establishment of visibility impairment in all Class I areas The EPA does not agree that Federal regional targets for sulfur dioxide nationwide. In addition, it was not clear sources are beyond a State’s emissions for the year 2000 and the year how the various elements of the jurisdiction. As required by section 118 2040 with interim targets to be GCVTC’s report were to be translated of the CAA, if a State air quality established in the future, exploration of into SIP requirements. The EPA noted regulation affects a given type of source a similar tracking system for other in the proposal that the ‘‘Commission’s within its jurisdiction, Federal facilities pollutants, and the development of recommendations have components that having that type of source must comply market-based regulatory programs if contemplate implementation through a with the State regulations in the same emissions targets are not met; combination of actions by EPA, other manner, and to the same extent as any Federal agencies, States and Tribes in 114 nongovernmental entity. Thus, FLMs See 56 FR 57522, Nov. 12, 1991. the region, and voluntary measures on 115 CAA Section 169B(d). having emission sources of the type that the part of the public and private are covered by State air quality 116 A Clean air corridor is defined as a region that generally brings clear air to a receptor region, such regulations are subject to the same as the Class I areas of the Golden Circle. 118 62 FR 41141. extent as private sector entities. 117 See GCVTC Report, pp. i–iii. 119 62 FR 41146.

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35749 entities throughout the region.’’ 120 The submit SIPs to assure reasonable optional way for these States and tribes EPA indicated that such a mixture of progress in addressing regional haze to implement the national rule based on activities made it difficult for EPA to impacts on the Colorado Plateau based the merits of the work of the GCVTC directly require States to implement all upon the technical work and policy completed before establishment of the of these measures in their SIPs. Instead, recommendations of the GCVTC.124 The national framework. The EPA finds that the EPA specifically sought public transmittal letter signed by Michael O. the GCVTC actions to date address, or comment on the manner in which the Leavitt, Governor of the State of Utah, provide a mechanism to address, the national regional haze program reemphasized the commitment of statutory factors for assessing reasonable framework, as proposed, would allow Western governors to the GCVTC progress required by the CAA. The EPA for implementation of the GCVTC’s recommendations, and requested that is satisfied that the GCVTC’s strategies recommendations.121 The EPA also EPA take public comment on their as set forth in section 51.309, when solicited comment on whether to adopt suggested preamble and rule language as supplemented by the annex process the GCVTC’s stationary source strategies part of the EPA process in reaching discussed below, will provide for with or without modification.122 decisions on a final regional haze rule. ‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the The EPA also reiterated its position in In response to this submittal, on national visibility goal for the 16 parks testimony before the United States September 3, 1998, EPA published a and wilderness areas addressed by the Congress, stating that ‘‘we specifically notice of availability in the Federal GCVTC. Consequently, if a State designed the regional haze rule to allow Register.125 The notice solicited public submits a plan that addresses the for implementation of the GCVTC’s comment on the contents of the WGA requirements of section 51.309, recommendations to address the letter and EPA’s translation of the including the requirements related to environmental goal of improving letter’s requirements for SIPs into draft the annex, as described below, that plan visibility.’’ 123 regulatory language. The comment will be considered to comply with the In public meetings and written period for the notice of availability national rule’s requirement for comments following the proposal, closed on October 5, 1998 and EPA reasonable progress for the period from interested parties expressed concern received approximately 125 comments. plan approval to 2018. that the proposed rule did not In summary, most of the commentors Today’s final rulemaking, including specifically endorse or incorporate the supported the adoption of provisions to section 51.309, is directly responsive to GCVTC’s recommendations. Some directly address the GCVTC the western States’ and tribes’ commentors asserted that the rule recommendations in the national rule, comments calling for recognition of the ‘‘ignored’’ the recommendations. The although many requested changes to the policy development efforts of the EPA also received numerous comments draft regulatory language. Some GCVTC. At the same time, the rule that supported adoption of the GCVTC commentors expressed concern over allows for future cooperative efforts recommendations as part of the national how these provisions would relate to among the GCVTC States, so that the regional haze rule. In particular, several the national rule, in particular to the national requirements for ensuring commentors who believed that EPA’s national provisions for BART. Other reasonable progress are fully addressed. proposed rule did not adequately commentors addressed the way in This action exemplifies how the support the GCVTC’s recommendations which the WGA letter and EPA’s draft regional haze protection provisions can asserted that EPA’s participation in the regulatory language translated the be flexible and allow for a broad range GCVTC implied that strategies GCVTC’s recommendations. In addition, of emissions control strategies tailored developed to address visibility in Class some commentors expressed concern to a specific region. This action fully I areas of the Colorado Plateau would be over the timing of the SIP submittals recognizes the GCVTC and its follow-up taken into account within the structure both over the linkage to timing of SIP body, the WRAP, as a valid regional of the rule. Commentors also noted that submittals for ozone and PM2.5 SIPs and planning process to address, at a EPA’s proposal of a visibility target and the requirements of TEA–21. minimum, the 16 Class I areas that were requirements to address BART left a Commentors also requested EPA to the focus of the GCVTC. Section 51.309 high degree of uncertainty as to whether commit to consider the national provides for continued work of the the GCVTC recommendations could transportation measures noted by the GCVTC, which may be accomplished form the basis for SIPs. GCVTC as part of EPA’s responsibility through the WRAP, to establish a On June 29, 1998, after the close of toward helping the States make complete framework which can be the public comment period on the reasonable progress. adopted in the SIPs for addressing all proposed regulations, the WGA sent to In the final rule, EPA is establishing sources of visibility impairment in the EPA additional comments on the specific SIP requirements which may be 16 Class I areas. The section also sets proposed regional haze rules. These used by the States and tribes that forth provisions for addressing comments contained specific new participated in the GCVTC to satisfy the additional Class I areas that were not language for addressing the national regional haze rule. These SIP directly addressed in the GCVTC report. recommendations of the GCVTC. The requirements will form a basis for these Section 51.309 does not preclude comments offered provisions to be States to meet the CAA requirements for States from developing and adopting their own control strategies. Rather, it included in the national regional haze reasonable progress in the 16 Class I provides an expedited process whereby rule to allow certain western States to areas addressed by the GCVTC Report. These SIP requirements acknowledge a State choosing to follow the GCVTC’s recommendations in its SIP can rely 120 62 FR 41142. and give effect to the substantial body 121 62 FR 41143. of work already completed by the States fully on the technical analyses, policy 122 62 FR 41143. and tribes participating in the GCVTC. recommendations, and agreements 123 Written Testimony of John S. Seitz, Director, The Agency, therefore, and for reasons reached by the GCVTC members, Office of AIr Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. explained in more detail below, thereby significantly reducing the effort Environmental Protection Agency, before the provides these SIP requirements as an required to establish federally Subcommittee on Forest and Public Land Management of the Committee on Energy and approvable SIPs. A State remains free to Natural Resources, United States Senate, October 124 Docket A–95–38, Item # VIII–G–76. develop and submit a SIP to EPA which 28, 1997. 125 63 FR 46952. does not rely on the GCVTC’s work or

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 35750 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations section 51.309. Such a State will be Class I areas based on the demonstrations satisfy requirements for fully subject to the requirements and recommendations of the GCVTC, all review of the statutory factors as schedules set forth in section 51.308, in western States may reduce the technical provided for under subsection the same manner and to the same extent and administrative costs of addressing 51.308(d). as the States and tribes throughout the the remaining Class I areas by building While the GCVTC’s assessment United States that did not participate in on the outcome of existing programs included projections to the 2040, EPA the GCVTC process. rather than requiring the development feels that the strategies incorporated in of two programs in parallel. section 51.309 must be re-evaluated in B. General Requirements of Section In the national rule, EPA is requiring 2018 to assure that they will continue to 51.309 States to analyze the rate of progress in achieve reasonable progress after a Section 51.309 requires specific visibility improvement that would be thorough review of the CAA factors. As emissions control strategies for a broad needed to reach natural conditions discussed elsewhere in today’s notice, region of the Western United States and within 60 years. The analyses must this periodic review and revision of includes measures which address assess what strategies are available to regional haze SIPs is needed because of different types of emissions sources, meet that rate for the period of the long- technological changes and economic including stationary, area and mobile term strategy. The GCVTC reviewed the factors which are likely to significantly sources. Some of these strategies are period from 1990 to 2040 to assess what alter both the rate of emissions growth already in place while others, such as strategies were reasonable to achieve within a region, and the degree to which mobile source provisions and the visibility improvement in the 16 Class I new technologies can more effectively structure of a market trading system to areas. The GCVTC’s Alternatives reduce emissions, both of which can assure compliance with stationary Assessment Committee developed a affect the rate of visibility improvement. source emissions goals, will require modeling system linking emissions In addition, the requirement for periodic development of additional regulatory control strategies, the costs of such revisions is consistent with the statutory measures. A review of each element of strategies and the degree of visibility provisions governing long-term section 51.309 is found in unit IV.C improvement that would result from strategies. below. those strategies. While not specifically The EPA agrees with commentors The GCVTC recommended emission attempting to reach natural conditions who noted certain benefits to following reduction targets from stationary within 60 years, a key emissions control the pathway provided through section sources of SO2 for the years 2000 and scenario assessed in the GCVTC process 51.309 for addressing regional haze 2040. The GCVTC did not recommend was a ‘‘maximum management impairment. First, there is the benefit quantitative interim targets between the alternative.’’ The GCVTC looked at that the mixture of required strategies years 2000 and 2040. Therefore, in many source types and their impacts on for the 16 Class 1 areas has already been addition to provisions for specific visibility. This specific assessment through public comment as part of the emissions strategies, section 51.309 applied all known and anticipated GCVTC deliberations and subject to allows for an annex to the GCVTC report control strategies over the time period as review by many stakeholders. This which will be considered in establishing an indicator of the maximum amount of previous public debate should help specific targets for SO2 emissions from improvement in visibility possible in ensure broader public support for the stationary sources in the region between the region. The results of this analysis State’s plans as they are adopted and 2003 and 2018. This annex process and did not show sufficient emissions to implemented. As pointed out by EPA’s approval of acceptable interim reach natural conditions in any commentors, one of the benefits of the emissions targets for SO2 will be key in mandatory Class I area by 2040. The GCVTC recommended strategies is that completing a series of strategies that can analysis of this scenario did, however, they are aimed at developing cost- be deemed by EPA as meeting demonstrate that the ‘‘maximum effective control strategies and ensuring reasonable progress for the Class I areas management alternative’’ is not likely to compliance flexibility for affected on the Colorado Plateau. be achievable based on technological, sources. For example, the strategy to The provisions for adoption of economic and policy choices made by address emissions from stationary strategies consistent with the GCVTC the Alternates Assessment Committee sources uses a milestone and backstop recommendations do not preclude the due to costs, degree of visibility emissions trading program mechanism. States and tribes from developing improvement and other factors. This rewards voluntary emissions additional control strategies for Consequently, EPA finds this analysis, reductions since a regional emissions achieving reasonable progress in other plus the management alternatives trading program would only become Class I areas. Nor do they preclude chosen (i.e., market-based emissions effective if regional milestones are States and tribes which did not reductions, specific source-sector exceeded. Given that the provisions for participate in the GCVTC, but which reductions, etc.) to be an acceptable the milestone and backstop emissions may benefit from its strategies due to the basis for approvable SIP strategies for trading system may be approvable in geographic proximity of their Class I the 16 Class I areas for the first long- lieu of BART, depending on the areas to the State where strategies will term strategy period since, in effect, milestones developed in the annex, full be implemented and regional transport reaching natural conditions by 2040 was compliance with BART emissions throughout the west, from building on shown not to be reasonable in this limitations would not be required these strategies to address reasonable transport region at this time. In making within 5 years of plan submittal, as progress for their Class I areas. However, this finding, EPA concludes that the would be required of States which for all Class I areas not on the Colorado GCVTC analyses and process provide submit plans under section 51.308 Plateau, the States and tribes would for an assessment comparable to that requiring source-specific BART. In need to demonstrate, through the called for by section 51.308. addition, the economies of scale offered required analyses, that implementation In promulgating section 51.309, EPA by the work of the WRAP in conducting of these strategies would contribute to is establishing specific SIP requirements coordinated assessment activities, such meeting the requirements of section for the time period 2003 through 2018 as economic and air quality modeling, 51.308. By focusing first on based on demonstrations by the GCVTC. could be substantial in aiding States in implementation strategies for the 16 The EPA finds the GCVTC meeting their planning obligations.

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35751

Finally, EPA’s provisional view that provide opportunities for or days with good visibility, increases or SIPs which meet section 51.309 would implementation of new cost-effective does not decrease at any of the 16 Class satisfy the requirement for reasonable control measures to assure reasonable I areas addressed by the GCVTC. This progress minimizes the analyses progress. The structure of EPA’s rule is section of the rule is designed to make required of States which adhere to the designed to require States, through the the review of emissions, and their requirements of section 51.309, SIP process, to review the statutory resulting impact on the clear days at the compared to States making an factors on a periodic basis and Class I areas, part of the public record independent submittal under section determine appropriate changes to their through the SIP approval process. It 51.308. strategies based on that review. does not mandate any emissions control strategies specifically aimed at 2. Projection of Visibility Improvement C. Elements of the GCVTC-Based State improving clear days, but provides for and Tribal Implementation Plans Section 51.309(d)(2) requires the plan the State to periodically review the need 1. Time Period to contain a projection of the visibility for such strategies. If anthropogenic conditions expected through the year emissions create visibility impairment Section 51.309(d)(1) establishes the 2018 and to take into account the time period of the plan to cover the 16 above natural conditions, and if overall measures required in the GCVTC report annual human-caused emissions parks and wilderness areas for the and the provisions of section 51.309. period 2003 through 2018. The GCVTC’s reductions take place in a region, it is This projection must, at a minimum, be likely that visibility will improve for recommended emissions reduction expressed in units of deciview. both the most impaired days and the strategies, including the emission The Agency received comment that least impaired days. reduction approach for stationary the GCVTC States should not be The geographic area (or areas) to be sources of SO2, establish the long-term required to estimate visibility covered by the emissions tracking strategy requirements for plan conditions using the deciview metric, strategy is to be determined initially submittals to EPA until the year 2018. but should be permitted simply to track based on the GCVTC Meteorology This time period is consistent with the emissions over time. While EPA Subcommittee’s report entitled Clean submittals required under section encourages States to track emissions in Air Corridors: A Framework for 51.308 which will be due between 2004 order to evaluate the emission reduction Identifying Regions that Influence Clean and 2008 depending on the effectiveness of adopted control Air on the Colorado Plateau. The classification of State areas with respect measures, it is equally important that geographic area (or areas) can be further to attainment of the recently changes be translated into visibility refined based on new technical findings promulgated NAAQS for PM2.5. The improvements in order to be responsive over time. The requirement to track time period covered by the plan revision to the national goal. As noted earlier in emissions will enable States to quickly due under section 51.309, 2003–2018, is unit III.C of this notice on the deciview determine if changes in patterns of somewhat different from the timeframe metric, EPA’s selection of the deciview emissions will reduce the number of for long-term strategies required by scale is an appropriate way to do this. clean air days (defined as the average of section 51.308 for the Class I areas not The Agency also included this provision the 20 percent clearest days) in any of on the Colorado Plateau. The differences to ensure that the public understands the 16 Class I areas. The State must that exist acknowledge the substantial the relationship of the SIP to visibility analyze the effects of the emissions early work of the GCVTC, on the 16 conditions at the Class I areas and to the changes and implement additional Class I areas, while at the same time national goal of no manmade measures to protect the clean days if making the strategy review cycle impairment in visibility in these areas. necessary. The States may include the consistent with the timetable The Agency thus feels that it is tracking of emissions for the clean air established in section 51.308. appropriate to inform the public on the corridors with tracking of emissions for The EPA received comment that it relationship between chosen emissions other purposes such as compliance with should allow the GCVTC control measures and their effect on stationary source emissions targets, if recommendations to be the basis of all visibility by requiring States to report on appropriate. The EPA notes that clean future strategies to address regional haze actual and expected changes in air corridors will be protected by other for the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado visibility to be achieved through implementation plan requirements, Plateau permanently. The EPA implementation of section 31.309. such as other SIP measures that may disagrees. No given set of emissions Those changes can be based on apply to existing stationary sources. strategies can be determined reliably to monitored data as well as estimated for States may wish to rely on technical achieve reasonable progress into the future conditions based on cooperation now beginning under the distant future. While the GCVTC implementation of emissions strategies. WRAP as an efficient means to strategies adopted by the States under Moreover, the requirement for use of the consolidate efforts on emission the provisions of section 51.309 may deciview metric does not prevent the inventories and projections needed to well continue to be adequate to meet the States from using other indicators, in monitor clean air corridor emissions future long-term strategy requirement, a addition to the deciview, for describing and their effects on clear air days. full review of emissions strategies for all regional haze conditions, such as 4. Implementation of Stationary Source Class I areas of the region is appropriate standard visual range or atmospheric Reductions to assure that ‘‘reasonable progress’’ is light extinction. being achieved and will continue to be To achieve the reductions in achieved during the periods of 3. Treatment of Clean Air Corridors emissions for stationary sources subsequent long-term strategies. As Section 51.309(d)(3) requires the projected in the GCVTC’s strategies, noted above, the relevant facts States to identify a geographic region or subsection 51.309(f)(1)(i) requires the concerning costs of controls, availability regions which will be subject to a establishment of SO2 emission of control strategies, and other statutory comprehensive emissions tracking reduction milestones as part of the factors will change over time. strategy. The purpose of such development of an annex to the GCVTC Advancements in technology and comprehensive emissions tracking is to report. Section 51.309(d)(4) requires changes in economic factors will likely ensure that the frequency of clear days, monitoring and reporting of stationary

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 35752 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

source emissions of SO2 in order to would provide for reasonable progress objective and a performance indicator assess compliance with these milestones for the 16 Class I areas for the for that area. during the period 2003 to 2018. The SIP implementation period from 2003 to Accordingly, today’s final rule must contain criteria and procedures for 2018. The emissions reductions requires all plans to provide for an implementing a market trading program provided for by the milestones and inventory of current and projected or other program documented in the trading program must address the BART emissions (VOC, NOX, SO2, elemental SIP, consistent with section provisions in section 51.308(e). For the carbon, organic carbon, and direct fine 51.309(f)(1)(i), if triggered by emissions reasons discussed in the portion of this particles) from mobile sources for the exceeding the emissions reduction preamble concerning BART 2003 to 2018 period. Because, as noted milestones. In particular, the SIPs must requirements, EPA believes that the in the GCVTC Report, the inventory for provide for implementation of the GCVTC’s adoption of a market based the year 2005 is expected to represent market-based program or other alternative to source-by-source BART the expected lowest total emissions emissions control strategy as called for will permit the GCVTC States to meet from mobile sources in the planning by an assessment of SO2 emissions for the provisions of the national rule period, that inventory must be included the years 2003, 2008, 2013, and 2018. which allow the use of alternative in the SIP. Once State inventories have States must fully activate the market measures in lieu of BART. been compiled and evaluated, the States system or other program within 1 year Implementation of the framework with urban areas found to contribute after an assessment showing the established by subsections 51.309 (d)(4) significantly to visibility impairment in excessive emissions. In addition, the and (f) will thus satisfy the provisions the 16 Class I areas must establish and implementation plan must provide for for an alternative measure in lieu of document their mobile source emissions all affected sources to comply with the BART for regional haze impairment set budgets for any such area. In addition, market system or other programs forth in section 51.308(e)(2), provided the States must establish SIP allocating emissions within 5 years after the interim milestones called for in the components which limit VOC, SO2, the date the program is triggered. The annex assure greater reasonable progress NOX, elemental and organic carbon and rule also requires States to report on than would be achieved by application direct fine particulate mobile source actual emissions reductions and of BART. The EPA will supplement its emissions to their projected lowest compare them to the established actions on the stationary source strategy levels for the period 2003 to 2018. The milestones. If a market trading program with future rulemaking on the States’ State plans must also provide for the or other program is triggered, the rule submission of interim milestones for implementation of measures to achieve requires States to report whether all SO2 emissions as part of the annex. In the mobile emissions budget, and for sources covered by the market trading or reviewing the interim milestones, EPA demonstrations of compliance with any other programs are in compliance with will be informed by the annex to the such budget. The demonstrations must applicable requirements. GCVTC report provided for in section include a tracking system to evaluate In addition to requirements for 51.309(f) to be discussed later. and demonstrate the State is meeting its control of emissions of SO2, the rule share of the regional mobile source requires the State to explore emission 5. Mobile Sources emissions budget. management options for stationary Section 51.309(d)(5) requires The GCVTC report also noted that the source emissions of PM and NOX. The States are required to report by 2003 on implementation plans to address the Federal government has a role in their consideration of the need for contribution to regional haze by addressing mobile source emissions. emissions targets for these pollutants to emissions from mobile sources. This The GCVTC report identified several prevent growth in emissions of these mobile source provision is based on the national mobile source-related pollutants in the region as a whole. The finding in the GCVTC Report that emissions reduction strategies under EPA believes that the States should base reducing total mobile source emissions consideration by EPA that are important their decisions on the need for, and is an essential part of any long-term to visibility conditions in the Class I levels of, emissions targets for these strategy for management of visibility on areas on the Colorado Plateau. The 126 pollutants on the degree to which such the Colorado Plateau. The GCVTC GCVTC agreed to promote these pollutants contribute to regional haze found that some urban areas will initiatives on a national level. With impairment in the Class I areas already be developing mobile source regard to ongoing development of addressed by their SIPs. The States must emissions budgets and programs to meet policies and regulations on emissions report to EPA by 2003 on their decisions other CAA requirements. To the extent from mobile sources, the June 29 letter whether to develop targets and that mobile source emissions in these or from the WGA requests that EPA ‘‘make additional control strategies for PM and other areas are found to contribute a binding commitment in its final significantly to visibility impairment in NOX emissions from stationary sources. regional haze rule to fully consider the If the States determine that such targets the Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau, GCVTC’s recommendations’ on several and controls are needed, they must the GCVTC recommended that an national mobile source emissions submit a plan revision to EPA not later emissions budget be established for any control strategies. Comment on the than December 31, 2008 containing any area with a significant contribution to regional haze rule specifically requested necessary long-term strategies and the regional mobile source emissions that EPA commit to consider BART or other requirements for total. The GCVTC called for the budgets development of a list of very specific stationary sources of PM and NOX. to be established beginning in the national mobile source emissions In adopting the requirements for approximate year in which emissions control strategies. stationary source emission reduction from mobile sources are projected to be The EPA agrees with the GCVTC’s milestones in this manner, EPA is at their lowest point during the conclusion that emissions from mobile indicating that the State’s adoption of planning period of 2003 to 2018, which sources can be significant contributors approvable SO2 milestones and a is expected to be in 2005. The emissions to regional haze visibility impairment. backstop market trading program as set budget should serve both as a planning The EPA is currently working on a forth in section 51.309(f) in addition to number of the strategies the GCVTC the other requirements in section 51.309 126 GCVTC Report, pp. 38–46. requested us to ‘‘fully consider’’ and the

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35753 summary below indicates the status of activities under way.

No. Measure Status of EPA efforts to fully consider the measure

1 ...... Adoption of the 49-State LEV standard in 2001 and Tier II vehi- Combined Tier II/gasoline sulfur NPRM is being drafted, with cle emission standards in year 2004 (if determined to be more publication expected in early to mid-1999. effective). 2 ...... Support of EPA's current proposal for new on-road, heavy-duty Finalized 2004 standards for on-road heavy-duty in 10/97 [62 vehicles emission standards that reduce NOx emissions by at FR 54693]; reductions in NOx emissions and secondary PM. least 50 percent over the 1998 requirements in the CAA, while maintaining current stringent PM emission limits. 3 ...... Pursue additional PM reductions from on-road vehicles ...... Potential actions being evaluated. 4 ...... Pursue additional engine emission standards for new off-road Finalized standards in 8/98 [63 FR 56967]. Also planning a tech- vehicles (heavy-duty, construction-type) that provide reason- nology review by December 2001 to evaluate feasibility stand- ably achievable reductions. ards and additional reductions. 5 ...... Explore broader application of and additional reductions in the Gasoline sulfur control-rulemaking underway. sulfur content of both gasoline and diesel fuel. Considering regulation of diesel fuel sulfur. 6 ...... Promotion of cleaner-burning fuels ...... In first year of implementing clean-fuel fleets program. The Of- fice 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 control strategies for diesel loco- Study of these issues is ongoing, but no specific actions have motives, marine vessels/pleasure craft, airplanes, and Federal been scheduled. vehicles as described in the GCVTC's Report. 8 ...... Support requirements for effective refueling vapor recovery sys- On-board re-fueling standards for cars and trucks finalized Octo- tems that capture evaporative emissions. ber 1996. We may consider refueling systems for on-road, heavy-duty gas- oline in future.

The EPA will continue to work with agricultural burning) must be addressed minimizes visibility impacts but also States and regional planning entities to equitably as part of a visibility fully recognizes the ecological role of help them assess how national mobile protection strategy.128 fire. source emissions strategies will affect The EPA agrees with the GCVTC’s The smoke management plans must other strategies needed to ensure conclusions and is including in this address all sources of fire used for land reasonable progress toward the national section of the rule a requirement for the management purposes. The provisions visibility goal during the States to address all types of fire in of this section also provide for implementation of the regulations fulfilling the requirements of this establishment of annual emissions goals promulgated today. The EPA will also section and in submitting SIPs for for fire (excluding wildfire) that will grant States full credit for approval by EPA. Section 51.309(d)(6) minimize increases in emissions to the implementation of future national requires each State to establish an maximum extent feasible. These goals mobile source programs in emissions emissions inventory and tracking are to be established cooperatively by strategies needed to attain reasonable system (spatial and temporal) for VOC, States, tribes, State and Federal land progress goals. NOX, elemental carbon and organic management agencies, and their private carbon, and direct fine particulate sector counterparts, considering factors 6. Emissions Related to Fire emissions from prescribed fire, wildfire, similar to those identified for enhanced Section 51.309(d)(6) requires and agricultural burning. The EPA smoke management plans. documentation that all prescribed fire believes that such information could be programs within the State consider and developed on a regional basis and could 7. Dust From Roads address the effects of smoke on visibility be accomplished through mechanisms Section 51.309(d)(7) requires States to when planning and issuing permits for such as recording acres experiencing assess the impact of dust emissions on prescribed fires. The GCVTC Report fire and calculating emissions based on regional haze visibility in the 16 Class stated that ‘‘fire has played a major role vegetation type and soil moisture. Most I areas. If such dust emissions are in the development of and maintenance importantly, the rule requires the determined to be a significant of most ecosystems in the West.’’ 127 In establishment of enhanced smoke contributor to visibility impairment, the addition, the report notes ‘‘emissions management programs for fire that State must implement emissions from fire (wildfire and prescribed fire) consider visibility effects, in addition to management strategies to address their are an important episodic contributor to health and nuisance objectives, and impact. In the technical work of the visibility-impairing aerosols, including calls for programs to be based on the GCVTC, road dust was not shown to be organic carbon, and particulate matter criteria of efficiency, economics, law, a major contributor to regional haze (PM2.5)’’. Agricultural burning emissions emissions reduction opportunities, land impairment based on current and their effects have been identified as management objectives, and reduction monitoring data. However, work on a concern by the GCVTC but have not of visibility impacts. The future emissions projections of road been quantified due to lack of data. The comprehensive approach envisioned by dust emissions was directly tied to GCVTC concluded that all types of fire the rule will allow States to plan a growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT). (prescribed fire, wildfire, and smoke management program that The large increase projected for the west in VMT over the planning period of the 127 GCVTC Report, p. 47. 128 See Id. GCVTC report resulted in initial

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 35754 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations predictions of a very large contribution was a high potential for renewable The State must provide a of road dust to regional haze.129 This energy production, especially electrical demonstration of its progress toward technical result was addressed in the energy, and that the relative cost of achieving the renewable energy goals in GCVTC report and the GCVTC renewable energy production is 2003, 2008, 2013 and 2018. The discounted the predictions of the future declining over time. The GCVTC cited demonstration must include impacts from road dust. However, the forecasts of renewable energy documentation describing the potential GCVTC recommended that its policy production by the Western Systems for renewable energy resources, the conclusion that distant road dust is not Coordinating Council and by the Land percentage of renewable energy likely to play an important role in and Water Fund of the Rockies in associated with new power generation regional haze should be confirmed support of its adoption of the goal that projects implemented or planned, and through further tracking of road dust 10 percent of regional power needs be the renewable energy generation emissions. The GCVTC also emphasized served by renewable energy sources by capacity and production in use or that road dust control should be the year 2005 and 20 percent by the year planned within the State. Where a State considered in locations ‘‘in and near’’ 2015.131 cannot feasibly meet its planned Class I areas.130 The EPA agrees with In establishing assessment and contribution to the regional renewable this approach and has included the reporting requirements for the States, energy goals, the State must identify the assessment of road dust as a EPA is supporting the GCVTC Report’s measures implemented to achieve its requirement of the SIP. In addition, promotion of renewable power contribution and explain why meeting today’s action requires appropriate SIP production. Such production will likely the State’s contribution was not feasible. measures over time based on the be based on emerging renewable energy Commentors on EPA’s September 3, contribution of road dust to regional technologies such as wind, solar, 1998 notice of availability stated that haze. biomass, and geothermal. The EPA also incorporation of language from the supports tracking annual goals for WGA letter on renewable energy 8. Pollution Prevention increases in renewable power restricts State and local energy planning This section addresses the GCVTC’s generation in the transport region.132 since a SIP is federally enforceable recommendations on pollution The GCVTC identified strategies which under the CAA. Commentors also prevention and renewable energy. The the States could rely on to help achieve expressed the opinion that the GCVTC goal recommended that this regional renewable energy goal, requirements for SIPs to address renewable energy comprise 10 percent including, but not limited to, focusing renewable energy goals may overstep of the regional power needs by 2005 and research funding for renewables, EPA’s legal authorities which are 20 percent by 2015. The Administration financial incentives, and requiring new limited to emissions limitation and has recently offered legislation power generation projects to include a pollution performance standards. proposing a national mandate of 7.5 portion of the generation from The EPA disagrees that the provisions percent by 2010. The Commission’s goal renewable energy sources. The EPA of section 51.309(d)(8) impermissibly represents the outcome of its consensus notes that the WRAP is committed to restrict State and local energy planning process and is a more aggressive goal following through on the GCVTC’s or that these provisions exceed EPA’s than what the Administration has recommendations and can assist the authority under the CAA. As stated proposed as a national mandate. As States in developing strategies they can previously, the requirements of section with other GCVTC recommendations, rely on to achieve regional renewable 51.309 are provided to GCVTC States as the EPA has included this provision in energy goals contained in the GCVTC an alternative to the general provisions this rule in recognition of the overall Report. of section 51.308 as a means of giving body of the GCVTC’s work and believes In response to the GCVTC’s effect to the policy and technical work it is consistent with the provisions of recommendations on pollution of the GCVTC. The goals themselves are the national rule. Section 51.309(d)(8) prevention, section 51.309(d)(8) calls for not enforceable and States are not requires the State to summarize all each SIP to provide for incentives to required to meet the renewable energy pollution prevention plans currently in reward efforts that go beyond goals. However, as the WGA letter and place, inventory the current and compliance and/or achieve early the GCVTC provide, these provisions expected energy generation capacity compliance with air pollution related are not severable. States which wish to through 2002, the total energy requirements. The plan also must take advantage of the GCVTC’s efforts generation capacity and production for identify specific areas where renewable and EPA’s acceptance thereof are the State, the State’s percentage of total energy has the potential to supply obligated to meet all of the requirements energy generation and capacity that power where it is not now provided by of section 51.309. comes from renewable energy sources, current service systems and where Rather, EPA is setting enforceable and the State’s anticipated contribution renewable energy systems are most cost requirements for the States to assess toward the GCVTC’s goal that renewable effective. The plan must contain progress toward goals established by the energy comprise 10 percent of the projections of the short-term and long- GCVTC with respect to renewable regional power needs by 2005, and 20 term emissions reductions, visibility energy production as a means for percent by 2015. improvements, costs savings, and reducing dependence on more polluting The GCVTC found that to prevent secondary benefits associated with forms of energy production. States further degradation of vistas in the west, renewable energy goals, energy participating in the GCVTC strategy are it would be necessary to combine cost- efficiency and pollution prevention responsible for explaining why they effective pollution control strategies activities. The plan must also contain a cannot meet the GCVTC goals. The with a greater emphasis on pollution description of the programs being relied required reporting by the States will prevention, including low or zero on to achieve the State’s contribution inform the public of air quality emission technologies and energy toward the GCVTC’s renewable energy improvements that would result from conservation. It further found that there goals. that goal had it been realized. It is the relationship between renewable energy 129 GCVTC Report, p. 46. 131 GCVTC Report, p. 28. production and associated 130 See id. 132 GCVTC Report, p. 7. environmental effects (direct and

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35755 indirect) that is the thrust of the impairment are generally the same, the State sources which may be causing assessment and reporting effort under border studies and emissions degradation in regional haze visibility the SIP. inventories will help support but were not anticipated in the assessment of regional visibility development of the original plan and 9. Implementation of Additional conditions. In addition to work with will, therefore, not be addressed by Requirements Mexico, EPA routinely meets with currently-adopted programs. If a State In section 51.309(d)(9), EPA requires representatives of the Canadian makes such findings with respect to in- SIPs to provide for implementation of government on issues related to State sources, EPA expects the State to other GCVTC Report policy and strategy transport of air pollutants, particularly revise its SIP, reducing emissions to be options that can be practicably included focusing on emissions affecting acidic consistent with the regional planning as enforceable emissions limits, deposition. The EPA intends to effort reflected in the reasonable schedules of compliance or other continue to work through appropriate progress SIPs due in 2003. If transport enforceable measures to make channels in building technical of emissions from out of State is reasonable progress toward the national information and addressing policy suspected of impairing reasonable visibility goal for the 16 Class I areas. concerns related to international progress, the State should identify this The GCVTC’s recommendations pollution transport. to EPA and should initiate cooperative included items that are not appropriate efforts with upwind States so the 11. Periodic Implementation Plan to directly translate to SIP requirements emissions can be more fully evaluated Revisions for every State. The EPA supports State and, as needed, addressed in the next choice of appropriate actions on other Section 51.309(d)(10) requires the mandatory full SIP revision. This options and measures identified by the States to periodically assess their requirement is virtually identical to the GCVTC and has, therefore, established a progress in implementing measures for provisions for periodic review under general provision for SIPs calling for protection of visibility. This includes a sections 51.308(g) and (h). them to consider and adopt additional review of how the measures measures as necessary and appropriate. implemented under section 51.309 are 12. State Planning and Interstate The rule further requires States to report consistent with the national rule’s Coordination to EPA in 2003, 2008, 2013, and 2018 provisions for long-term strategies and Section 51.309(d)(11) provides on what measures have been adopted BART. The assessments must be flexibility to a State to address its and the status of implementation of completed by 2008, 2013, and 2018 and contribution to visibility impairment those measures. must be submitted to EPA as SIP through the regional emissions control 10. International Transport of Pollution revisions that comply with the strategies discussed above. The SIP procedural requirements of sections strategies to protect the 16 Class I areas One of the additional areas of concern 51.102 and 51.103. As with any other on the Colorado Plateau can thus be noted in the GCVTC report, for instance, review and revision of SIP developed through interstate relates to effects of emissions from requirements, States will be expected to coordination in a regional planning sources outside of the territory of the use the most current available technical process. Such regional planning can United States. As stated elsewhere in methods and procedures in conducting help a State develop documentation of this notice, the EPA will not hold States their assessments. the technical and policy basis for the responsible for developing strategies to The provisions of section individual State apportionment of ‘‘compensate’’ for the effects of 51.309(d)(10) further require that where emissions and visibility impairment, the emissions from foreign sources. a State concludes that planning contribution to emissions addressed by However, the States should not consider adjustments are necessary as a result of the State’s plan, coordination in the the presence of emissions from foreign emissions occurring within the State, it analysis of interstate transport and sources as a reason not to strive to revise its implementation strategies to control of pollution with other States, ensure reasonable progress in reducing include rule revisions that are effective and compliance with other criteria for any visibility impairment caused by within 1 year after the State makes such approval of SIPs under CAA sections sources located within their a conclusion in order to assure 110 and 169A and B. Therefore, under jurisdiction. The States retain a duty to reasonable progress at any of the 16 today’s final rule and EPA policy, States work with EPA in helping the Federal Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. may rely on regional entities’ efforts to government use appropriate means to States may also conclude, based on their develop and document technical and address international pollution assessments, that no changes to the plan policy support for the SIPs required by transport concerns. Indeed, such efforts are needed, and the plan revision this rule. For the purposes of are under way. The EPA and other requirement can be met by submitting a implementing the requirements of Federal officials are working with ‘‘negative declaration’’ as an section 51.309, EPA recognizes the representatives of the Mexican implementation plan revision to EPA. WRAP as a regional planning group for government to complete a study which This revision must provide the State’s purposes of interstate consultation will assess the contribution of fossil-fuel basis for finding that no changes are under section 51.308(c). fired electric generation stations in needed. This submission will provide As indicated in the introduction to northern Mexico to haze in Big Bend the public with necessary information the section of today’s notice addressing National Park. These efforts and funding and an opportunity to comment on the the WGA and GCVTC of work to establish emissions State’s findings. recommendations, States retain the right inventories in Mexico will help address The EPA views the requirement of to develop their own programs with or concerns raised by the GCVTC. In section 51.309(d)(10) as a periodic without reliance on the work products addition to activities directly related to check on progress rather than a of a regional entity. In the case where a visibility effects, there are other efforts thorough revision of regional strategies. State chooses to develop a SIP without underway related to the United States- The State interim assessments should reliance on a regional planning process, Mexico border health issues. Given that focus on significant failures or shortfalls however, the State will need to show emissions contributing to health effects in implementing adopted strategies and how it accounted for the effect of its and those contributing to visibility on emissions from in-State or out-of- emissions on Class I areas which may be

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 35756 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations located beyond the State’s borders, as recognized by the GCVTC. A State emissions reductions and tracking the well as the effect of upwind emissions electing not to implement the GCVTC reductions to ensure visibility from other States on the Class I areas recommendations as set forth in section improvement in hazy days and visibility within its borders. 51.309(d) must address all of its Class I maintenance on clear days. To be The regional haze SIP for a State areas and any Class I area to which its consistent with and responsive to the choosing not to implement the sources’ emissions may contribute to guiding principles, recommendations requirements of section 51.309, impairment under the provisions of and strategies adopted by the GCVTC, including the SIP submittal deadlines, section 51.308. In addition, any EPA expects any interim targets to would be governed by the national rules Transport Region State must advise demonstrate a significant continuous provided in section 51.308. Any State other States electing to comply with downward trend in emissions and not choosing not to adopt a SIP in section 51.309 of the nature and effect postpone significant progress to periods accordance with the GCVTC strategy of their program on visibility impairing covered by future long-term strategies. and optional approach in section emissions so that other States can use The second factor is the quantifiable 51.309, but wishing to use the WRAP this information in developing programs target for 2040 to which interim targets mechanism for regional cooperation in under section 51.309. This provision must contribute. This target is a 50 to 70 developing its SIP requirements, would assures that all components needed to percent reduction by 2040 in emissions need to comply with all of the address reasonable progress are part of from stationary source SO2 emissions, requirements outlined in the national SIPs either under the provisions of based on the projection of the GCVTC’s rule in section 51.308. section 51.309 or section 51.308. baseline forecast scenario from actual 1990 emission levels. Interim targets 13. Tribal Implementation Plans E. Annex to the GCVTC Report should reflect assessment of reasonable The WGA called for EPA’s final rule 1. Interim Milestones measures which reduce regional to permit tribes within the GCVTC loadings of SO2. Such assessments may Section 51.309(f) calls for an annex to Transport Region to implement include examination of interim targets the GCVTC Report for the purpose of visibility programs, or reasonably based on costs per ton of reducing SO2 severable elements, in the same manner completing the program requirements to in line with recently adopted control as States, regardless of whether such meet reasonable progress under the measures. tribes have participated as members of CAA, including submission of a The third factor is the applicable a visibility transport GCVTC. The EPA complete long-term strategy and requirements of the CAA for making has not included the WGA’s addressing the BART requirement for reasonable progress and implementing recommended rule provision in today’s the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado BART. As noted previously in this action because the necessary authority Plateau. The purpose of the annex is to preamble, the CAA requires a long-term for tribal organizations has already been develop interim emissions milestones strategy to ensure reasonable progress provided in a previous EPA for stationary source SO2 interim targets and the application of BART to certain rulemaking.133 The EPA does, however, between the year 2000 target and the large sources that are reasonably agree with the position expressed in the target for the year 2040. Under section anticipated to cause or contribute to WGA recommendation. The EPA wishes 51.309(f)(1)(i), the States must consider regional haze. The rule requires the to clarify that tribes may directly four specific factors in setting the annex to address the BART provisions implement the requirements of this interim emission milestones. The first of the national rule. As noted in the section of the regional haze rule in the factor affecting the selection of interim earlier discussion of BART, EPA will same manner as States. The Tribal milestones is the GCVTC’s definition of accept alternative measures, such as Authority Rule provides for this, as reasonable progress. The GCVTC notes regional emissions trading programs, discussed further in unit V of today’s in its report that the term ‘‘reasonable which achieve greater reasonable notice. The independence of tribes progress’’ refers to ‘‘progress in reducing progress in lieu of meeting the source- means that a tribal visibility program is human-caused haze in Class I areas specific BART requirement. As noted not dependent on strategies selected by under the national visibility goal.’’ 134 It elsewhere in the preamble, EPA plans to the State or States in which the tribe is goes on to note that ‘‘the CAA indicates issue revised BART guidance within a located. If tribes within the Transport that ‘reasonable’ should consider the year. During the next year and a half, Region decline to implement visibility cost of reducing air pollution emissions, EPA also plans to issue new or revised programs and EPA finds that emissions the time necessary for compliance, the guidance related to the design of management strategies are needed to energy and non-air quality emission trading programs, including assure reasonable progress, EPA will environmental impacts of reducing guidance on the structure of economic work with the appropriate tribes emissions, and the remaining useful life incentive programs. Given this directly to provide for Federal of any existing air pollution source schedule, EPA intends to work closely implementation of appropriate considered for these reductions.’’ The with the WRAP as it develops the emissions reduction strategies. This is discussion also includes the GCVTC’s annex, its approach to meeting the rule’s based on the government to government Public Advisory Committee definition BART requirements and its backstop principles of Federal-Tribal relations. that ‘‘progress towards the national market-trading program. The EPA visibility goal is achieving continuous believes that its participation in the D. Requirements for States Electing Not emissions reductions necessary to WRAP will help to ensure that the way To Follow All Provisions of the Section reduce existing impairment and attain in which the annex addresses BART and 51.309(e) steady improvement in visibility in the market trading program will be The EPA notes that the provisions for mandatory Class I areas, and managing compatible with EPA’s revised BART allowing the Transport Region States to emissions growth so as to prevent guidance and any new or revised adopt SIPs based on the GCVTC perceptible degradation of clean air guidance EPA issues related to recommendations requires that States days.’’ Together, these provisions call emissions trading programs. endorse the range of strategies for the achievement of continuous In the event EPA finds that the annex does not meet the rule’s BART 133 See 63 FR 7254 (Feb. 12, 1998). 134 GCVTC Report, p. x–xi. provisions because it is inconsistent

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35757 with EPA’s revised BART guidance, the plans and voluntary measures are not changes, to be clear that they apply to Transport Region States may submit a sufficient to meet the established both the milestones or backstop market- revised annex to address any interim milestones. This documentation trading program provided for in the deficiencies. The revision should be must include model rules, memoranda annex. Subsection 51.309(b)(7) defines submitted as expeditiously as of understanding, and other materials the term geographic enhancement for practicable but no later than 12 months necessary to describe in detail and the provisions governing the annex and from EPA’s determination that the establish in enforceable fashion how section 51.309(f)(4) allows the annex to annex is deficient with respect to BART emission reduction progress will be contain a geographic enhancement. due to its inconsistency with the BART monitored, what conditions will require Similar to the national program, these guidance. Similarly, if EPA finds the the market trading program to be provisions will allow the market trading annex does not meet the provisions of activated, how allocations will be system included in the annex to any EPA guidance applicable to market- performed, and how the program will accommodate situations where a State trading programs that is issued after operate. wishes to require BART control promulgation of this rule, the Transport measures on sources or a small group of 3. Additional Class I Areas Region States may submit a revision to sources due to reasonably attributable the annex to remedy any such An additional provision, section impairment and that source has been deficiencies. These revisions should 51.309(g) allows States to elect to included in the backstop market trading also be submitted no later than 12 demonstrate reasonable progress for program under the annex. In this months from EPA’s determination that other Class I areas within the Transport situation, the milestone or backstop the annex cannot be incorporated in the Region States beyond the original 16 market-trading program may include a SIP because of inconsistencies with the areas addressed by the GCVTC’s level of reasonably attributable guidance. The EPA expects that the assessment, relying on the strategies impairment which may require States and WRAP stakeholders will recommended by the GCVTC. See the additional emissions reductions over make every effort to address both the discussion in unit IV.F. of this and above those achieved under the revised BART guidance and any new or preamble. quantitative emissions reductions revised emission trading program 4. Geographic Enhancements milestones established for regional haze. guidance within the timeframe 5. The EPA Responsibilities in Relation established by section 51.309 for The EPA has also adopted provisions to the Annex submittal of the annex. By providing for in subsections 51.309(b)(7) and EPA participation in the WRAP, 51.309(f)(4) that would allow the Section 51.309(f)(3) spells out EPA’s encouraging State and stakeholder Transport Region States to establish a responsibilities with respect to the efforts to respond expeditiously to new process as part of a broad regional annex and calls for EPA to publish the or revised guidance, and calling for any strategy, such as backstop market- annex upon receipt. The EPA must then needed revisions to the annex to be trading program, to accommodate the conduct a review and decide, after submitted within a year from an EPA situation where a State takes action to notice and opportunity for public determination of deficiency, this address reasonably attributable BART comment, whether the annex meets the approach will ensure compliance with under the provisions of section requirement of section 51.309(f)(1) and the SIP submittal deadlines in section 51.306(c)(2). As noted elsewhere, the whether it assures reasonable progress. 51.309(c). annex, if approved, will allow the If EPA finds the interim targets and The fourth factor to be addressed in Transport Region States to submit a SIP accompanying documentation meet the the setting of interim milestones is the which adopts an alternative measure in requirements of reasonable progress, timing of implementation plan lieu of BART. The purpose for including then it will incorporate the interim assessments of progress and the the provisions regarding geographic targets into the stationary source SIP identification of mechanisms to address enhancement is to address the requirements in section 51.309(d)(4) cases where emissions exceed milestone intersection between the existing within 1 year of receipt, after public levels for the reporting years 2003, 2008, reasonably attributable BART provision notice and comment. If EPA decides 2013 and 2018. This schedule is and regional haze BART, which may be that the annex does not meet SIP designed to achieve eventual met through an emissions trading requirements for reasonable progress or coordination of target years with program such as the milestone/backstop if EPA does not receive an annex, it will assessments for regions affecting other market-trading program which is to be notify the GCVTC States, who will then Class I areas. Because these efforts call included in the annex. Existing rules be subject to the general provisions of for continuing consultation and sharing address ‘‘hot spots’—those situations in section 51.308 in the same manner as of information between regions as well which part of the visibility impairment other States. as between States, timetables for further in a specific national park or wilderness One commentor on the annex work by the GCVTC States are designed area is reasonably attributable to a single approach described in EPA’s September to bring the GCVTC States’ long-term source or small group of sources in the 3 notice of availability noted that the strategy updates in line with the airshed because of the nature and WGA letter set forth a tight timetable for schedule for the next long-term strategy location of the pollution relative to the development of the market system and update required of all other States. Class I area. Should action be taken by that it appears to violate the TEA–21 the State to address such reasonably requirements. In response, EPA notes 2. Documentation of Market Trading or attributable impairment through BART, that these are the timetables established Other Alternative Measures To Assure the geographic enhancement provisions by the GCVTC in 1996 and which have Reasonable Progress. would allow the backstop market-based been the basis for work by the follow- In addition to the interim targets, trading program to accommodate such up body of the WRAP. With respect to section 51.309(f)(1)(iii) requires the action. These provisions parallel a TEA–21, the colloquy between Senator annex to contain final documentation of similar allowance in subsections Allard and Senator Baucus in the the market trading program or other 51.301(ii) and 51.308(e)(2)(C)(v). Congressional Record on the conference programs to be implemented by the The EPA is repeating these report concerning implementation of GCVTC States if current implementation provisions, with minor language GCVTC recommendations is instructive,

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 35758 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations and EPA believes that it fully addresses enabling consolidation of plans after generally referred to as the Tribal the commentor’s concern. Senator 2008. Authority Rule or TAR. Baucus stated that ‘‘[TEA–21] clarifies Furthermore, if the State can develop The TAR includes general eligibility that it does not affect EPA’s authority to the necessary demonstration for other requirements for tribes interested in provide for State implementation of the Class I areas before 2003, a Transport assuming program responsibilities that agreements and recommendations set Region State could submit one are codified in section 49.6 of the rule. forth in the June 1996 GCVTC Report on implementation plan in 2003 covering These eligibility requirements are a schedule consistent with the GCVTC’s both the 16 Class I areas and other Class designed in part to ensure that such Report. * * * The conferees added I areas for which it must assure tribes have the infrastructure needed to specific language so as not to preclude reasonable progress. successfully implement a tribal air the Administrator from providing for quality program. Tribes may request a earlier State implementation of the V. Implementation of the Regional Haze formal eligibility determination using GCVTC’s agreements and Program in Indian Country administrative procedures contained in recommendations * * *.’’ 135 That This section discusses how the 49.7. Tribes may also use the language states that: requirements of the regional haze rule administrative procedures in 49.7 to relate to emissions released from Indian seek approval to implement CAA The preceding provisions of this paragraph programs. The TAR authorizes EPA to shall not preclude the implementation of the country. review requests for eligibility agreements and recommendations set forth in A. Background on Tribal Air Quality the GCVTC Report dated June 1996. determinations and program approvals Programs simultaneously. As noted in 49.7(c), TEA–21 section 4102(c)(2). Before discussing how the regional tribes that are interested in seeking EPA F. Additional Class I Areas haze rule affects tribes, we believe it is approval to implement air quality programs under the CAA may request Section 51.309(g) calls for Transport useful to briefly describe EPA’s overall policy and rulemaking efforts on tribal approval to implement only partial Region States to identify in their 2003 elements of a CAA program, so long as plan submissions whether they elect to air quality programs. On November 8, 1984, the EPA the elements of the partial program are meet the provisions of section 51.308 or ‘‘reasonably severable.’’ released a policy statement entitled 51.309 in establishing their long-term Section 301(d)(4) of the CAA confers ‘‘EPA Policy for the Administration of strategy and BART requirements for discretionary authority on EPA to additional Class I areas not covered by Environmental Programs on Indian provide, through regulation, alternative the original GCVTC effort. By no later Reservations.’’ This policy statement, means to ensure air quality protection in than December 31, 2008 the States available on the Internet at http:// cases where it determines that treating electing to use section 51.309 to address www.epa.gov/indian/1984.htm, stresses tribes as ‘‘identical’’ to States would be additional Class I areas must submit a number of themes. In particular, this inappropriate. Accordingly, in plan revisions which include a policy stresses that EPA, consistent with promulgating the TAR, EPA provided modeling demonstration establishing overall Federal government policy, will flexibility to tribes seeking to implement expected visibility conditions on the pursue the principle of Indian ‘‘self- the CAA. Some flexibility is established most-impaired and least-impaired days government,’’ and that it will work with by virtue of EPA’s decision, under 49.4 at the Class I areas for which they seek tribal governments on a ‘‘government-to- of the final rule, not to treat tribes as to demonstrate reasonable progress. government’’ basis. The policy States for specified provisions of the These demonstrations may be statement also emphasizes EPA’s desire CAA. The rationale for this approach is conducted by the State or based on to work with interested tribal discussed on pages 7264 and 7265 of the refined studies conducted by regional governments in developing programs preamble to the final rule, and in unit entities. The plan must include the and in preparing to assume regulatory III.B of the preamble to the proposed analyses required in section and environmental program rule. For example, unlike States, tribes 51.308(d)(1). The plan can build upon management responsibility for Indian are not required by the TAR to adopt and take full credit for the strategies country. The EPA will retain and implement CAA plans or programs, adopted for the 16 Class I areas. It must responsibility for protecting tribal air thus tribes are not subject to mandatory also contain any additional measures quality until such time as tribes deadlines for submittal of beyond those strategies that may be administer their own air quality implementation plans. As discussed in needed to demonstrate reasonable protection programs. the preamble sections identified above, progress in those areas, in accordance The CAA, as amended in 1990, added EPA believes that it generally would not with the provisions of section a new section 301(d) which authorizes be reasonable to impose the same types 51.308(d)(1) through (4). As provided EPA to ‘‘treat tribes as States’’ for the of deadlines on tribes as on States. for in section 51.309(g)(2), a Transport purposes of administering CAA Among the CAA provisions for which Region State may have until no later programs. Section 301(d) required that EPA has determined it will not treat than December 31, 2008, to submit a EPA promulgate regulations listing tribes as States is section 110(c)(1) of the plan for additional Class I areas, which specific CAA provisions for which it CAA, which requires EPA to intervene is the date for submission that would be appropriate to treat tribes as and ensure air quality protection within additional Class I areas under section States and establishing the criteria that 2 years after a State either fails to adopt 51.308. Transport Region States may tribes must meet in order to be eligible a SIP or does not win EPA approval for well benefit by addressing the for such treatment under the CAA. The a SIP that was determined to be additional Class I areas under section EPA proposed these regulations on deficient. The EPA did not apply this 51.309, since using the same rule August 25, 1994 (59 FR 43956), and provision to tribes because the section provision for both sets of Class I areas finalized the rule on February 12, 1998 110(c) obligation on EPA to promulgate could facilitate coordination of the (63 FR 7254). Much of the regulatory a FIP is based on failures with respect requirements for the areas as well as language in this rule is codified in the to required submittals, and, as noted Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) as a above, tribal submissions under the 135 144 Cong Rec. SS407 (daily ed. May 22, 1998). new 40 CFR part 49. This rule is TAR are voluntary, not mandatory.

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35759

Instead, pursuant to its section 301(d)(4) are met where tribes are unable to tribal locations in regional planning discretionary authority, EPA has participate. efforts. provided in the TAR that, where In order to encourage tribes to VI. Miscellaneous Technical necessary and appropriate, it will develop self-sufficient programs, the Amendments to the Existing Rule promulgate FIPs within reasonable TAR provides tribes with the flexibility timeframes to protect air quality in of submitting programs as they are The rule includes the following Indian country. See 40 CFR 49.11(a). developed, rather than in accordance changes to coordinate the requirements with statutory deadlines. This means of today’s regional haze rule with the B. Issues Related to the Regional Haze that tribes that choose to develop 1980 visibility regulations for Program in Indian Country programs, where necessary may take ‘‘reasonably attributable’’ visibility Today’s final rule imposes additional time to submit impairment: requirements for revisions to SIPs. The implementation plans for regional haze rule requires States to develop SIP over and above the deadlines in the Section 51.300. Purpose and revisions to address regional haze, to TEA–21 legislation as codified in Applicability update the SIP every 10 years, and to today’s final rule. (See unit III.B for a We have amended this section to continue to evaluate progress toward the discussion of these deadlines.) The clarify that subpart P includes national visibility goal. The TEA–21 legislation changed the provisions for regional haze as well as requirements of today’s final rule are deadlines for State submission of SIP reasonably attributable visibility among those air quality programs for revisions to address regional haze, impairment. which tribes may be determined eligible which were originally set out in section Section 51.301. Definitions and receive authorization to implement 169B(e)(2) of the CAA. Section 49.4(f) of under the TAR. Tribes wishing to the TAR provides that deadlines related We have added the following terms: assume these regional haze program to SIP submittals under section reasonably attributable visibility requirements and be ‘‘treated as States’’ 169(B)(e)(2) do not apply to tribes. We impairment, regional haze, deciview, may seek approval under 40 CFR 49, but encourage tribes choosing to develop State, most-impaired days, least- are not required to do so. Where tribes implementation plans to make every impaired days, implementation plan, do not take on this responsibility, EPA effort to submit by the deadlines to tribe, BART-eligible source, and will ensure air quality protection in ensure that the plans are integrated with geographic enhancement. The other Indian country consistent with the and coordinated with regional planning definitions in this section apply to the provisions of 40 CFR 49.11(a). efforts. In the interim, EPA will work program for reasonably attributable We encourage tribes to participate in with the States and tribes to ensure that impairment as well as the new regional regional planning efforts for regional achievement of reasonable progress is haze program, except where it is noted haze. A good example of tribal not delayed. that they only apply to the program for participation in regional haze planning As noted previously in unit II of this reasonably attributable impairment. is the efforts of tribal representatives on notice, sections 169A and 169B of the the GCVTC. These efforts are continuing CAA contain requirements for visibility Section 51.302. Implementation Control with tribal participation on the WRAP. protection in Class I areas, and do not Strategies The EPA expects, as noted above, that require that States or tribes develop We have changed references in additional regional planning groups will plans and control strategies for visibility section 51.302(a) to the administrative be formed in reaction to today’s final protection for additional locations. process requirements for public rule. A number of tribes have indicated These provisions of the CAA do not hearings and SIP submissions, which interest in participating in regional require implementation plans to address are now located in section 51.102 and planning efforts, and we believe this is regional haze in other Class I areas, such 51.103. We have also amended this beneficial in many respects. Tribal as those designated as Class I by tribes section to clarify that the participation can help provide or States under section 164 of the CAA. implementation control strategies emissions inventory information that One commenter from a tribe expressed addressed in the section apply to can serve to better understand the concerns that the scenic beauty and reasonably attributable visibility importance of sources in Indian country value of tribal areas should not be impairment. to regional visibility impairment. viewed by EPA as less important than Conversely, such participation can also the national parks and wilderness areas Section 51.305. Monitoring help provide a forum for tribal that have ‘‘mandatory Class I’’ status. We have amended this section to participants to alert regional planning While EPA believes that these tribal clarify that the monitoring requirements organizations as to concerns on how areas are not afforded the same legal in this section apply to reasonably regional emissions are affecting air protection under the CAA as Class I attributable visibility impairment. quality in Indian country. areas, it is important for tribes to As noted in the preamble to the TAR, understand that the regional haze VII. Administrative Requirements we intend to work with tribes to identify control program for the Federal areas In preparing any final rule, EPA must air quality priorities and needs, to build will help to protect scenic locations of meet the administrative requirements communication and outreach to tribes interest to tribes. For example, EPA contained in a number of statutes and on air quality issues, and to provide believes that modeling analyses aimed executive orders. In this section of the training to build tribes’ technical at addressing Class I areas can readily preamble, we discuss how the final capacity for implementing air quality add receptor locations to analyze the regional haze rule addresses these programs. We recognize, however, that visibility improvements at selected administrative requirements. not all tribes will have the resources nor tribal locations. The EPA will work with the expertise to participate in regional regional planning bodies to ensure that A. Regulatory Planning and Review by planning efforts for regional haze. An tribal interests are represented and to the Office of Management and Budget important EPA role in regional planning foster communication between States (OMB) (Executive Order 12866) efforts will be to ensure that the overall and tribes, and we will encourage the Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR objectives of the regional haze program consideration of impacts on visibility in 51735, October 4, 1993,) the Agency

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 35760 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations must determine whether the regulatory fact that under the regional haze rule, deciview improvement in 10 years action is ‘‘significant’’ and, therefore, the States bear the primary illustrative progress goal. subject to OMB review and the responsibility for establishing The RIA finds that the estimated net requirements of the Executive Order. reasonable progress goals as well as benefits (benefits minus costs) may The Order defines ‘‘significant emission management strategies for increase and the potential for adverse regulatory action’’ as one that is likely meeting these goals. Until such time as economic impact would decrease if to result in a rule that may: the States make those decisions, EPA States exercise their discretion to (1) have an annual effect on the can only speculate as to which goals establish State or region-specific economy of $100 million or more or may be established and what types of reasonable visibility progress goals and adversely affect in a material way the control requirements or emission limits emission-management strategies. economy, a sector of the economy, might result from the associated According to the RIA simulations, not productivity, competition, jobs, the emission management strategies. all Class I areas achieve or surpass the environment, public health or safety, or According to the RIA, there is illustrative visibility progress goals even State, local, or tribal governments or substantial visibility improvement due after the simulation of two sets of communities; to emissions from other CAA programs control strategies. But, the visibility (2) create a serious inconsistency or such as those for the new O3 and PM improvement is substantial with 84 to otherwise interfere with an action taken NAAQS and the Tier 2 mobile sources 94 percent of the 121 counties with 147 or planned by another agency; rule. With illustrative goals ranging Class I areas in the continental U.S. (3) materially alter the budgetary from 1.0 deciview improvement in 15 achieving the 1.0 deciview in 15 years impacts of entitlements, grants, user years to 10 percent deciview goal and 31 to 43 percent of the areas fees, or loan programs or the rights and improvement in 10 years, the RIA finds achieving 10 percent deciview obligations of recipients thereof; or improvement in 10 years goal. that between 22 and 52 percent of the (4) raise novel legal or policy issues Furthermore, all areas have improved Class I area counties in the continental arising out of legal mandates, the visibility. How much of the estimated U.S. achieve or surpass the progress President’s priorities, or the principles progress shortfall is due to the failure of goals due to emissions reductions from set forth in the Executive Order. the RIA to fully account for the visibility other CAA programs. Furthermore, by Pursuant to the terms of Executive progress due to other CAA programs looking at only partial attainment of the Order 12866, it has been determined and advances in control technology is PM and O3 NAAQS and a modest that this rule is a ‘‘significant regulatory unknown. action’’ and EPA has submitted it to (relative to the proposed rule) Tier 2 The RIA, although highly caveated OMB for review. The drafts of rules program, the RIA understated the and illustrative, represents an submitted to OMB, the documents visibility improvements from these and improvement over the analysis prepared accompanying such drafts, written other CAA programs. Hence, if States for the proposed rule. Furthermore, the comments thereon, written responses by established reasonable progress goals RIA demonstrates significant visibility EPA, and identification of the changes equivalent to the amount of visibility progress in 121 counties with 147 Class made in response to OMB suggestions or improvement which could be achieved I areas in the continental U.S. These recommendations are available for by other CAA programs, the incremental improvements result from other CAA public inspection at EPA’s Air and control costs of the regional haze rule programs as well as those targeted at the Radiation Docket Information Center may be less than the costs estimated in illustrative progress goals. Despite (Docket No. A–95–38). the RIA, as noted below, for the first incomplete coverage of effects and The EPA has prepared and entered long-term strategy period. Under these pollutants, the monetized benefits of into the docket a Regulatory Impact conditions there could be costs strategies associated with illustrative Analysis (RIA) entitled Regulatory associated with the planning, analysis, nationally uniform goals are substantial, Impact Analysis for the Regional Haze and BART control elements of the rule. outweighing the control strategy costs Rule. This RIA assesses the costs, Incremental annualized costs for those under most conditions for the first long- economic impacts, and benefits for four elements are estimated to be $72 million term strategy period. However, higher illustrative progress goals, two sets of (1990 dollars). net benefits may result and the potential control strategies, two sets of However, if States all choose to for significant adverse impact may be assumptions for estimating benefits, and establish the same illustrative progress mitigated if States exercise the systems of national uniform versus goal, the RIA estimates incremental discretion to establish reasonable regionally varying progress goals. The control costs ranging from $1 to $4 progress goals and emission RIA is a caveated and illustrative billion with associated benefits ranging management strategies. The flexibility assessment of the potential from $1 billion to $19 billion. But, for State discretion is, of course, exactly consequences of the regional haze rule visibility is not the only monetized what the regional haze rule provides. in 2015, a year near the end of the first effects category. Many of the benefits long-term progress period, 2018. As a which could be monetized are B. Regulatory Flexibility Act result of comments from the public as associated with improvements to human The EPA has determined that it is not well as changes initiated by EPA staff, health and other welfare effects. This is necessary to prepare a regulatory the RIA has a broader scope, improved because the emission control strategies flexibility analysis in connection with data, and more realistic modeling than targeted at improving visibility in Class this final rule. The EPA has also the analysis issued with the proposed I areas also generate air quality determined that this rule will not have rule. improvements in many other parts of a significant impact on a substantial Despite these improvements, the RIA the country. However, the estimated number of small entities because the is not a precise reflection of the actual visibility benefits which are monetized rule does not establish requirements costs, economic impacts, and benefits are substantial, ranging, for example, applicable to small entities. associated with the progress goals and from 86 to 111 percent of control costs The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 emission management strategies for the 1 deciview improvement in 15 U.S.C. §§ 601 et seq.) (RFA), as amended developed as a result of the final years illustrative progress goal and from by the Small Business Regulatory regional haze rule. This is due to the 32 to 52 percent for the 10 percent Enforcement Fairness Act (Pub. L.

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35761

No.104–121) ( SBREFA), provides that small-entity outreach activities on a collecting, validating, and verifying whenever an agency is required to voluntary basis. The EPA also has information, processing and publish a general notice of proposed issued guidance, entitled ‘‘Guidance on maintaining information, and disclosing rulemaking, it must prepare and make Mitigation of Impact to Small Business and providing information; adjust the available an initial regulatory flexibility While Implementing Air Quality existing ways to comply with any analysis, unless it certifies that the Standards and Regulations,’’ which can previously applicable instructions and proposed rule, if promulgated, will not be found on the internet at: http:// requirements; train personnel to be able have ‘‘a significant economic impact on ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov/implement/ to respond to a collection of a substantial number of small entities.’’ actions.htmιOther. This guidance information; search data sources; 5 U.S.C. § 605(b). Courts have outlines potential implementation complete and review the collection of interpreted the RFA to require a strategies that would mitigate impacts information; and transmit or otherwise regulatory flexibility analysis only when on small sources and encourages States disclose the information. small entities will be subject to the to make use of these strategies wherever An agency may not conduct or requirements of the rule. See Motor and possible and appropriate. The EPA did sponsor, and a person is not required to Equip. Mfrs. Ass’n v. Nichols, 142 F.3d receive comments regarding the impact respond to a collection of information 449 (D.C. Cir. 1998); United Distribution on the regional haze rule on small unless it displays a currently valid OMB Cos. v. FERC, 88 F.3d 1105, 1170 (D.C. entities. These comments are addressed control number. The OMB control Cir. 1996); Mid-Tex Elec. Co-op, Inc. v. in the Response to Comments numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed FERC, 773 F.2d 327, 342 (D.C. Cir. 1985) document. in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter (agency’s certification need only 15. C. Paperwork Reduction Act—Impact on consider the rule’s impact on entities Reporting Requirements D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act subject to the rule). As stated in the proposal, the regional The information collection Title II of the Unfunded Mandates haze rule will not establish requirements in this rule relating to Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) requirements applicable to small State requirements for the protection of (UMRA), establishes requirements for entities. The rule applies to States, not visibility in Class I national parks and Federal agencies to assess the effects of to small entities. The rule requires wilderness areas were submitted to their regulatory actions on State, local, States to develop, adopt, and submit SIP OMB for review and approval under the and tribal governments and the private revisions that will ensure reasonable Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, progress toward the national visibility 3501, et seq. An Information Collection 2 U.S.C. 1532, EPA generally must goal, and would generally leave to the Request document was prepared by EPA prepare a written statement, including a States the task of determining how to (ICR No. 1813.02) and a copy may be cost-benefit analysis, for any proposed obtain those reductions, including obtained from Sandy Farmer, by mail at or final rule that ‘‘includes any Federal which entities to regulate. In developing OPPE Regulatory Information Division, mandate that may result in the emission control measures, section U.S. EPA (2137) 401 M Street, S.W.; expenditure by State, local, and tribal 169A of the CAA requires States to Washington, DC 20460, by email at governments, in the aggregate, or by the address BART for a select list of major [email protected], or by private sector, of $100,000,000 or more stationary sources defined by section calling (202) 260–2740. A copy may also ** * in any one year.’’ A ‘‘Federal 169A(g)(7) of the CAA. As noted in the be downloaded off the internet at http:/ mandate’’ is defined under section proposal, however, the State’s /www.epa.gov/icr. The information 421(6), 2 U.S.C. 658(6), to include a determination of BART for regional haze requirements are not effective until ‘‘Federal intergovernmental mandate’’ involves some State discretion in OMB approves them. and a ‘‘Federal private sector mandate.’’ considering a number of factors set forth This collection of information has an A ‘‘Federal intergovernmental in section 169A(g)(2), including the estimated reporting burden, for the fifty mandate,’’ in turn, is defined to include costs of compliance. Further, the final States and District of Columbia, of a regulation that ‘‘would impose an rule allows States to adopt alternative approximately 22,000 to 47,000 hours enforceable duty upon State, local, or measures in lieu of requiring the for a 3-year period between mid-1999 tribal governments,’’ section installation and operation of BART at and mid-2002. The Agency expects the 421(5)(A)(i), 2 U.S.C. 658(5)(A)(i), these major stationary sources. As a Federal burden will be approximately except for, among other things, a duty result, the potential consequences of 1900 to 4000 hours for the 3-year that is ‘‘a condition of Federal today’s final rule at specific sources are period. The Agency anticipates States assistance,’’ section 421(5)(A)(i)(I). A speculative. Any requirements for costs of about $980,000 to $2,064,000 ‘‘Federal private sector mandate’’ emission control measures, including for the 3-year period. The Agency includes a regulation that ‘‘would any requirements for BART, will be estimates the annual Federal costs to be impose an enforceable duty upon the established by State rulemakings. The approximately $83,000 to $175,000 for private sector,’’ with certain exceptions, States will accordingly exercise the 3-year period. These estimates section 421(7)(A), 2 U.S.C. 658(7)(A). substantial intervening discretion in include time for reviewing requirements Before promulgating an EPA rule for implementing the final rule. and instructions, evaluating data which a written statement is needed For the final rule, EPA is confirming sources, gathering and maintaining data, under section 202 of the UMRA, section its initial certification that the rule and completing and reviewing the 205, 2 U.S.C. 1535, of the UMRA would not have a significant impact on collection of information. generally requires EPA to identify and a substantial number of small entities. Burden means the total time, effort, or consider a reasonable number of The EPA notes, however, that the financial resources expended by persons regulatory alternatives and adopt the Agency did conduct a more general to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose least costly, most cost effective, or least analysis of the potential impact on small or provide information to or for a burdensome alternative that achieves entities of possible State Federal agency. This includes the time the objectives of the rule. implementation strategies. This analysis needed to review instructions; develop, The RIA prepared by EPA and placed is documented in the RIA. In addition, acquire, install, and utilize technology in the docket for this rulemaking is as noted in the proposal, EPA undertook and systems for the purposes of consistent with the requirements of

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 35762 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations section 202 of the UMRA. Furthermore, applicability of the UMRA influence the regulation. The regional EPA is not directly establishing any requirements. haze rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 regulatory requirements that may because it does not establish an E. Environmental Justice—Executive significantly or uniquely affect small environmental standard intended to Order 12898 governments, including tribal mitigate health or safety risks. governments. Thus, EPA is not obligated Executive Order 12898 requires that to develop under section 203 of the each Federal agency make achieving H. Enhancing the Intergovernmental UMRA a small government agency plan. environmental justice part of its mission Partnership—Executive Order 12875 Further, as described in the proposal, by identifying and addressing, as Under Executive Order 12875, EPA EPA carried out consultations with the appropriate, disproportionately high may not issue a regulation that is not governmental entities affected by this and adverse human health or required by statute and that creates a rule in a manner consistent with the environmental effects of its programs, mandate upon a State, local or tribal intergovernmental consultation policies, and activities on minorities government, unless the Federal provisions of section 204 of the UMRA. and low-income populations. The government provides the funds The EPA also believes that because requirements of Executive Order 12898 necessary to pay the direct compliance the rule provides States with substantial have been addressed to the extent costs incurred by those governments, or flexibility, the proposed rule meets the practicable in the RIA cited above, EPA consults with those governments. If UMRA requirement in section 205 to particularly in chapters 2 and 9 of the EPA complies by consulting, Executive select the least costly and burdensome RIA. Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to alternative in light of the statutory F. Congressional Review Act the OMB a description of the extent of mandate to issue regulations that make EPA’s prior consultation with reasonable progress toward the national The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small representatives of affected State, local visibility protection goal. The rule and tribal governments, the nature of provides States with the flexibility to Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides their concerns, copies of any written establish reasonable progress goals and communications from the governments, BART based on certain criteria, one of that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must and a statement supporting the need to which is the costs of compliance. The issue the regulation. In addition, rule also provides States with the submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to flexibility to adopt alternatives, such as develop an effective process permitting an emissions trading program, in lieu of Congress and to the Comptroller General of the U.S. The EPA will submit a report elected officials and other requiring BART. Finally, the rule representatives of State, local and tribal provides the States with the flexibility containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. governments ‘‘to provide meaningful to develop long-term strategies. The and timely input in the development of regional haze rule, therefore, inherently House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the U.S. prior to regulatory proposals containing provides for adoption of the least costly, significant unfunded mandates.’’ most cost effective, or least burdensome publication of the rule in the Federal Today’s final rule does not create a alternative that achieves the objective of Register. A ‘‘major rule’’ cannot take mandate on State, local or tribal the rule. effect until 60 days after it is published The EPA is not reaching a final in the Federal Register. This action is a governments. As explained in the conclusion as to the applicability of the ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. discussion of UMRA (unit VII.D), this requirements of UMRA to this section 804(2). This rule will be rule does not impose an enforceable rulemaking action. It is questionable effective August 30, 1999. duty on these entities. Accordingly, the whether a requirement to submit a SIP requirements of section 1(a) of G. Protection of Children From Executive Order 12875 do not apply to revision constitutes a Federal mandate. Environmental Health Risks and Safety The obligation for a state to revise its this rule. Risks—Executive Order 13045 SIP that arises out of sections 110(a), The EPA notes, however that 169A and 169B of the CAA is not legally Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of considerable consultation has taken enforceable by a court of law and, at Children from Environmental Health place with State, local and tribal most, is a condition for continued Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, government representatives in receipt of highway funds. Therefore, it April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: developing the final regional haze rule. is possible to view an action requiring (1) is determined to be ‘‘economically In September 1995, EPA formed a such a submittal as not creating any significant’’ as defined under E.O. subcommittee under the authority of the enforceable duty within the meaning of 12866, and (2) concerns an Federal Advisory Committee Act to section 421(5)(A)(i) of UMRA (2 U.S.C. environmental health or safety risk that advise the Agency on various issues 658(5)(A)(i)). Even if it did, the duty EPA has reason to believe may have a related to implementation of the revised could be viewed as falling within the disproportionate effect on children. If ozone and particulate matter NAAQS exception for a condition of Federal the regulatory action meets both criteria, and the regional haze program. This assistance under section 421(5)(A)(i)(I) the Agency must evaluate the group met a total of 13 times between of UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(5)(A)(i)(I)). As environmental health or safety effects of September 1995 and completion of its noted earlier, however, notwithstanding the planned rule on children, and duties in December 1997. Several State these issues, the discussion in section 2 explain why the planned regulation is and local governmental representatives and the analysis in Chapter 8 of the RIA preferable to other potentially effective were on this subcommittee. The EPA constitutes the UMRA statement that and reasonably feasible alternatives received and reviewed comments from would be required by UMRA if its considered by the Agency. The EPA over 40 States and 1 tribal government statutory provisions applied, and EPA interprets E.O. 13045 as applying only on the July 1997 proposal. Tribes in the has consulted with governmental to those regulatory actions that are west have been active in discussion on entities as would be required by UMRA. based on health or safety risks, such that regional haze, both as members of the Consequently, it is not necessary for the analysis required under section 5– GCVTC, and in the follow-on body, the EPA to reach a conclusion as to the 501 of the Order has the potential to WRAP. In addition, EPA has held

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35763 numerous meetings with State and local consider the use of any voluntary (2) The provisions of this subpart representatives. consensus standards. pertaining to implementation plans to address reasonably attributable visibility I. Executive Order 13084: Consultation List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51 impairment are applicable to the and Coordination With Indian Tribal Environmental protection, following States: Governments Administrative practice and procedure, Under Executive Order 13084, EPA Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, may not issue a regulation that is not Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, required by statute, that significantly or Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, uniquely affects the communities of compounds. Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Indian tribal governments, and that Dated: April 22, 1999. Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North imposes substantial direct compliance Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carol M. Browner, costs on those communities, unless the Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Federal government provides the funds Administrator. Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Virgin Islands, necessary to pay the direct compliance For the reasons set forth in the Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming. costs incurred by the tribal preamble, part 51 of chapter I of title 40 (3) The provisions of this subpart governments, or EPA consults with of the Code of Federal Regulations is pertaining to implementation plans to those governments. If EPA complies by amended as follows: address regional haze visibility consulting, Executive Order 13084 impairment are applicable to all States requires EPA to provide to OMB, in a PART 51ÐREQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND as defined in section 302(d) of the Clean separately identified section of the Air Act (CAA) except Guam, Puerto preamble to the rule, a description of SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS Rico, American Samoa, and the the extent of EPA’s prior consultation Northern Mariana Islands. with representatives of affected tribal 1. The authority citation for Part 51 is BILLING CODE 6560±50±U governments, a summary of the nature revised to read as follows: of their concerns, and a statement 3. Section 51.301 is amended by supporting the need to issue the Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7410, 7414, 7421, removing the paragraph designations, 7470–7479, 7491, 7492, 7601, and 7602. regulation. In addition, Executive Order placing the defined terms in 13084 requires EPA to develop an Subpart PÐProtection of Visibility alphabetical order, revising the effective process permitting elected definitions of Federal Land Manager, officials and other representatives of 2. Section 51.300 is amended by Major stationary source, Natural Indian tribal governments ‘‘to provide revising paragraphs (a), (b)(1) conditions, and Visibility impairment, meaningful and timely input in the introductory text, and (b)(2), and by and adding in alphabetical order development of regulatory policies on adding paragraph (b)(3) to read as definitions of Reasonably attributable matters that significantly or uniquely follows: visibility impairment, Regional haze, affect their communities.’’ § 51.300 Purpose and applicability. Deciview, State, Most impaired days, Because the rule does not establish a Least impaired days, Implementation (a) Purpose. The primary purposes of visibility progress goal or emission plan, Indian tribe or tribe, BART-eligible this subpart are to require States to management strategy, the rule does not source, and Geographic enhancement develop programs to assure reasonable impose control or other direct for the purpose of § 51.308 to read as progress toward meeting the national compliance requirements. Hence, the follows: rule does not create a mandate on tribal goal of preventing any future, and governments. Accordingly, the remedying any existing, impairment of § 51.301 Definitions. requirements of 3(b) of Executive Order visibility in mandatory Class I Federal * * * * * 13084 do not apply to this rule. areas which impairment results from BART-eligible source means an manmade air pollution; and to establish existing stationary facility as defined in J. National Technology Transfer and necessary additional procedures for new this section. Advancement Act source permit applicants, States and * * * * * Section 12(d) of the National Federal Land Managers to use in conducting the visibility impact Deciview means a measurement of Technology Transfer and Advancement visibility impairment. A deciview is a Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Pub. L. No. analysis required for new sources under § 51.166. This subpart sets forth haze index derived from calculated light 104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 extinction, such that uniform changes in note) directs EPA to use voluntary requirements addressing visibility impairment in its two principal forms: haziness correspond to uniform consensus standards in its regulatory incremental changes in perception activities unless to do so would be ‘‘reasonably attributable’’ impairment (i.e., impairment attributable to a single across the entire range of conditions, inconsistent with applicable law or from pristine to highly impaired. The otherwise impractical. Voluntary source/small group of sources) and regional haze (i.e., widespread haze deciview haze index is calculated based consensus standards are technical on the following equation (for the standards (e.g., materials specifications, from a multitude of sources which impairs visibility in every direction over purposes of calculating deciview, the test methods, sampling procedures, and atmospheric light extinction coefficient business practices) that are developed or a large area). (b) Applicability. (1) General must be calculated from aerosol adopted by voluntary consensus measurements): standards bodies. The NTTAA directs Applicability. The provisions of this EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, subpart pertaining to implementation Deciview haze index=10 lne (bext/10 ¥1 explanations when the Agency decides plan requirements for assuring Mm ). not to use available and applicable reasonable progress in preventing any Where bext=the atmospheric light voluntary consensus standards. future and remedying any existing extinction coefficient, expressed in This action does not involve technical visibility impairment are applicable to: inverse megameters (Mm¥1). standards. Therefore, EPA did not * * * * * * * * * *

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 35764 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

Federal Land Manager means the but are not limited to, major and minor section, at least 6 months prior to plan Secretary of the department with stationary sources, mobile sources, and submission or revision: authority over the Federal Class I area area sources. * * * * * (or the Secretary’s designee) or, with * * * * * (iv) The plan must require that each respect to Roosevelt-Campobello State means ‘‘State’’ as defined in existing stationary facility required to International Park, the Chairman of the section 302(d) of the CAA. install and operate BART do so as Roosevelt-Campobello International * * * * * expeditiously as practicable but in no Park Commission. Visibility impairment means any case later than five years after plan * * * * * humanly perceptible change in visibility approval. Geographic enhancement for the (light extinction, visual range, contrast, * * * * * purpose of § 51.308 means a method, coloration) from that which would have 5. Section 51.305 is amended by procedure, or process to allow a broad existed under natural conditions. revising the section heading and paragraph (a) to read as follows: regional strategy, such as an emissions * * * * * trading program designed to achieve BILLING CODE 6560±50±M § 51.305 Monitoring for reasonably greater reasonable progress than BART attributable visibility impairment. for regional haze, to accommodate 4. Section 51.302 is amended by (a) For the purposes of addressing BART for reasonably attributable revising the section heading, paragraphs reasonably attributable visibility impairment. (a), (c) introductory text, (c)(1), (c)(2) impairment, each State containing a Implementation plan means, for the introductory text, (c)(4) introductory mandatory Class I Federal area must purposes of this part, any State text, and (c)(4)(iv) to read as follows: include in the plan a strategy for Implementation Plan, Federal evaluating reasonably attributable Implementation Plan, or Tribal § 51.302 Implementation control strategies for reasonably attributable visibility visibility impairment in any mandatory Implementation Plan. impairment. Class I Federal area by visual * * * * * (a) Plan Revision Procedures. (1) Each observation or other appropriate Indian tribe or tribe means any Indian State identified in § 51.300(b)(2) must monitoring techniques. Such strategy tribe, band, nation, or other organized have submitted, not later than must take into account current and group or community, including any September 2, 1981, an implementation anticipated visibility monitoring Alaska Native village, which is federally plan meeting the requirements of this research, the availability of appropriate recognized as eligible for the special subpart pertaining to reasonably monitoring techniques, and such programs and services provided by the attributable visibility impairment. guidance as is provided by the Agency. United States to Indians because of their (2)(i) The State, prior to adoption of * * * * * status as Indians. any implementation plan to address 6. Section 51.306 is amended by * * * * * reasonably attributable visibility revising the section heading, paragraph Least impaired days means the impairment required by this subpart, (a)(1), paragraph (c) introductory text, average visibility impairment (measured must conduct one or more public and paragraph (d) to read as follows: in deciviews) for the twenty percent of hearings on such plan in accordance monitored days in a calendar year with § 51.306 Long-term strategy requirements with § 51.102. for reasonably attributable visibility the lowest amount of visibility (ii) In addition to the requirements in impairment. impairment. § 51.102, the State must provide written (a)(1) For the purposes of addressing Major stationary source and major notification of such hearings to each reasonably attributable visibility modification mean major stationary affected Federal Land Manager, and impairment, each plan must include a source and major modification, other affected States, and must state long-term (10–15 years) strategy for respectively, as defined in § 51.166. where the public can inspect a summary making reasonable progress toward the * * * * * prepared by the Federal Land Managers national goal specified in § 51.300(a). Most impaired days means the of their conclusions and This strategy must cover any existing average visibility impairment (measured recommendations, if any, on the impairment the Federal Land Manager in deciviews) for the twenty percent of proposed plan revision. certifies to the State at least 6 months monitored days in a calendar year with (3) Submission of plans as required by prior to plan submission, and any the highest amount of visibility this subpart must be conducted in integral vista of which the Federal Land impairment. accordance with the procedures in Manager notifies the State at least 6 Natural conditions includes naturally § 51.103. months prior to plan submission. occurring phenomena that reduce * * * * * * * * * * visibility as measured in terms of light (c) General plan requirements for (c) The plan must provide for periodic extinction, visual range, contrast, or reasonably attributable visibility review and revision, as appropriate, of coloration. impairment. (1) The affected Federal the long-term strategy for addressing * * * * * Land Manager may certify to the State, reasonably attributable visibility Reasonably attributable visibility at any time, that there exists reasonably impairment. The plan must provide for impairment means visibility impairment attributable impairment of visibility in such periodic review and revision not that is caused by the emission of air any mandatory Class I Federal area. less frequently than every 3 years until pollutants from one, or a small number (2) The plan must contain the the date of submission of the State’s first of sources. following to address reasonably plan addressing regional haze visibility * * * * * attributable impairment: impairment in accordance with Regional haze means visibility * * * * * § 51.308(b) and (c). On or before this impairment that is caused by the (4) For any existing reasonably date, the State must revise its plan to emission of air pollutants from attributable visibility impairment the provide for review and revision of a numerous sources located over a wide Federal Land Manager certifies to the coordinated long-term strategy for geographic area. Such sources include, State under paragraph (c)(1) of this addressing reasonably attributable and

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35765 regional haze visibility impairment, and § 51.166) of a permit application of a addressing the core requirements for the State must submit the first such source that may affect visibility the regional haze in paragraph (d) of this coordinated long-term strategy. Future State must notify all affected Federal section and the requirements for BART coordinated long-term strategies must be Land Managers within 30 days of such in paragraph (e) of this section. If a State submitted consistent with the schedule advance notification, and opts to do this, it must meet the for periodic progress reports set forth in * * * * * following requirements: § 51.308(g). Until the State revises its (c) Review of any major stationary (1) The State must submit an plan to meet this requirement, the State source or major modification under implementation plan by the earliest date must continue to comply with existing paragraph (b) of this section, shall be by which an implementation plan requirements for plan review and conducted in accordance with would be due for any area of the State revision, and with all emission paragraph (a) of this section, and under paragraph (b) of this section. This management requirements in the plan to § 51.166(o), (p)(1) through (2), and (q). implementation plan must contain the address reasonably attributable In conducting such reviews the State following: impairment. This requirement does not must ensure that the source’s emissions (i) A demonstration of ongoing affect any preexisting deadlines for State will be consistent with making participation in a regional planning submittal of a long-term strategy review reasonable progress toward the national process to address regional haze, and an (or element thereof) between August 30, visibility goal referred to in § 51.300(a). agreement by the State to continue 1999, and the date required for The State may take into account the participating with one or more other submission of the State’s first regional costs of compliance, the time necessary States in such a process for the haze plan. In addition, the plan must for compliance, the energy and nonair development of this and future provide for review of the long-term quality environmental impacts of implementation plan revisions; strategy as it applies to reasonably compliance, and the useful life of the (ii) A showing, based on available attributable impairment, and revision as source. inventory, monitoring, or modeling appropriate, within 3 years of State * * * * * information, that emissions from within receipt of any certification of reasonably 8. A new § 51.308 is added to subpart the State contribute to visibility attributable impairment from a Federal P to read as follows: impairment in a mandatory Class I Land Manager. The review process must Federal Area outside the State, or that § 51.308 Regional haze program include consultation with the requirements. emissions from another State contribute appropriate Federal Land Managers, and to visibility impairment in any (a) What is the purpose of this the State must provide a report to the mandatory Class I Federal area within section? This section establishes public and the Administrator on the State. requirements for implementation plans, progress toward the national goal. This (iii) A description of the regional report must include an assessment of: plan revisions, and periodic progress reviews to address regional haze. planning process, including a list of the * * * * * (b) When are the first implementation States which have agreed to work (d) The long-term strategy must plans due under the regional haze together to address regional haze in a provide for review of the impacts from program? Except as provided in region (i.e., the regional planning any new major stationary source or paragraph (c) of this section and group), the goals, objectives, major modifications on visibility in any § 51.309(c), each State identified in management, and decisionmaking mandatory Class I Federal area. This § 51.300(b)(3) must submit an structure of the regional planning group, review of major stationary sources or implementation plan for regional haze deadlines for completing significant major modifications must be in meeting the requirements of paragraphs technical analyses and developing accordance with § 51.307, § 51.166, (d) and (e) of this section by the emission management strategies, and a § 51.160, and any other binding following dates: schedule for State review and adoption guidance provided by the Agency (1) For any area designated as of regulations implementing the insofar as these provisions pertain to attainment or unclassifiable for the recommendations of the regional group; protection of visibility in any mandatory national ambient air quality standard (iv) A commitment by the State to Class I Federal areas. (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter submit an implementation plan revision * * * * * (PM2.5), the State must submit a regional addressing the requirements in 7. Section 51.307 is amended by haze implementation plan to EPA paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section by revising paragraph (a) introductory text, within 12 months after the date of the date specified in paragraph (c)(2) of (a)(2) and (c) to read as follows: designation. this section. In addition, the State must (2) For any area designated as commit to develop its plan revision in § 51.307 New source review. nonattainment for the PM2.5 NAAQS, coordination with the other States (a) For purposes of new source review the State must submit a regional haze participating in the regional planning of any new major stationary source or implementation plan to EPA at the same process, and to fully address the major modification that would be time that the State’s plan for recommendations of the regional constructed in an area that is designated implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS planning group. attainment or unclassified under section must be submitted under section 172 of (v) A list of all BART-eligible sources 107(d)(1)(D) or (E) of the CAA, the State the CAA, that is, within 3 years after the within the State. plan must, in any review under § 51.166 area is designated as nonattainment, but (2) The State must submit an with respect to visibility protection and not later than December 31, 2008. implementation plan revision analyses, provide for: (c) Options for regional planning. If at addressing the requirements in * * * * * the time the SIP for regional haze would paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section by (2) Where the State requires or otherwise be due, a State is working the latest date an area within the receives advance notification (e.g. early with other States to develop a planning region would be required to consultation with the source prior to coordinated approach to regional haze submit an implementation plan under submission of the application or by participating in a regional planning paragraph (b) of this section, but in any notification of intent to monitor under process, the State may choose to defer event, no later than December 31, 2008.

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 35766 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

(d) What are the core requirements for that the rate of progress for the the average of these annual values. For the implementation plan for regional implementation plan to attain natural mandatory Class I Federal areas without haze? The State must address regional conditions by 2064 is not reasonable; onsite monitoring data for 2000–2004, haze in each mandatory Class I Federal and that the progress goal adopted by the State must establish baseline values area located within the State and in the State is reasonable. The State must using the most representative available each mandatory Class I Federal area provide to the public for review as part monitoring data for 2000–2004, in located outside the State which may be of its implementation plan an consultation with the Administrator or affected by emissions from within the assessment of the number of years it his or her designee; State. To meet the core requirements for would take to attain natural conditions (ii) For an implementation plan that is regional haze for these areas, the State if visibility improvement continues at submitted by 2003, the period for must submit an implementation plan the rate of progress selected by the State establishing baseline visibility containing the following plan elements as reasonable. conditions for the period of the first and supporting documentation for all (iii) In determining whether the long-term strategy is the most recent 5- required analyses: State’s goal for visibility improvement year period for which visibility (1) Reasonable progress goals. For provides for reasonable progress monitoring data are available for the each mandatory Class I Federal area towards natural visibility conditions, mandatory Class I Federal areas located within the State, the State must the Administrator will evaluate the addressed by the plan. For mandatory establish goals (expressed in deciviews) demonstrations developed by the State Class I Federal areas without onsite that provide for reasonable progress pursuant to paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and monitoring data, the State must towards achieving natural visibility (d)(1)(ii) of this section. establish baseline values using the most conditions. The reasonable progress (iv) In developing each reasonable representative available monitoring goals must provide for an improvement progress goal, the State must consult data, in consultation with the in visibility for the most impaired days with those States which may reasonably Administrator or his or her designee; over the period of the implementation be anticipated to cause or contribute to (iii) Natural visibility conditions for plan and ensure no degradation in visibility impairment in the mandatory the most impaired and least impaired visibility for the least impaired days Class I Federal area. In any situation in days. Natural visibility conditions must over the same period. which the State cannot agree with be calculated by estimating the degree of (i) In establishing a reasonable another such State or group of States visibility impairment existing under progress goal for any mandatory Class I that a goal provides for reasonable natural conditions for the most impaired Federal area within the State, the State progress, the State must describe in its and least impaired days, based on must: submittal the actions taken to resolve available monitoring information and (A) Consider the costs of compliance, the disagreement. In reviewing the appropriate data analysis techniques; the time necessary for compliance, the State’s implementation plan submittal, and energy and non-air quality the Administrator will take this (iv)(A) For the first implementation environmental impacts of compliance, information into account in determining plan addressing the requirements of and the remaining useful life of any whether the State’s goal for visibility paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, potentially affected sources, and include improvement provides for reasonable the number of deciviews by which a demonstration showing how these progress towards natural visibility baseline conditions exceed natural factors were taken into consideration in conditions. visibility conditions for the most selecting the goal. (v) The reasonable progress goals impaired and least impaired days; or (B) Analyze and determine the rate of established by the State are not directly (B) For all future implementation plan progress needed to attain natural enforceable but will be considered by revisions, the number of deciviews by visibility conditions by the year 2064. the Administrator in evaluating the which current conditions, as calculated To calculate this rate of progress, the adequacy of the measures in the under paragraph (f)(1) of this section, State must compare baseline visibility implementation plan to achieve the exceed natural visibility conditions for conditions to natural visibility progress goal adopted by the State. the most impaired and least impaired conditions in the mandatory Federal (vi) The State may not adopt a days. Class I area and determine the uniform reasonable progress goal that represents (3) Long-term strategy for regional rate of visibility improvement less visibility improvement than is haze. Each State listed in § 51.300(b)(3) (measured in deciviews) that would expected to result from implementation must submit a long-term strategy that need to be maintained during each of other requirements of the CAA during addresses regional haze visibility implementation period in order to attain the applicable planning period. impairment for each mandatory Class I natural visibility conditions by 2064. In (2) Calculations of baseline and Federal area within the State and for establishing the reasonable progress natural visibility conditions. For each each mandatory Class I Federal area goal, the State must consider the mandatory Class I Federal area located located outside the State which may be uniform rate of improvement in within the State, the State must affected by emissions from the State. visibility and the emission reduction determine the following visibility The long-term strategy must include measures needed to achieve it for the conditions (expressed in deciviews): enforceable emissions limitations, period covered by the implementation (i) Baseline visibility conditions for compliance schedules, and other plan. the most impaired and least impaired measures as necessary to achieve the (ii) For the period of the days. The period for establishing reasonable progress goals established by implementation plan, if the State baseline visibility conditions is 2000 to States having mandatory Class I Federal establishes a reasonable progress goal 2004. Baseline visibility conditions areas. In establishing its long-term that provides for a slower rate of must be calculated, using available strategy for regional haze, the State must improvement in visibility than the rate monitoring data, by establishing the meet the following requirements: that would be needed to attain natural average degree of visibility impairment (i) Where the State has emissions that conditions by 2064, the State must for the most and least impaired days for are reasonably anticipated to contribute demonstrate, based on the factors in each calendar year from 2000 to 2004. to visibility impairment in any paragraph (d)(1)(i)(A) of this section, The baseline visibility conditions are mandatory Class I Federal area located

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35767 in another State or States, the State must exist within the State for these (vi) Other elements, including consult with the other State(s) in order purposes; reporting, recordkeeping, and other to develop coordinated emission (F) Enforceability of emissions measures, necessary to assess and report management strategies. The State must limitations and control measures; and on visibility. consult with any other State having (G) The anticipated net effect on (e) Best Available Retrofit Technology emissions that are reasonably visibility due to projected changes in (BART) requirements for regional haze anticipated to contribute to visibility point, area, and mobile source visibility impairment. The State must impairment in any mandatory Class I emissions over the period addressed by submit an implementation plan Federal area within the State. the long-term strategy. containing emission limitations (ii) Where other States cause or (4) Monitoring strategy and other representing BART and schedules for contribute to impairment in a implementation plan requirements. The compliance with BART for each BART- mandatory Class I Federal area, the State State must submit with the eligible source that may reasonably be must demonstrate that it has included in implementation plan a monitoring anticipated to cause or contribute to any its implementation plan all measures strategy for measuring, characterizing, impairment of visibility in any necessary to obtain its share of the and reporting of regional haze visibility mandatory Class I Federal area, unless emission reductions needed to meet the impairment that is representative of all the State demonstrates that an emissions progress goal for the area. If the State mandatory Class I Federal areas within trading program or other alternative will has participated in a regional planning the State. This monitoring strategy must achieve greater reasonable progress process, the State must ensure it has be coordinated with the monitoring toward natural visibility conditions. included all measures needed to achieve strategy required in § 51.305 for (1) To address the requirements for its apportionment of emission reduction reasonably attributable visibility BART, the State must submit an obligations agreed upon through that impairment. Compliance with this implementation plan containing the following plan elements and include process. requirement may be met through documentation for all required analyses: (iii) The State must document the participation in the Interagency (i) A list of all BART-eligible sources technical basis, including modeling, Monitoring of Protected Visual within the State. monitoring and emissions information, Environments network. The (ii) A determination of BART for each on which the State is relying to implementation plan must also provide BART-eligible source in the State that determine its apportionment of for the following: emits any air pollutant which may emission reduction obligations (i) The establishment of any reasonably be anticipated to cause or necessary for achieving reasonable additional monitoring sites or contribute to any impairment of progress in each mandatory Class I equipment needed to assess whether visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area it affects. The State may reasonable progress goals to address Federal area. All such sources are meet this requirement by relying on regional haze for all mandatory Class I subject to BART. This determination technical analyses developed by the Federal areas within the State are being must be based on the following regional planning organization and achieved. analyses: approved by all State participants. The (ii) Procedures by which monitoring (A) An analysis of the best system of State must identify the baseline data and other information are used in continuous emission control technology emissions inventory on which its determining the contribution of available and associated emission strategies are based. The baseline emissions from within the State to reductions achievable for each BART- emissions inventory year is presumed to regional haze visibility impairment at eligible source within the State subject be the most recent year of the mandatory Class I Federal areas both to BART. In this analysis, the State must consolidate periodic emissions within and outside the State. take into consideration the technology inventory. (iii) For a State with no mandatory available, the costs of compliance, the (iv) The State must identify all Class I Federal areas, procedures by energy and nonair quality anthropogenic sources of visibility which monitoring data and other environmental impacts of compliance, impairment considered by the State in information are used in determining the any pollution control equipment in use developing its long-term strategy. The contribution of emissions from within at the source, and the remaining useful State should consider major and minor the State to regional haze visibility life of the source; and stationary sources, mobile sources, and impairment at mandatory Class I (B) An analysis of the degree of area sources. Federal areas in other States. visibility improvement that would be (v) The State must consider, at a (iv) The implementation plan must achieved in each mandatory Class I minimum, the following factors in provide for the reporting of all visibility Federal area as a result of the emission developing its long-term strategy: monitoring data to the Administrator at reductions achievable from all sources (A) Emission reductions due to least annually for each mandatory Class subject to BART located within the ongoing air pollution control programs, I Federal area in the State. To the extent region that contributes to visibility including measures to address possible, the State should report impairment in the Class I area, based on reasonably attributable visibility visibility monitoring data electronically. the analysis conducted under paragraph impairment; (v) A statewide inventory of emissions (e)(1)(ii)(A) of this section. (B) Measures to mitigate the impacts of pollutants that are reasonably (iii) If the State determines in of construction activities; anticipated to cause or contribute to establishing BART that technological or (C) Emissions limitations and visibility impairment in any mandatory economic limitations on the schedules for compliance to achieve the Class I Federal area. The inventory must applicability of measurement reasonable progress goal; include emissions for a baseline year, methodology to a particular source (D) Source retirement and emissions for the most recent year for would make the imposition of an replacement schedules; which data are available, and estimates emission standard infeasible, it may (E) Smoke management techniques for of future projected emissions. The State instead prescribe a design, equipment, agricultural and forestry management must also include a commitment to work practice, or other operational purposes including plans as currently update the inventory periodically. standard, or combination thereof, to

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 35768 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations require the application of BART. Such sources subject to BART located within exemption will be subject to the standard, to the degree possible, is to set the region that contributes to visibility requirements of § 51.303 (a)(2) through forth the emission reduction to be impairment in the Class I area, based on (h). achieved by implementation of such the analysis conducted under paragraph (f) Requirements for comprehensive design, equipment, work practice or (e)(2)(i)(B) of this section. periodic revisions of implementation operation, and must provide for (ii) A demonstration that the plans for regional haze. Each State compliance by means which achieve emissions trading program or alternative identified in § 51.300(b)(3) must revise equivalent results. measure will apply, at a minimum, to and submit its regional haze (iv) A requirement that each source all BART-eligible sources in the State. implementation plan revision to EPA by subject to BART be required to install Those sources having a federally July 31, 2018 and every ten years and operate BART as expeditiously as enforceable emission limitation thereafter. In each plan revision, the practicable, but in no event later than 5 determined by the State and approved State must evaluate and reassess all of years after approval of the by EPA as meeting BART in accordance the elements required in paragraph (d) implementation plan revision. with § 51.302(c) or paragraph (e)(1) of of this section, taking into account (v) A requirement that each source this section do not need to meet the improvements in monitoring data subject to BART maintain the control requirements of the emissions trading collection and analysis techniques, equipment required by this subpart and program or alternative measure, but may control technologies, and other relevant establish procedures to ensure such choose to participate if they meet the factors. In evaluating and reassessing equipment is properly operated and requirements of the emissions trading these elements, the State must address maintained. program or alternative measure. the following: (2) A State may opt to implement an (iii) A requirement that all necessary (1) Current visibility conditions for emissions trading program or other emission reductions take place during the most impaired and least impaired alternative measure rather than to the period of the first long-term strategy days, and actual progress made towards require sources subject to BART to for regional haze. To meet this natural conditions during the previous install, operate, and maintain BART. To requirement, the State must provide a implementation period. The period for do so, the State must demonstrate that detailed description of the emissions calculating current visibility conditions this emissions trading program or other trading program or other alternative is the most recent five year period alternative measure will achieve greater measure, including schedules for preceding the required date of the reasonable progress than would be implementation, the emission implementation plan submittal for achieved through the installation and reductions required by the program, all which data are available. Current operation of BART. To make this necessary administrative and technical visibility conditions must be calculated demonstration, the State must submit an procedures for implementing the based on the annual average level of implementation plan containing the program, rules for accounting and visibility impairment for the most and following plan elements and include monitoring emissions, and procedures least impaired days for each of these documentation for all required analyses: for enforcement. five years. Current visibility conditions (i) A demonstration that the emissions (iv) A demonstration that the are the average of these annual values. trading program or other alternative emission reductions resulting from the (2) The effectiveness of the long-term measure will achieve greater reasonable emissions trading program or other strategy for achieving reasonable progress than would have resulted from alternative measure will be surplus to progress goals over the prior the installation and operation of BART those reductions resulting from implementation period(s); and at all sources subject to BART in the measures adopted to meet requirements (3) Affirmation of, or revision to, the State. This demonstration must be based of the CAA as of the baseline date of the reasonable progress goal in accordance on the following: SIP. with the procedures set forth in (A) A list of all BART-eligible sources (v) At the State’s option, a provision paragraph (d)(1) of this section. If the within the State. that the emissions trading program or State established a reasonable progress (B) An analysis of the best system of other alternative measure may include a goal for the prior period which provided continuous emission control technology geographic enhancement to the program a slower rate of progress than that available and associated emission to address the requirement under needed to attain natural conditions by reductions achievable for each source § 51.302(c) related to BART for the year 2064, the State must evaluate within the State subject to BART. In this reasonably attributable impairment from and determine the reasonableness, analysis, the State must take into the pollutants covered under the based on the factors in paragraph consideration the technology available, emissions trading program or other (d)(1)(i)(A) of this section, of additional the costs of compliance, the energy and alternative measure. measures that could be adopted to nonair quality environmental impacts of (3) After a State has met the achieve the degree of visibility compliance, any pollution control requirements for BART or implemented improvement projected by the analysis equipment in use at the source, and the emissions trading program or other contained in the first implementation remaining useful life of the source. The alternative measure that achieve more plan described in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B) best system of continuous emission reasonable progress than the installation of this section. control technology and the above factors and operation of BART, BART-eligible (g) Requirements for periodic reports may be determined on a source category sources will be subject to the describing progress towards the basis. The State may elect to consider requirements of paragraph (d) of this reasonable progress goals. Each State both source-specific and category-wide section in the same manner as other identified in § 51.300(b)(3) must submit information, as appropriate, in sources. a report to the Administrator every 5 conducting its analysis. (4) Any BART-eligible facility subject years evaluating progress towards the (C) An analysis of the degree of to the requirement under paragraph (e) reasonable progress goal for each visibility improvement that would be of this section to install, operate, and mandatory Class I Federal area located achieved in each mandatory Class I maintain BART may apply to the within the State and in each mandatory Federal area as a result of the emission Administrator for an exemption from Class I Federal area located outside the reductions achievable from all such that requirement. An application for an State which may be affected by

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35769 emissions from within the State. The modifications to the strategy as (2) The State must provide the Federal first progress report is due 5 years from necessary. Land Manager with an opportunity for submittal of the initial implementation (h) Determination of the adequacy of consultation, in person and at least 60 plan addressing paragraphs (d) and (e) existing implementation plan. At the days prior to holding any public hearing of this section. The progress reports same time the State is required to on an implementation plan (or plan must be in the form of implementation submit any 5-year progress report to revision) for regional haze required by plan revisions that comply with the EPA in accordance with paragraph (g) of this subpart. This consultation must procedural requirements of § 51.102 and this section, the State must also take one include the opportunity for the affected § 51.103. Periodic progress reports must of the following actions based upon the Federal Land Managers to discuss their: contain at a minimum the following information presented in the progress (i) Assessment of impairment of elements: report: visibility in any mandatory Class I (1) A description of the status of (1) If the State determines that the Federal area; and implementation of all measures existing implementation plan requires (ii) Recommendations on the included in the implementation plan for no further substantive revision at this development of the reasonable progress achieving reasonable progress goals for time in order to achieve established goal and on the development and mandatory Class I Federal areas both goals for visibility improvement and implementation of strategies to address within and outside the State. emissions reductions, the State must visibility impairment. (2) A summary of the emissions provide to the Administrator a negative (3) In developing any implementation reductions achieved throughout the declaration that further revision of the plan (or plan revision), the State must State through implementation of the existing implementation plan is not include a description of how it measures described in paragraph (g)(1) needed at this time. addressed any comments provided by of this section. (2) If the State determines that the the Federal Land Managers. (3) For each mandatory Class I Federal implementation plan is or may be area within the State, the State must inadequate to ensure reasonable (4) The plan (or plan revision) must assess the following visibility progress due to emissions from sources provide procedures for continuing conditions and changes, with values for in another State(s) which participated in consultation between the State and most impaired and least impaired days a regional planning process, the State Federal Land Manager on the expressed in terms of 5-year averages of must provide notification to the implementation of the visibility these annual values. Administrator and to the other State(s) protection program required by this (i) The current visibility conditions which participated in the regional subpart, including development and for the most impaired and least planning process with the States. The review of implementation plan revisions impaired days; State must also collaborate with the and 5-year progress reports, and on the (ii) The difference between current other State(s) through the regional implementation of other programs visibility conditions for the most planning process for the purpose of having the potential to contribute to impaired and least impaired days and developing additional strategies to impairment of visibility in mandatory baseline visibility conditions; address the plan’s deficiencies. Class I Federal areas. (iii) The change in visibility (3) Where the State determines that 9. A new § 51.309 is added to subpart impairment for the most impaired and the implementation plan is or may be P to read as follows: least impaired days over the past 5 inadequate to ensure reasonable years; § 51.309 Requirements related to the progress due to emissions from sources Grand Canyon Visibility Transport (4) An analysis tracking the change in another country, the State shall Commission. over the past 5 years in emissions of provide notification, along with pollutants contributing to visibility available information, to the (a) What is the purpose of this impairment from all sources and Administrator. section? This section establishes the activities within the State. Emissions (4) Where the State determines that requirements for the first regional haze changes should be identified by type of the implementation plan is or may be implementation plan to address regional source or activity. The analysis must be inadequate to ensure reasonable haze visibility impairment in the 16 based on the most recent updated progress due to emissions from sources Class I areas covered by the Grand emissions inventory, with estimates within the State, the State shall revise Canyon Visibility Transport projected forward as necessary and its implementation plan to address the Commission Report. For the years 2003 appropriate, to account for emissions plan’s deficiencies within one year. to 2018, certain States (defined in changes during the applicable 5-year (i) What are the requirements for State paragraph (b) of this section as period. and Federal Land Manager Transport Region States) may choose to (5) An assessment of any significant coordination? implement the Commission’s changes in anthropogenic emissions (1) By November 29, 1999, the State recommendations within the framework within or outside the State that have must identify in writing to the Federal of the national regional haze program occurred over the past 5 years that have Land Managers the title of the official to and applicable requirements of the Act limited or impeded progress in reducing which the Federal Land Manager of any by complying with the provisions of this pollutant emissions and improving mandatory Class I Federal area can section, as supplemented by an visibility. submit any recommendations on the approvable Annex to the Commission (6) An assessment of whether the implementation of this subpart Report as required by paragraph (f) of current implementation plan elements including, but not limited to: this section. If a transport region State and strategies are sufficient to enable (i) Identification of impairment of submits an implementation plan which the State, or other States with visibility in any mandatory Class I is approved by EPA as meeting the mandatory Federal Class I areas affected Federal area(s); and requirements of this section, it will be by emissions from the State, to meet all (ii) Identification of elements for deemed to comply with the established reasonable progress goals. inclusion in the visibility monitoring requirements for reasonable progress for (7) A review of the State’s visibility strategy required by § 51.305 and this the period from approval of the plan to monitoring strategy and any section. 2018.

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 35770 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

(b) Definitions. For the purposes of December 31, 2003. A Transport Region beginning, to impair the quality of air in this section: State that elects not to submit an the corridor and thereby lead to (1) 16 Class I areas means the implementation plan that complies with visibility degradation for the least- following mandatory Class I Federal the requirements of this section (or impaired days in one or more of the 16 areas on the Colorado Plateau: Grand whose plan does not comply with all of Class I areas. Canyon National Park, Sycamore the requirements of this section) is (iv) If impairment of air quality in Canyon Wilderness, Petrified Forest subject to the requirements of § 51.308 clean air corridors is identified pursuant National Park, Mount Baldy Wilderness, in the same manner and to the same to paragraphs (d)(3)(ii) and (iii) of this San Pedro Parks Wilderness, Mesa extent as any State not included within section, an analysis of the effects of Verde National Park, Weminuche the Transport Region. increased emissions, including Wilderness, Black Canyon of the (d) Requirements of the first provisions for the identification of the Gunnison Wilderness, West Elk implementation plan for States electing need for additional emission reductions Wilderness, Maroon Bells Wilderness, to adopt all of the recommendations of measures, and implementation of the Flat Tops Wilderness, Arches National the Commission Report. Except as additional measures where necessary. Park, Canyonlands National Park, provided for in paragraph (e) of this (v) A determination of whether other Capital Reef National Park, Bryce section, each Transport Region State clean air corridors exist for any of the Canyon National Park, and Zion must submit an implementation plan 16 Class I areas. For any such clean air National Park. that meets the following requirements: corridors, an identification of the (2) Transport Region State means one (1) Time period covered. The necessary measures to protect against of the States that is included within the implementation plan must be effective future degradation of air quality in any Transport Region addressed by the for the entire time period between of the 16 Class I areas. Grand Canyon Visibility Transport December 31, 2003 and December 31, (4) Implementation of stationary Commission (Arizona, California, 2018. source reductions. The first Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, (2) Projection of visibility implementation plan submission must Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming). improvement. For each of the 16 include: (3) Commission Report means the mandatory Class I areas located within (i) Monitoring and reporting of sulfur report of the Grand Canyon Visibility the Transport Region State, the plan dioxide emissions. The plan submission Transport Commission entitled must include a projection of the must include provisions requiring the ‘‘Recommendations for Improving improvement in visibility conditions monitoring and reporting of actual Western Vistas,’’ dated June 10, 1996. (expressed in deciviews, and in any stationary source sulfur dioxide (4) Fire means wildfire, wildland fire additional ambient visibility metrics emissions within the State. The (including prescribed natural fire), deemed appropriate by the State) monitoring and reporting data must be prescribed fire, and agricultural burning expected through the year 2018 for the sufficient to determine whether a 13 conducted and occurring on Federal, most impaired and least impaired days, percent reduction in actual stationary State, and private wildlands and based on the implementation of all source sulfur dioxide emissions has farmlands. measures as required in the Commission occurred between the years 1990 and (5) Milestone means an average report and the provisions in this section. 2000, and whether milestones required percentage reduction in emissions, The projection must be made in by paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section have expressed in tons per year, for a given consultation with other Transport been achieved for the transport region. year or for a period of up to 5 years Region States with sources which may The plan submission must provide for ending in that year, compared to a 1990 be reasonably anticipated to contribute reporting of these data by the State to actual emissions baseline. to visibility impairment in the relevant the Administrator. Where procedures (6) Mobile Source Emission Budget Class I area. The projection may be developed under paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of means the lowest level of VOC, NOX, based on a satisfactory regional analysis. this section and agreed upon by the SO2 elemental and organic carbon, and (3) Treatment of clean-air corridors. State include reporting to a regional fine particles which are projected to The plan must describe and provide for planning organization, the plan occur in any area within the transport implementation of comprehensive submission must provide for reporting region from which mobile source emission tracking strategies for clean-air to the regional planning body in emissions are determined to contribute corridors to ensure that the visibility addition to the Administrator. significantly to visibility impairment in does not degrade on the least-impaired (ii) Criteria and procedures for a any of the 16 Class I areas. days at any of the 16 Class I areas. The market trading program. The plan must (7) Geographic enhancement means a strategy must include: include the criteria and procedures for method, procedure, or process to allow (i) An identification of clean-air activating a market trading program or a broad regional strategy, such as a corridors. The EPA will evaluate the other program consistent with milestone or backstop market trading State’s identification of such corridors paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section if an program designed to achieve greater based upon the reports of the applicable regional milestone is reasonable progress than BART for Commission’s Meteorology exceeded, procedures for operation of regional haze, to accommodate BART Subcommittee and any future updates the program, and implementation plan for reasonably attributable impairment. by a successor organization; assessments and provisions for (c) Implementation Plan Schedule. (ii) Within areas that are clean-air implementation plan assessments of the Each Transport Region State may meet corridors, an identification of patterns of program in the years 2008, 2013, and the requirements of § 51.308(b) through growth or specific sites of growth that 2018. (e) by electing to submit an could cause, or are causing, significant (iii) Provisions for activating a market implementation plan that complies with emissions increases that could have, or trading program. Provisions to activate the requirements of this section. Each are having, visibility impairment at one the market trading program or other Transport Region State must submit an or more of the 16 Class I areas. program within 12 months after the implementation plan addressing (iii) In areas outside of clean-air emissions for the region are determined regional haze visibility impairment in corridors, an identification of significant to exceed the applicable emission the 16 Class I areas no later than emissions growth that could begin, or is reduction milestone, and to assure that

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35771 all affected sources are in compliance including provisions requiring the State management objectives, and reduction with allocation and other requirements to restrict the annual VOC, NOX, SO2, of visibility impact. within 5 years after the emissions for elemental and organic carbon, and/or (v) Establishment of annual emission the region are determined to exceed the fine particle mobile source emissions to goals for fire, excluding wildfire, that applicable emission reduction their projected lowest levels, to will minimize emission increases from milestone. implement measures to achieve the fire to the maximum extent feasible and (iv) Provisions for market trading budget or cap, and to demonstrate that are established in cooperation with program compliance reporting. If the compliance with the budget. States, tribes, Federal land management market trading program has been (B) An emission tracking system agencies, and private entities. activated, the plan submission must providing for reporting of annual mobile (7) Area sources of dust emissions include provisions requiring the State to source emissions from the State in the from paved and unpaved roads. The provide annual reports assuring that all periodic implementation plan revisions plan must include an assessment of the sources are in compliance with required by paragraph (d)(10) of this impact of dust emissions from paved applicable requirements of the market section. The emission tracking system and unpaved roads on visibility trading program. must be sufficient to determine the conditions in the 16 Class I Areas. If (v) Provisions for stationary source States’ contribution toward the such dust emissions are determined to NOX and PM. The plan submission must Commission’s objective of reducing be a significant contributor to visibility include a report which assesses emissions from mobile sources by 2005 impairment in the 16 Class I areas, the emissions control strategies for or an alternate year that is determined State must implement emissions stationary source NOX and PM, and the by the State to represent the year during management strategies to address the degree of visibility improvement that which mobile source emissions will be impact as necessary and appropriate. would result from such strategies. In the at their lowest levels within the State, (8) Pollution prevention. The plan report, the State must evaluate and and to ensure that mobile source must provide for: discuss the need to establish emission emissions do not increase thereafter. (i) An initial summary of all pollution prevention programs currently in place, milestones for NOX and PM to avoid any (iv) Interim reports to EPA and the an inventory of all renewable energy net increase in these pollutants from public in years 2003, 2008, 2013, and stationary sources within the transport generation capacity and production in 2018 on the implementation status of region, and to support potential future use, or planned as of the year 2002 the regional and local strategies development and implementation of a (expressed in megawatts and megawatt- recommended by the Commission multipollutant and possibly multisource hours), the total energy generation Report to address mobile source market-based program. The plan capacity and production for the State, emissions. submission must provide for an the percent of the total that is renewable (6) Programs related to fire. The plan implementation plan revision, energy, and the State’s anticipated must provide for: containing any necessary long-term contribution toward the renewable (i) Documentation that all Federal, strategies and BART requirements for energy goals for 2005 and 2015, as State, and private prescribed fire stationary source PM and NO provided in paragraph (d)(8)(vi) of this X programs within the State evaluate and (including enforceable limitations, section. address the degree visibility impairment compliance schedules, and other (ii) Programs to provide incentives from smoke in their planning and measures) by no later than December 31, that reward efforts that go beyond application. In addition the plan must 2008. compliance and/or achieve early (5) Mobile sources. The plan include smoke management programs compliance with air-pollution related submission must provide for: that include all necessary components requirements. (i) Statewide inventories of current including, but not limited to, actions to (iii) Programs to preserve and expand annual emissions and projected future minimize emissions, evaluation of energy conservation efforts. smoke dispersion, alternatives to fire, annual emissions of VOc, NOX, SO2, (iv) The identification of specific elemental carbon, organic carbon, and public notification, air quality areas where renewable energy has the fine particles from mobile sources for monitoring, surveillance and potential to supply power where it is the years 2003 to 2018. The future year enforcement, and program evaluation. now lacking and where renewable inventories must include projections for (ii) A statewide inventory and energy is most cost-effective. the year 2005, or an alternative year that emissions tracking system (spatial and (v) Projections of the short- and long- is determined by the State to represent temporal) of VOC, NOX, elemental and term emissions reductions, visibility the year during which mobile source organic carbon, and fine particle improvements, cost savings, and emissions will be at their lowest levels emissions from fire. In reporting and secondary benefits associated with the within the State. tracking emissions from fire from within renewable energy goals, energy (ii) A determination whether mobile the State, States may use information efficiency and pollution prevention source emissions in any areas of the from regional data-gathering and activities. State contribute significantly to tracking initiatives. (vi) A description of the programs visibility impairment in any of the 16 (iii) Identification and removal relied on to achieve the State’s Class I Areas, based on the statewide wherever feasible of any administrative contribution toward the Commission’s inventory of current and projected barriers to the use of alternatives to goal that renewable energy will mobile source emissions. burning in Federal, State, and private comprise 10 percent of the regional (iii) For States with areas in which prescribed fire programs within the power needs by 2005 and 20 percent by mobile source emissions are found to State. 2015, and a demonstration of the contribute significantly to visibility (iv) Enhanced smoke management progress toward achievement of the impairment in any of the 16 Class I programs for fire that consider visibility renewable energy goals in the years areas: effects, not only health and nuisance 2003, 2008, 2013, and 2018. This (A) The establishment and objectives, and that are based on the description must include documentation of a mobile source criteria of efficiency, economics, law, documentation of the potential for emissions budget for any such area, emission reduction opportunities, land renewable energy resources, the

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 35772 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations percentage of renewable energy conditions for the most impaired and (C) Where the State determines that associated with new power generation least impaired days and baseline the implementation plan is or may be projects implemented or planned, and visibility conditions; the change in inadequate to ensure reasonable the renewable energy generation visibility impairment for the most progress due to emissions from sources capacity and production in use and impaired and least impaired days over in another country, the State shall planned in the State. To the extent that the past 5 years. provide notification, along with it is not feasible for a State to meet its (D) An analysis tracking the change available information, to the contribution to the regional renewable over the past 5 years in emissions of Administrator. energy goals, the State must identify in pollutants contributing to visibility (D) Where the State determines that the progress reports the measures impairment from all sources and the implementation plan is or may be implemented to achieve its contribution activities within the State. Emissions inadequate to ensure reasonable and explain why meeting the State’s changes should be identified by type of progress due to emissions from within contribution was not feasible. source or activity. The analysis must be the State, the State shall develop (9) Implementation of additional based on the most recent updated additional strategies to address the plan recommendations. The plan must emissions inventory, with estimates deficiencies and revise the provide for implementation of all other projected forward as necessary and implementation plan no later than one recommendations in the Commission appropriate, to account for emissions year from the date that the progress report that can be practicably included changes during the applicable 5-year report was due. as enforceable emission limits, period. (11) State planning and interstate schedules of compliance, or other (E) An assessment of any significant coordination. In complying with the enforceable measures (including changes in anthropogenic emissions requirements of this section, States may economic incentives) to make within or outside the State that have include emission reductions strategies reasonable progress toward remedying occurred over the past 5 years that have that are based on coordinated existing and preventing future regional limited or impeded progress in reducing implementation with other States. haze in the 16 Class I areas. The State pollutant emissions and improving Examples of these strategies include must provide a report to EPA and the visibility. economic incentive programs and public in 2003, 2008, 2013, and 2018 on (F) An assessment of whether the transboundary emissions trading the progress toward developing and current implementation plan elements programs. The implementation plan implementing policy or strategy options and strategies are sufficient to enable must include documentation of the recommended in the Commission the State, or other States with technical and policy basis for the Report. mandatory Federal Class I areas affected individual State apportionment (or the (10) Periodic implementation plan by emissions from the State, to meet all procedures for apportionment revisions. Each Transport Region State established reasonable progress goals. throughout the trans-boundary region), must submit to the Administrator (G) A review of the State’s visibility the contribution addressed by the periodic reports in the years 2008, 2013, monitoring strategy and any State’s plan, how it coordinates with and 2018. The progress reports must be modifications to the strategy as other State plans, and compliance with in the form of implementation plan necessary. any other appropriate implementation revisions that comply with the (ii) At the same time the State is plan approvability criteria. States may procedural requirements of § 51.102 and required to submit any 5-year progress rely on the relevant technical, policy § 51.103. report to EPA in accordance with and other analyses developed by a (i) The report will assess the area for paragaph (d)(10)(i) of this section, the regional entity (such as the Western reasonable progress as provided in this State must also take one of the following Regional Air Partnership) in providing section for mandatory Class I Federal actions based upon the information such documentation. Conversely, States area(s) located within the State and for presented in the progress report: may elect to develop their own mandatory Class I Federal area(s) (A) If the State determines that the programs without relying on work located outside the State which may be existing implementation plan requires products from a regional entity. affected by emissions from within the no further substantive revision at this (12) Tribal implementation. State. This demonstration may be based time in order to achieve established Consistent with 40 CFR Part 49, tribes on assessments conducted by the States goals for visibility improvement and within the Transport Region may and/or a regional planning body. The emissions reductions, the State must implement the required visibility progress reports must contain at a provide to the Administrator a negative programs for the 16 Class I areas, in the minimum the following elements: declaration that further revision of the same manner as States, regardless of (A) A description of the status of existing implementation plan is not whether such tribes have participated as implementation of all measures needed at this time. members of a visibility transport included in the implementation plan for (B) If the State determines that the commission. achieving reasonable progress goals for implementation plan is or may be (e) States electing not to implement mandatory Class I Federal areas both inadequate to ensure reasonable the commission recommendations. Any within and outside the State. progress due to emissions from sources Transport Region State may elect not to (B) A summary of the emissions in another State(s) which participated in implement the Commission reductions achieved throughout the a regional planning process, the State recommendations set forth in paragraph State through implementation of the must provide notification to the (d) of this section. Such States are measures described in paragraph Administrator and to the other State(s) required to comply with the timelines (d)(10)(i)(A) of this section. which participated in the regional and requirements of § 51.308. Any (C) For each mandatory Class I planning process with the States. The Transport Region State electing not to Federal area within the State, an State must also collaborate with the implement the Commission assessment of the following: the current other State(s) through the regional recommendations must advise the other visibility conditions for the most planning process for the purpose of States in the Transport Region of the impaired and least impaired days; the developing additional strategies to nature of the program and the effect of difference between current visibility address the plan’s deficiencies. the program on visibility-impairing

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35773 emissions, so that other States can take additional mandatory Class I Federal on emissions projections from the long- this information into account in areas in accordance with the provisions term strategies in the implementation developing programs under this section. of paragraph (g) of this section. plan. This demonstration may be based (f) Annex to the Commission Report. (3) The EPA will publish the annex on assessments conducted by the States (1) A Transport Region State may upon receipt. If EPA finds that the and/or a regional planning body. choose to comply with the provisions of annex meets the requirements of (3) In a plan submitted no later than this section and by doing so shall satisfy paragraph (f)(1) of this section and December 31, 2008, provide revisions to the requirements of § 51.308(b) through assures reasonable progress, then, after the plan submitted under paragraph (c) (e) only if the Grand Canyon Visibility public notice and comment, will amend of this section, including provisions to Transport Commission (or a regional the requirements of paragraph (d)(4) of planning body formed to implement the this section to incorporate the establish reasonable progress goals and Commission recommendations) submits provisions of the annex within 1 year implement any additional measures a satisfactory annex to the Commission after EPA receives the annex. If EPA necessary to demonstrate reasonable Report no later than October 1, 2000. To finds that the annex does not meet the progress for the additional mandatory be satisfactory, the Annex must contain requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of this Federal Class I areas. These revisions the following elements: section, or does not assure reasonable must comply with the provisions of (i) The annex must contain progress, or if EPA finds that the annex § 51.308(d)(1) through (4). quantitative emission reduction is not received, then each Transport (4) The following provisions apply for milestones for stationary source sulfur Region State must submit an Transport Region States establishing dioxide emissions for the reporting implementation plan for regional haze reasonable progress goals and adopting years 2003, 2008, 2013 and 2018. The meeting all of the requirements of any additional measures for Class I areas milestones must provide for steady and § 51.308. other than the 16 Class I areas under continuing emission reductions for the (4) In accordance with the provisions paragraphs (g)(2) and (3) of this section. 2003–2018 time period consistent with under paragraph (f)(1) of this section, (i) In developing long-term strategies the Commission’s definition of the annex may include a geographic pursuant to § 51.308(d)(3), the State may reasonable progress, its goal of 50 to 70 enhancement to the program provided build upon the strategies implemented percent reduction in sulfur dioxide for in paragraph (d)(4) of this section to under paragraph (d) of this section, and emissions from 1990 actual emission address the requirement under levels by 2040, applicable requirements § 51.302(c) related to Best Available take full credit for the visibility under the CAA, and the timing of Retrofit Technology for reasonably improvement achieved through these implementation plan assessments of attributable impairment from the strategies. progress and identification of pollutants covered by the milestones or (ii) The requirement under § 51.308(e) deficiencies which will be due in the the backstop market trading program. related to Best Available Retrofit years 2008, 2013, and 2018. The The geographic enhancement program Technology for regional haze is deemed emission reduction milestones must be may include an appropriate level of to be satisfied for pollutants addressed shown to provide for greater reasonable reasonably attributable impairment by the milestones and backstop trading progress than would be achieved by which may require additional emission program if, in establishing the emission application of best available retrofit reductions over and above those reductions milestones under paragraph technology (BART) pursuant to achieved under the milestones defines (f) of this section, it is shown that § 51.308(e)(2) and would be approvable in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section. greater reasonable progress will be in lieu of BART. (g) Additional Class I areas. The achieved for these Class I areas than (ii) The annex must contain following submittals must be made by would be achieved through the documentation of the market trading Transport Region States implementing application of source-specific BART program or other programs to be the provisions of this section as the emission limitations under implemented pursuant to paragraph basis for demonstrating reasonable § 51.308(e)(1). (d)(4) of this section if current programs progress for additional Class I areas in (iii) The Transport Region State may and voluntary measures are not the Transport Region States. If a consider whether any strategies sufficient to meet the required emission Transport Region State submits an necessary to achieve the reasonable reduction milestones. This implementation plan which is approved progress goals required by paragraph documentation must include model by EPA as meeting the requirements of (g)(3) of this section are incompatible rules, memoranda of understanding, and this section, it will be deemed to with the strategies implemented under other documentation describing in comply with the requirements for paragraph (d) of this section to the detail how emission reduction progress reasonable progress for the period from extent the State adequately will be monitored, what conditions will approval of the plan to 2018. demonstrates that the incompatibility is require the market trading program to be (1) In the plan submitted for the 16 related to the costs of the compliance, activated, how allocations will be Class I areas no later than December 31, the time necessary for compliance, the performed, and how the program will 2003, a declaration indicating whether operate. other Class I areas will be addressed energy and no air quality environmental (2) The Commission may elect, at the under § 51.308 or paragraphs (g)(2) and impacts of compliance, or the remaining same time it submits the annex, to make (3) of this section. useful life of any existing source subject recommendations intended to (2) In a plan submitted no later than to such requirements. demonstrate reasonable progress for December 31, 2008, provide a 10. In the sections listed in the first other mandatory Class I areas (beyond demonstration of expected visibility column remove the reference listed in the original 16) within the Transport conditions for the most impaired and the middle column and add the Region States, including the technical least impaired days at the additional reference listed in the third column in and policy justification for these mandatory Class I Federal area(s) based its place:

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2 35774 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

Section Remove Add

51.301(v) ...... Section 303 ...... § 51.303 51.302(c)(2)(i) ...... Section 305 ...... § 51.305 51.302(c)(2)(i) ...... Section 306 ...... § 51.306 51.302(c)(2)(i) ...... Section 300(a) ...... § 51.300(a) 51.302(c)(4)(i) ...... Section 304(b) ...... § 51.304(b) 51.303(a)(1) ...... Section 302 ...... § 51.302 51.303(c) ...... Section 303 ...... § 51.303 51.303(d) ...... Section 303 ...... § 51.303 51.303(g) ...... Section 303 ...... § 51.303 51.303(h) ...... Section 303 ...... § 51.303 51.304(c) ...... Section 306(c) ...... § 51.306(c) 51.306(a)(1) ...... Section 300(a) ...... § 51.300(a) 51.306(c)(6) ...... Section 303 ...... § 51.303 51.307(b)(1) ...... Section 304 ...... § 51.304 51.307(b)(1) ...... Section 304(d) ...... § 51.304(d) 51.307(c) ...... Section 300(a) ...... § 51.300(a)

[FR Doc. 99–13941 Filed 6–30–99; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560±50±U

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:10 Jun 30, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JYR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 01JYR2