[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 147 (Thursday, July 31, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41138-41160]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19546]



[[Page 41137]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Part 51



Regional Haze Regulations; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 41138]]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 51

[Docket No A-95-38; FRL-5862-7]
RIN 2060-AF34


Regional Haze Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On July 18, 1997 EPA published revisions to the national 
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone and particulate matter 
(PM). In the final action revising the PM NAAQS, EPA recognized that 
visibility impairment is an important effect of PM on public welfare 
and concluded that the most appropriate approach for addressing 
visibility impairment is to establish secondary standards for PM 
identical to the suite of primary standards in conjunction with a 
revised visibility protection program to address regional haze in 
mandatory Class I Federal areas (certain large national parks and 
wilderness areas). Section 169A of the Clean Air Act (Act) sets forth a 
national goal for visibility which is the ``prevention of any future, 
and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in 
mandatory class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade 
air pollution.'' This section calls for regulations to assure 
reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal.
    Today's proposal sets forth a program to address regional haze 
visibility impairment in the nation's most treasured national parks and 
wilderness areas. Because much of the pollution affecting haze in these 
generally rural areas is transported long distances, measures to 
protect these areas should also reduce air pollution and improve 
visibility outside of these areas as well.

DATES: Written comments on this proposal must be received by October 
20, 1997. The EPA will hold a public hearing on the proposed rules on 
September 18, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments should be submitted (in duplicate if 
possible) to the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, 401 M 
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket Number A-95-38. 
Comments and data may also be submitted electronically by following the 
instructions under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION of this document. No 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) should be submitted through e-
mail.
    Public hearing. The regional haze rule is subject to the 
requirements of section 307(d)(5) of the Act that the Agency provide 
opportunity for public hearing. The EPA will hold a public hearing on 
the proposed rules at the Adam's Mark Hotel, 1550 Court Place, Denver, 
Colorado beginning at 10:00 AM on the date noted above. The EPA will 
hold the public comment period open for 30 days after completion of the 
public hearing to provide an opportunity for submission of rebuttal and 
supplemental information. Persons wishing to speak at the public 
hearing should contact Barbara Miles at (919) 541-5531.
    Docket. The public docket for this action is available for public 
inspection and copying between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), 
Attention Docket A-95-38, South Conference Center, Room 4, 401 M 
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. A reasonable fee for copying may be 
charged. The regional haze regulations are subject to the rulemaking 
procedures under section 307(d) of the Act. The documents relied on to 
develop the proposed regional haze regulations have been placed in the 
docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general questions regarding this 
action, contact Bruce Polkowsky, U.S. EPA, MD-15, Research Triangle 
Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-5532.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Electronic Availability--The official record for this rulemaking, 
as well as the public version, has been established under docket number 
A-95-38 (including comments and data submitted electronically as 
described below). A public version of this record, including printed, 
paper versions of electronic comments, which does not include any 
information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection from 8 a.m. to 
4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The official 
rulemaking record is located at the address in ADDRESSES at the 
beginning of this document. Electronic comments can be sent directly to 
EPA at: A-and-R-D[email protected]. Electronic comments must be 
submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and 
any form of encryption. Comments and data will also be accepted on 
disks in WordPerfect in 5.1 file format or ASCII file format. All 
comments and data in electronic form must be identified by the docket 
number A-95-38. Electronic comments on this proposal may be filed 
online at many Federal Depository Libraries. In addition, the following 
communications and outreach mechanisms have been established regarding 
implementation of the ozone and PM NAAQS and regional haze programs:
    Overview information--World Wide Web (WWW) sites have been 
developed for overview information on visibility issues, the NAAQS, and 
discussions of implementation issues by the Clean Air Act Advisory 
Committee, Subcommittee on Ozone, Particulate Matter, and Regional Haze 
Implementation Programs. These web sites can be accessed from Uniform 
Resource Locator (URL): http://www.epa.gov/airlinks/.
    Detailed and technical information--Information related to 
implementation issues under discussion by the above Subcommittee, 
established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), is 
available on the Ozone, Particulate Matter, and Regional Haze (O3/PM/
RH) Bulletin Board on the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 
(OAQPS) Technology Transfer Network (TTN), which is a collection of 
electronic bulletin board systems operated by OAQPS containing 
information about a wide variety of air pollution topics. The O3/PM/RH 
Bulletin Board contains separate areas for each of the five work groups 
of the FACA Subcommittee, with information on issue papers currently 
under discussion, materials for upcoming meetings, summaries of past 
meetings, general information about the process, lists of Subcommittee 
and work group members, and so on. The TTN can be accessed by any of 
the following three methods:

--By modem; the dial-in number is (919) 541-5742. Communications 
software should be set with the following parameters: 8 Data Bits, No 
Parity, 1 Stop Bit (8-N-1) 14,400 bps (or less).
--Full Duplex.
--ANSI or VT-100 Terminal Emulation.

The TTN is also available on the WWW site at the following URL: http://
ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov. The TTN can also be accessed on the Internet 
using File Transfer Protocol (FTP); the FTP address is 
ttnftp.rtpnc.epa.gov. The TTN Helpline is (919) 541-5384.

Table of Contents

I. Regional Haze Program
    A. Introduction
    B. Background
    C. Key Organizations Addressing Regional Haze Issues
    1. National Academy of Sciences
    2. Clean Air Act Advisory Committee and Its Subcommittee on 
Ozone, Particulate Matter, and Regional Haze Implementation Programs

[[Page 41139]]

    3. Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC)
    a. Reasonable Progress
    b. Clean Air Corridors
    c. Stationary Sources
    d. Mobile Sources
    e. Prescribed Fire
    f. Air Pollution Prevention, Future Regional Coordinating 
Entity, and Areas in Need of Additional Research
    g. Conclusions
    D. Overview of Proposed Revisions to Visibility Regulations
    E. Applicability
    F. Definitions
    1. Deciview
    2. Reasonable Progress Target
    a. Protection for Most Impaired and Least Impaired Days
    b. Determining Baseline Conditions
    c. Protecting Vistas Seen From Within Class I Areas
    d. Calculating Changes in Deciviews
    G. Implementation Plan Revisions
    1. SIPs Due 12 Months After Promulgation
    2. Plan Revisions to Address Best Available Retrofit Technology 
(BART)
    3. Plan Revisions for Section 110(a)(2) Requirements
    H. Visibility Monitoring
    I. Long-term Strategy
II. Regulatory Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Impact on Reporting Requirements
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Environmental Justice

I. Regional Haze Program

A. Introduction

    The visibility protection program under sections 110(a)(2)(J), 
169A, and 169B of the Act is designed to protect mandatory Federal 
Class I areas 1 from impairment due to manmade air 
pollution. Congress adopted the visibility provisions in the Clean Air 
Act to protect visibility in these ``areas of great scenic 
importance.'' 2 The current regulatory program addresses 
visibility impairment in these areas that is ``reasonably 
attributable'' 3 to a specific source or small group of 
sources. In adopting section 169A, the core visibility provisions 
adopted in the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments, Congress also expressed 
its concern with ``hazes'' and the potential corresponding need to 
control a ``variety of sources'' and ``regionally distributed 
sources.'' 4 The purpose of today's proposal to revise the 
existing visibility regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-51.307 is to integrate 
certain fundamental provisions addressing regional haze impairment. The 
resulting regulation will reflect a comprehensive visibility protection 
program for mandatory Class I Federal areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas are 
those national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and 
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 areas, and all international 
parks which were in existence on August 7, 1977. Visibility has been 
identified as an important value in 156 of these areas. See 40 CFR 
Part 81, Subpart D. The extent of a mandatory Class I Federal area 
includes subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 
CAA section 162(a).
    \2\ H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. at 205 (1977).
    \3\ ``Reasonably attributable'' visibility impairment, as 
defined in 40 CFR 51.301(s), means ``attributable by visual 
observation or any other technique the State deems appropriate.'' It 
includes impacts to mandatory Federal Class I areas caused by plumes 
or layered hazes from a single source or small group of sources.
    \4\ H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at 204 (1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regional haze is produced by a multitude of sources located across 
a broad geographic area emitting fine particles and their precursors. 
Twenty years ago, when initially adopting the visibility protection 
provisions of the Act, Congress specifically recognized that the 
``visibility problem is caused primarily by emission into the 
atmosphere of sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, and particulate 
matter, especially fine particulate matter, from inadequate[ly] 
controlled sources.'' 5 The fine particulate matter 
(PM)(e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic and elemental carbon, and soil 
dust) that impair visibility by scattering and absorbing light are 
among the same particles related to serious health effects and 
mortality in humans, as well as to environmental effects such as acid 
deposition. The role of regional transport of fine particles in 
contributing to elevated PM levels and regional haze impairment has 
been well documented by many researchers 6 and recognized as 
a significant issue by many policy makers.7 Data from the 
existing visibility monitoring network show that visibility impairment 
caused by air pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national 
park and wilderness area monitoring stations. Average visual range in 
most of the Western U.S. is 100-150 kilometers (km), or about one-half 
to two-thirds of the visual range that would exist without manmade air 
pollution. In most of the East, the average visual range is less than 
30 kilometers, or about one-fifth of the visual range that would exist 
under natural conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at 204 (1977).
    \6\ See Table 24-6, Long-Term Visibility and Aerosol Data Bases, 
in ``Acidic Deposition, State of Science and Technology, Volume III, 
Terrestrial, Materials, and Health and Visibility Effects, Report 
24, Visibility Existing and Historical Conditions, Causes and 
Effects. p. 24-51, 1991, and Chapter 8, ``Effects on Visibility and 
Climate'' in ``Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter'', U.S. 
EPA, EPA 600/P-95/001bF, April 1996.
    \7\ See Clean Air Act Advisory Committee, Subcommittee on Ozone, 
Particulate Matter, and Regional Haze Implementation Programs, 
Initial Report on Subcommittee Discussions, April 1997. See also 
Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission, Recommendations for 
Improving Western Vistas, June 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Background

    Section 169A of the Act, established in the 1977 Amendments, sets 
forth a national visibility goal that calls for ``the prevention of any 
future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in 
mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade 
air pollution.'' The EPA's existing visibility regulations, 
8 developed in 1980, address visibility impairment that is 
``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small group of 
sources. Under these rules, the 35 States and 1 territory (Virgin 
Islands) containing mandatory Class I Federal areas are required to: 
(1) Revise their SIPs to assure reasonable progress toward the national 
visibility goal; (2) determine which existing stationary facilities 
should install the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for 
controlling pollutants which impair visibility; (3) develop, adopt, 
implement, and evaluate long-term strategies for making reasonable 
progress toward remedying existing and preventing future impairment in 
the mandatory Class I Federal areas; (4) adopt certain measures to 
assess potential visibility impacts due to new or modified major 
stationary sources, including measures to notify FLMs of proposed new 
source permit applications, and to consider visibility analyses 
conducted by FLMs in their new source permitting decisions; and (5) 
conduct visibility monitoring in mandatory Class I Federal areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 45 FR 80084 (December 2, 1980) and 40 CFR 51.300-51.307.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 1980 rules were designed to be the first phase in EPA's overall 
program to protect visibility. The EPA explicitly deferred action 
addressing regional haze impairment until some future date ``when 
improvement in monitoring techniques provides more data on source-
specific levels of visibility impairment, regional scale models become 
refined, and our scientific knowledge about the relationships between 
emitted air pollutants and visibility impairment improves.'' 
9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 45 FR 80086.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While EPA is addressing visibility protection in phases, the 
visibility protection provisions of the Act are broad. The national 
visibility goal in section 169A calls for addressing visibility 
impairment generally, including regional haze.10 Further,

[[Page 41140]]

Congress added section 169B as part of the 1990 Amendments to the Act 
to focus attention on regional haze issues. This section includes 
provisions for EPA to conduct visibility research on regional 
regulatory tools with the National Park Service and other federal 
agencies, to develop an interim findings report on the visibility 
research,11 and to provide periodic reports to Congress on 
visibility improvements due to implementation of other air pollution 
protection programs.12 Section 169B allows the Administrator 
to establish visibility transport commissions. Section 169B(f) called 
for EPA to establish a visibility transport commission for the region 
affecting visibility of the Grand Canyon National Park, the purpose of 
which was to assess scientific and technical information pertaining to 
adverse impacts on visibility from existing and projected growth in 
emissions, and to issue a report to EPA recommending measures to remedy 
such impacts. The statute specifically called for the report to address 
long-term strategies for addressing regional haze.13 In 1991 
EPA established the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission 
(GCVTC) and its final report was completed in June 1996.14 
Section 169B(e) calls for the Administrator, within 18 months of 
receipt of the GCVTC report, to carry out her ``regulatory 
responsibilities under section [169A], including criteria for measuring 
`reasonable progress' toward the national goal.'' 15 Today's 
proposal is the first step toward fulfilling EPA's responsibility, 
defined since 1980, to put in place a national regulatory program that 
addresses both reasonably attributable and regional haze visibility 
impairment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ State of Maine v. Thomas, 874 F. 2d 883, 885 (1st Cir. 
1989) (``EPA's mandate to control the vexing problem of regional 
haze emanates directly from the Clean Air Act, which `declares as a 
national goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any 
existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal 
areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.''') 
(citation omitted).
    \11\ See U.S. EPA, ``Interim Findings on the Status of 
Visibility Research'', February 1995, (EPA/600/R-95/021); see also 
60 FR 8659 notice announcing the report availability and how to 
obtain copies (Feb. 15, 1995).
    \12\ See U.S. EPA, ``Effects of the 1990 Clean Air Act 
Amendments on Visibility in Class I Areas; An EPA Report to 
Congress,'' October 1993, (EPA-452/R-93-014)
    \13\ CAA Section 169B(e)(1)
    \14\ Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC), 
``Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas'', Report to the U.S. 
EPA, June 10, 1996 (hereafter ``GCVTC Report'').
    \15\ CAA Section 169B(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today's proposal also implements the Administrator's decision to 
address the general national public welfare concern for visibility 
through a combined program of setting a new PM2.5 secondary 
national ambient air quality standard equivalent to the primary 
standard, promulgated in a recent Federal Register rule published on 
July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), and a revised visibility protection 
program to address regional haze impairment in mandatory Class I 
Federal areas.
    The regional haze program is being proposed in a manner that can 
facilitate integration to the extent possible with the implementation 
programs for new NAAQS for ozone and particulate matter (PM) given the 
sources, precursor pollutants, and geographic areas of concern that 
these air quality programs have in common. The regional haze program 
recognizes the value of multistate coordination for regional haze 
program planning and implementation because of the key role of regional 
pollutant transport in contributing to haze at mandatory Class I 
Federal areas, most of which are in remote locations. At a minimum, 
voluntary regional planning activities, such as establishing common 
protocols and approaches for emission inventory development, emissions 
tracking, progress assessments, and regional model development, can 
benefit those States that will need to participate in future 
development of emission management strategies for PM standards as well. 
EPA plans to address this multistate coordination process in future 
guidance. An example of voluntary coordination among States to address 
visibility issues is the effort under way by western States and Tribes 
to form the Western Regional Air Partnership.

C. Key Organizations Addressing Regional Haze Issues

    In developing these proposed revisions, EPA has taken into account 
a significant body of knowledge, developed by a wide range of 
stakeholders, on regional haze technical and policy issues. Three 
important bodies in particular have recently addressed regional haze 
issues: the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Haze in National 
Parks and Wilderness Areas, the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee 
(Subcommittee on Ozone, Particulate Matter, and Regional Haze 
Implementation Programs), and the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport 
Commission (GCVTC). An overview of these groups follows.
1. National Academy of Sciences
    The 1993 report by the National Academy of Sciences, Protecting 
Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas, contributed 
significantly to the state of the science regarding regional haze 
visibility impairment. The National Academy of Sciences formed a 
Committee on Haze in National Parks and Wilderness Areas in 1990 to 
address a number of regional haze-related issues, including methods for 
determining anthropogenic source contributions to haze and methods for 
considering alternative source control measures. The Committee issued 
several important conclusions in the report, including: (1) Current 
scientific knowledge is adequate and control technologies are available 
for taking regulatory action to address regional haze; (2) progress 
toward the national goal will require regional programs that operate 
over large geographic areas and limit emissions of pollutants that can 
cause regional haze; (3) a program to address regional haze visibility 
impairment that focuses solely on determining the contributions of 
individual emission sources to such visibility impairment is likely to 
fail, and strategies instead should be adopted to consider the effect 
of many sources simultaneously on a regional basis; (4) visibility 
impairment can be attributed to emission sources on a regional scale 
through the use of several kinds of models; (5) visibility and control 
policies might need to be different in the West than the East; (6) 
efforts to improve visibility within Class I areas will benefit 
visibility outside these areas, and could help alleviate other types of 
air quality problems as well; (7) achieving the national visibility 
goal will require a substantial, long-term program; and (8) continued 
progress toward this goal will require a greater commitment toward 
atmospheric research, monitoring, and emissions control research and 
development. The EPA has taken these conclusions and recommendations 
into account in developing today's action
2. Clean Air Act Advisory Committee and Its Subcommittee on Ozone, 
Particulate Matter, and Regional Haze Implementation Programs
    The Subcommittee on Ozone, PM and Regional Haze Implementation 
Programs, established in September 1995, has also provided important 
input on regional haze and NAAQS implementation issues. The 
Subcommittee discussed a range of policy and technical issues related 
to implementation programs for attaining new and revised NAAQS and 
reducing regional haze in Class I areas. The Subcommittee includes 
representatives of several important stakeholder groups, including 
State, Tribal, and local governments, industry and small

[[Page 41141]]

business, environmental groups, academia, and others. Between September 
1995 and July 1997, the Subcommittee has held 10 meetings in various 
locations across the U.S. Work groups reporting to the Subcommittee 
have developed (and continue to develop) recommendations on a number of 
air quality management issues. One paper specifically addressed 
regional haze issues. Several other issue papers have been developed on 
planning and implementation issues related to all three programs. The 
Subcommittee has issued a report to the full Committee summarizing the 
Subcommittee's discussions through November 1996. 16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Clean Air Act Advisory Committee, Subcommittee on Ozone, 
Particulate Matter, and Regional Haze Implementation Programs, 
Initial Report on Subcommittee Discussions, April 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In discussing the various issue papers to date, the Subcommittee 
has provided important input to EPA on potential implementation options 
and approaches for the three air quality programs under consideration. 
The Subcommittee has recognized the significant role of transport of 
pollutants contributing to ozone, PM, and regional haze throughout the 
country. The Subcommittee has also recognized that in order to properly 
address air quality problems resulting from transported emissions, it 
is important to identify the broader geographic area contributing 
emissions to a particular area of concern (such as an area violating 
the NAAQS, or a mandatory Federal Class I area identified for 
visibility protection). For air quality problems that do not result 
predominantly from local emissions sources, the Subcommittee has 
generally supported the concept of initiating, as appropriate, 
multistate planning processes for conducting technical assessments 
(emission inventories, modeling, source attribution) and developing 
regional emission reduction strategy alternatives. A framework for 
regional planning efforts is addressed in the Subcommittee's 
``Institutional Mechanisms'' paper, which is still under development to 
date. The procedures and functions of regional planning efforts such as 
the Ozone Transport Assessment Group and the Grand Canyon Visibility 
Transport Commission can serve as models for future voluntary regional 
planning efforts. The Subcommittee has also recognized the need for 
expanded monitoring networks, particularly chemical analysis of 
PM2.5 for implementation of both PM NAAQS and regional haze 
programs. The Subcommittee has discussed key program elements related 
to regional haze, including the definition of ``reasonable progress,'' 
criteria for measuring progress, and control strategies for achieving 
such progress. The discussions covered issues related to how regional 
institutions should be involved in determining reasonable progress 
objectives and the need for a regional haze program to include a 
federal ``backstop'' for such objectives, as well as specific 
timeframes for setting objectives and periodically assessing progress.
3. Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC)
    As noted, the GCVTC issued a report in June 1996 containing 
recommendations for visibility protection. Today's rulemaking addresses 
the Commission's recommendations to EPA.
    The EPA established the GCVTC on November 13, 1991 (56 FR 57522, 
Nov. 12, 1991). Based on EPA's ``broad discretionary authority under 
section 169B(c) * * * to establish visibility transport regions and 
commissions,'' it expanded the scope of the GCVTC,

to include additional Class I areas in the vicinity of the Grand 
Canyon National Park--what is sometimes referred to as the ``Golden 
Circle'' of parks and wilderness areas. This includes most of the 
national parks and national wilderness areas of the Colorado 
Plateau.\17\

    \17\ See 56 FR 57523.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The GCVTC was charged with assessing information about visibility 
impacts in the region and making policy recommendations to EPA to 
address such impacts. The Act called for the Commission to assess 
studies conducted under section 169B as well as other available 
information ``pertaining to adverse impacts on visibility from 
potential or projected growth in emissions for sources located in the * 
* * Region,'' and to issue a report to EPA recommending what measures, 
if any, should be taken to protect visibility.\18\ The Act specifically 
provided for the Commission's report to address the following measures: 
(1) The establishment of clean air corridors,\19\ in which additional 
restrictions on increases in emissions may be appropriate to protect 
visibility in affected Class I areas; (2) the imposition of additional 
new source review requirements in clean air corridors; and (3) the 
promulgation of regulations addressing regional haze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See CAA Section 169B(d).
    \19\ A clean air corridor is defined as a region that generally 
brings clear air to a receptor region, such as the Class I areas of 
the Golden Circle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In June 1996, the GCVTC issued its recommendations to EPA. The Act 
calls for EPA, taking into account the recommendations and other 
relevant information, to ``carry out [its] regulatory responsibilities 
under section [169A], including criteria for measuring `reasonable 
progress' toward the national goal'' within eighteen months of 
receiving the recommendations.\20\ Regulations issued under section 
169A must provide guidelines to the States on appropriate techniques 
and methods for characterizing, modeling and controlling visibility 
impairment, and must require applicable SIPs to contain such emission 
limits, schedules of compliance and other measures as may be necessary 
to make reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal.\21\ The 
EPA regulations issued after considering the Commission report must 
require affected States to revise their SIPs within 12 months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See section 169B(e)(2).
    \21\ See section 169A(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The GCVTC recommendations covered a wide range of control strategy 
approaches, planning and tracking activities, and technical findings 
which address protection of visibility in the Class I areas of the 
Golden Circle. The primary recommendations of the GCVTC include: (1) 
Air pollution prevention and reduction of per capita pollution is a 
high priority; (2) Emissions growth should be tracked for its effect on 
clean air corridors; (3) Stationary source emissions should be closely 
monitored and regional targets should be established for sulfur dioxide 
emissions in 2000, with triggers for regulatory programs if targets are 
not met; (4) Focus should be given to emissions reductions in and near 
class I areas; (5) Mobile source emissions should be capped and 
national measures aimed at further reducing tailpipe emissions are 
supported; (6) Further assessment of the contribution of road dust to 
visibility impairment and its potential future impacts should be given 
high priority; (7) Further study is needed on emissions from Mexico; 
(8) Fire emissions are recognized as significantly impacting 
visibility, and programs should be implemented to minimize effects on 
visibility; and (9) A future regional coordinating entity is needed to 
follow through on the Commission's recommendations. The Commission also 
adopted an approach to ``reasonable progress'' that, consistent with 
the national visibility goal, is based on remedying existing impairment 
and preventing future impairment.
    The EPA has taken the Commission's recommendations, as well as the 
body of technical information developed by Commission, into account in 
developing

[[Page 41142]]

the regional haze rules set forth in this proposal. The Commission's 
recommendations have components that contemplate implementation through 
a combination of actions by EPA, other Federal agencies, States and 
Tribes in the region, and voluntary measures on the part of public and 
private entities throughout the region. The Commission's 
recommendations also distinguish between recommended actions and policy 
or strategy options for consideration. The EPA has considered these 
factors in addressing the recommendations, discussed below.
    a. Reasonable Progress. The EPA's proposed approach to ``reasonable 
progress'' is consistent with the Commission's approach. The 
Commission's report provides that ``[t]he overall goal of the 
Commission's recommendations is to improve visibility on the worst days 
and to preserve existing visibility on the best days, at Class I areas 
on the Colorado Plateau.'' Thus, the Commission highlights the 
importance of not only remedying existing impairment but preserving and 
protecting good visibility. The Commission's report further provides 
that ``[r]easonable progress towards the national visibility goal is 
achieving continuous emission reductions necessary to reduce existing 
impairment and attain steady improvement of visibility in mandatory 
Class I areas and managing emissions growth so as to prevent 
perceptible degradation of clean air days.'' 22
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ GCVTC Report, p. 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's proposed criteria for measuring reasonable progress, the 
proposed reasonable progress target, has been informed by the 
Commission's report in several respects. EPA proposes both to improve 
visibility on the most impaired days and to prevent visibility 
degradation on the least impaired days.23 Similar to the 
Commission's provision for ``steady improvement of visibility,'' EPA 
proposes a quantitative visibility target and proposes to require that 
progress toward the target be demonstrated and evaluated on an on-going 
periodic basis. Finally, EPA proposes to provide that State plans 
consider emissions reductions in evaluating whether the quantitative 
reasonable progress target has been achieved.24
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See proposed definition of ``reasonable progress target,'' 
40 CFR 51.301(z).
    \24\ See proposed 40 CFR 51.306(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. Clean Air Corridors. The Commission concluded that a clean air 
corridor does exist for the Golden Circle region and that clean air 
corridors are key sources of clear air at Class I areas. At the same 
time, the GCVTC found that future growth in this area is not expected 
to perceptibly impact visibility in the Class I areas modeled, and that 
additional new source review requirements would not be needed in this 
area.25 The GCVTC recommended careful tracking of emissions 
growth in these areas but did not recommend additional control measures 
beyond those required under current laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ GCVTC Report, p. 87.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA generally agrees that no special requirements need to be 
proposed for clean air corridors. Nevertheless, these corridors contain 
a significant number of mandatory Federal Class I areas, and the 
regional emissions control strategies necessary to ensure reasonable 
progress toward the national visibility goal will need to address 
sources of pollution in these areas.
    c. Stationary Sources. The Commission found that continuing 
implementation of existing Clean Air Act requirements such as efforts 
to address visibility impairment under the current rules would, in the 
short-term, result in significant sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions 
reductions in the region and corresponding improvements in 
visibility.26 The Report specifically encourages States and 
Tribes to review the visibility impacts at Class I areas on the 
Colorado Plateau from uncontrolled pollution sources and to make 
expeditious determinations regarding the need for additional control. 
The Commission also provides for the establishment and tracking of 
progress toward an initial stationary source SO2 emissions target to be 
achieved by the year 2000. A long-term target for the year 2040 and 
provisions for interim targets were also recommended. Progress in 
complying with emission targets would be assessed periodically. 
Exceeding the targets would trigger a regulatory emissions reduction 
program (such as an emission cap and incentive-based market trading 
program).27 The report indicates that State and Tribal 
participants will evaluate development of a regional emissions cap and 
trading regulatory program to achieve the emissions reductions. 
Finally, the report provides that the participants in the Commission 
process intend to design the emissions reduction strategy for EPA's 
consideration before it takes final regulatory action on the 
Commission's recommendations in order to create economic incentives for 
early reductions, and to provide flexibility and certainty to sources 
in planning future actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ GCVTC Report, p. ii and 32-37.
    \27\ GCVTC Report, p. 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA fully agrees with the importance of addressing existing 
visibility impairment in the Golden Circle parks and wilderness areas 
that is attributable to single or small groups of stationary sources. 
The EPA has retained its existing visibility protection program, and 
intends for States to continue making progress in addressing visibility 
impairment from such sources. The EPA is committed to working with 
States, Tribes, and Federal Land Managers to address such impairment.
    Likewise, EPA is fully supportive of long-term efforts by the 
States in the region addressing regional haze in the Golden Circle to 
address visibility-impairing emissions from stationary sources. Indeed, 
a centerpiece of today's proposal is a long-term strategy, to be 
adopted by affected States throughout the country. The proposed long-
term strategy requirements are intended to provide a flexible air 
quality planning framework to facilitate the interstate coordination 
necessary to reduce regional haze visibility impairment in mandatory 
Class I Federal areas nationwide.
    The long-term strategy proposed herein would be due one year after 
issuance of this proposal as a final rule, estimated to be due in 1999. 
Implementation would occur in phases, with initial planning for 
additional monitoring, emissions tracking and modeling to begin in 
1999, and identification of stationary sources and potential emissions 
reductions to occur by 2001. Emissions control strategies would be due 
in 2003, or 2005 for States preparing PM2.5 nonattainment 
control strategy SIP revisions, and revised every three years 
thereafter. The planning schedule for the long-term strategy has been 
developed to facilitate integration with State planning for the PM and 
Ozone NAAQS. Similarly, EPA intends to address specific visibility 
emissions control strategies in more detail in conjunction with the PM 
and Ozone NAAQS control strategies.
    In today's proposal, EPA has not included the Commission's specific 
stationary source emissions target and related provisions as regulatory 
requirements. However, the proposed rule in no way precludes the States 
in the GCVTC transport region from expeditiously adopting, on their own 
initiative, these control strategy provisions. These States are well-
situated for achieving earlier reductions in light of the technical and 
policy groundwork established during the Commission's deliberations, 
and the importance of protecting visibility in the

[[Page 41143]]

premiere natural resources that comprise the Golden Circle. The EPA 
requests public comment on whether it should instead adopt, or adopt 
with modification, these specific recommendations.
    d. Mobile Sources. The Commission determined that mobile source 
emissions are projected to decrease through about the year 2005 due to 
improved control technologies but was concerned that emissions would 
increase thereafter. The Commission recommended a number of national, 
regional and local strategies related to mobile sources.28 
Recognizing the problems with establishing a national mobile source 
control program based strictly on the impact of the Golden Circle, the 
Commission report ``promotes'' several national initiatives that may 
benefit air quality in the transport region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ GCVTC Report, p. ii and 38-45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA agrees with the central policy embodied in the Commission's 
recommendations on mobile sources--that there are certain categories of 
pollution sources that especially lend themselves to national control 
strategies. The EPA administers and is developing programs under Title 
II of the Clean Air Act that address emissions from motor vehicles, 
highway and non-road heavy-duty engines, marine engines (including 
recreational outboard and personal watercraft), small gasoline engines 
and locomotives. The EPA will continue to implement these and other 
nationally-applicable programs, such as the new source performance 
standards and national emission standards for sources of hazardous 
pollutants, that provide important air pollution protection in the 
Commission Transport region and other areas of the country.
    e. Prescribed Fire. The Commission made a number of recommendations 
related to minimizing the emissions and visibility impacts of both 
prescribed fire used by Federal land management agencies to maintain 
ecosystem balances and agricultural/silvicultural prescribed burning 
practices.29 The recommendation directed at EPA suggested 
that EPA require all Federal, State, Tribal, and private prescribed 
fire programs to incorporate smoke effects in planning and application 
by the year 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ GCVTC Report, p. ii-iii and 47-50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA has long recognized that prescribed fire can have 
significant effects on visibility. The EPA's current visibility 
protection regulations require States to consider smoke management 
techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes in 
developing long-term strategies.30 This requirement would 
apply to the long-term strategies for addressing regional haze 
visibility impairment proposed in this notice. Further, EPA currently 
participates in an interagency forum on prescribed fire to support on-
going efforts to address these issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See 40 CFR 51.306(e)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    f. Air Pollution Prevention, Future Regional Coordinating Entity, 
and Areas in Need of Additional Research. The Commission recommended a 
number of regional, State, and local policies for air pollution 
prevention including energy conservation, increased energy efficiency, 
promotion of the use of renewable resources for energy production, and 
enhanced public education and outreach.31 The EPA strongly 
supports pollution prevention initiatives and has taken numerous steps 
to promote pollution prevention under the Pollution Prevention Act of 
1990, the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, and other 
environmental statutes EPA administers. The EPA has carried out 
important voluntary pollution prevention programs, such as the Green 
Lights program. Under this program, EPA uses education and outreach to 
encourage businesses, public schools, and government agencies to reduce 
the amount of electricity used while maintaining lighting quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ GCVTC Report, p. i and 28-31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission determined that there is a need for a group like the 
Commission to oversee, promote, and support many of its 
recommendations, and urged EPA to provide support for such an 
organization. States and Tribes in the Commission's transport region 
are currently discussing the formation of an organization to succeed 
the Commission. At the request of the States and Tribes, EPA has 
participated in and supported these efforts.
    The Commission's report identified areas warranting further 
research and analysis, including the impact from emissions within and 
near the Golden Circle Class I areas, the contribution of road dust, 
and emissions from Mexico. EPA especially encourages the States and 
Tribes to address the informational deficiencies that would inhibit 
development of long-term strategies to address regional haze visibility 
impairment.
    g. Conclusions. The preceding discussion addresses the key 
Commission recommendations to EPA. As discussed here and elsewhere in 
today's action, the Commission's recommendations have informed EPA's 
proposed rules. The EPA seeks public comment on the manner it has 
proposed to address the Commission's recommendations in this 
rulemaking, and EPA requests alternative suggestions for addressing the 
recommendations.

D. Overview of Proposed Revisions to Visibility Regulations

    In developing the proposed revisions to the visibility regulations, 
EPA has tried to maintain as much of the existing regulatory language 
as possible, where such provisions appropriately apply to both 
reasonably attributable and regional haze visibility impairment. This 
approach is intended to minimize the level of effort needed for States 
to adopt new regulations and revise SIPs in order to address regional 
haze requirements, particularly for those States that have already 
adopted plans to implement the existing visibility program.
    Several new elements of the visibility protection program are 
proposed in this notice. These elements are outlined below and 
discussed in greater detail in subsequent subsections of this notice.
     Expanded applicability of the regional haze program to all 
States, the District of Columbia, and certain territories.
     Establishment of presumptive reasonable progress targets.
     Requirements for periodic SIP revisions, including 
periodic demonstrations by States on whether reasonable progress 
targets are being achieved for each mandatory Class I Federal area.
     Analysis of sources contributing to regional haze 
impairment, including sources potentially subject to BART.
     Expansion of the current monitoring network as necessary 
to be representative of all mandatory Class I Federal areas.
     Development of strategies to reduce emissions of 
visibility impairing pollutants in conjunction with strategies to meet 
the new and revised NAAQS for PM2.5 and ozone.
    The current program for addressing reasonably attributable 
impairment remains in place, including, for example, requirements for 
BART and a long-term strategy to address ``reasonably attributable'' 
visibility impairment, State consultation with FLMs on SIP revisions, 
consideration of integral vistas, and visibility monitoring. Further, 
the program requires the review of new source impacts on visibility in 
mandatory Class I Federal areas to prevent future visibility 
impairment. The existing regulations have been in place for nearly 
seventeen years and EPA is not

[[Page 41144]]

reopening those regulations for public comment in this rulemaking. 
However, EPA seeks public comment on the regulatory changes proposed in 
this action related to integrating the new regional haze provisions 
with the existing visibility regulations. For example, EPA seeks 
comment on its proposed revisions to 40 CFR 51.306(c) to integrate 
periodic long-term strategy revisions for regional haze with the 
periodic long-term strategy assessments for reasonably attributable 
visibility impairment. The EPA is also seeking comment on a revision to 
40 CFR 51.306(a)(1) which requires the State to address any 
certification of reasonably attributable impairment that occurs 6 
months before a long-term strategy is due in the next long-term 
strategy revision. This revision clarifies that the State has the same 
grace period in considering certifications of impairment as when the 
original visibility SIP was developed. Beyond specific revisions 
proposed today, comments on the existing regulations are generally 
outside of the scope of this proposal.
    The EPA is proposing to make technical corrections to cross-
references to other rules within the existing rule language to reflect 
changes in the numbering of Part 51. In addition, EPA is proposing to 
add ``light extinction'' to the list of indices (visual range, 
contrast, and coloration) currently used to define ``visibility 
impairment'' in 40 CFR 51.301(x) and referenced throughout the rule. 
Light extinction is the underlying physical property of the atmosphere 
that determines visual range. EPA is also proposing to coordinate the 
Federal Land Manager notification, consultation, and timing 
requirements for regional haze plan development and revision with those 
of the current program addressing reasonably attributable impairment. 
This approach will allow for efficient coordination between the State 
and Federal land managers on comprehensive visibility SIP submittals 
and revisions.
    The proposed revisions establish a new framework for States to 
follow in revising their visibility SIPs. The key milestones of the 
proposed visibility program are contained in the table below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Date                               Activity              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 1997.........................  Promulgation of revised ozone and PM
                                     NAAQS and proposal of revised      
                                     visibility regulations.            
February 1998.....................  Promulgation of revised visibility  
                                     regulations.                       
March 1998........................  Commence regional planning          
                                     activities as necessary.           
February 1999.....................  States submit new/revised visibility
                                     SIPs, including monitoring plan,   
                                     identification of potential BART   
                                     sources, and schedule for assessing
                                     BART and associated emission       
                                     reductions by February 2001, long- 
                                     term strategy provisions (including
                                     procedures for future plan         
                                     requirements), revisions as        
                                     necessary to address section       
                                     110(a)(2) requirements relevant to 
                                     regional haze, and provisions /    
                                     procedures for State coordination  
                                     with FLM.                          
February 2000.....................  New monitoring sites online.        
February 2001.....................  State assessment of BART sources to 
                                     be completed and available for use 
                                     in regional modeling and control   
                                     strategy development.              
July 2003.........................  SIPs due for emission reduction     
                                     strategies for regional haze. First
                                     demonstration of progress in       
                                     relation to reasonable progress    
                                     targets due. One year monitoring   
                                     reporting begins. (July 2005 for   
                                     States preparing PM2.5             
                                     nonattainment control strategy     
                                     SIPs.)                             
July 2006 (and every 3 years        Visibility SIP revision to          
 thereafter).                        demonstrate progress in relation to
                                     reasonable progress targets, and to
                                     adjust emission reduction          
                                     strategies as necessary. (July 2008
                                     for States noted above)            
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following sections focus on proposed new elements of the 
visibility protection program.

E. Applicability

    Section 51.300(b) of the existing visibility regulations addresses 
``reasonably attributable'' impairment from relatively nearby sources 
and requires the 36 States containing mandatory Class I Federal areas 
to submit SIP revisions to assure reasonable progress toward the 
national visibility goal. A proposed 40 CFR 51.300(b)(3) would expand 
the applicability of the program to all States (excluding certain 
territories) for the purpose of addressing regional haze visibility 
impairment. This provision would require the following additional 
States to participate in the program: Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, 
Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Mississippi, New York, 
Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maryland and 
Washington, DC. The territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, 
and the Northern Mariana Islands would not be subject to the program 
because of their great distance from any mandatory Class I Federal 
area. However, Hawaii, Alaska, and the Virgin Islands would be subject 
to the regional haze provisions because of the potential for emissions 
from sources within their borders to contribute to regional haze 
impairment in mandatory Class I Federal areas also located within these 
States. These States would not need to participate in regional planning 
activities, but would be expected to implement programs to develop 
emission reduction strategies to achieve the reasonable progress 
targets established by these revised regulations.
    Section 169A(b)(2) requires States containing mandatory Class I 
Federal areas or having emissions which ``may reasonably be anticipated 
to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any such 
area'' to revise their visibility SIPs in order to make reasonable 
progress toward the national visibility goal. Many scientific studies 
and technical assessments, including the 1990 report from the National 
Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, the 1993 NAS report, and the 
1996 GCVTC report ``Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas,'' 
have shown that regional haze is frequently caused by fine particles 
that are transported significant distances, even hundreds or thousands 
of kilometers 32. Modeling analyses have been conducted for 
EPA that use county-to-Class I area transfer coefficients for PM-fine 
to identify counties which may reasonably be anticipated to contribute 
transported PM-fine to mandatory Class I Federal areas. These studies 
by Latimer and Associates 33 and Environ International 
Corporation 34 suggest that, to varying degrees, emissions 
from each of the

[[Page 41145]]

contiguous 48 States contribute to PM-fine loadings and associated 
visibility impairment in at least one mandatory Class I Federal area. 
Other analyses using the Regional Acid Deposition Model (RADM) have 
estimated that sulfate and nitrate deposition receptors are influenced 
by sources located up to 600-800 kilometers away. 35 These 
analyses, combined with the geographic distribution of large emission 
sources and mandatory Class I Federal areas, provide the basis for the 
expanded applicability of the visibility program to all States for the 
purposes of protecting against visibility impairment due to regional 
haze. In addition, the 1993 NAS report observed that the section 169A 
requirement for a State to revise its implementation plan if it ``may 
reasonably be anticipated'' to cause or contribute to impairment in any 
mandatory Class I Federal area 36 indicates that Congress 
intended that ``the philosophy of precautionary action should apply to 
visibility protection as it applies to other areas [such as the 
NAAQS].''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\  National Research Council, Protecting Visibility in 
National Parks and Wilderness Areas, 1993.
    \33\  Latimer and Associates, Particulate Matter Source-Receptor 
Relationships Between All Point and Area Sources in the United 
States and PSD Class I Area Receptors, Report prepared for EPA 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, September 1996.
    \34\  ENVIRON International Corporation, Development of Revised 
Federal Class I Area Groups in Support of Regional Haze Regulations, 
Report prepared for EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, September 1996.
    \35\  Dennis, Robin L. ``Using the Regional Acid Deposition 
Model to Determine the Nitrogen Deposition Airshed of the Chesapeake 
Bay Watershed,'' in Atmospheric Deposition to the Great Lakes and 
Coastal Waters, edited by Joel Baker, 1996.
    \36\  Clean Air Act, section 169A(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, this expanded applicability should not be interpreted by 
the States to mean that they will necessarily have to adopt control 
strategies for regional haze immediately. Instead, it means that a 
State subject to the program first should participate in a regional air 
quality planning group to further establish and refine the relative 
contributions of various States to regional haze conditions in 
mandatory Class I Federal areas. Thus, it will be important for all 
States having emissions which may be reasonably anticipated to 
contribute to regional haze in mandatory Class I Federal areas to 
participate in the planning process employed to develop regional 
recommendations on State apportionment of emission reduction and 
control measure responsibilities. The States subject to the program 
will need to establish or identify existing SIP authorities enabling 
the State to take actions to address its contribution to visibility 
problems in other States and to carry out other proposed planning 
requirements. The EPA seeks public comment on the proposed 
applicability of the regional haze visibility protection program.
    Regarding applicability for the purpose of addressing reasonably 
attributable impairment, the existing regulations continue to apply to 
the 36 States and territories in which at least one mandatory Class I 
Federal area is located. It should be recognized, the existing 
requirement in 40 CFR 51.300(b)(1), along with sections 110(k)(5) and 
169A of the Act, provide EPA with general authority to request a SIP 
revision from any State (including those not having a mandatory Class I 
Federal area) in the event that information exists demonstrating that 
emissions from sources in the State are reasonably anticipated to 
contribute to ``reasonably attributable'' visibility impairment in a 
mandatory Class I Federal area located in another State.

F. Definitions

1. Deciview
    The proposed reasonable progress targets are expressed in terms of 
the ``deciview'' metric, the definition of which is proposed in section 
301(bb). The deciview is an atmospheric haze index that expresses 
uniform changes in haziness in terms of common increments across the 
entire range of conditions, from pristine to extremely impaired 
environments.37 A one deciview change in haziness is a small 
but noticeable change in haziness under most circumstances when viewing 
scenes in mandatory Class I Federal areas. The deciview is a means of 
expressing atmospheric light extinction, just as visual range is an 
expression of atmospheric light extinction. All three of these 
visibility metrics are mathematically related. Just as in the case of 
atmospheric light extinction or visual range, deciview levels can also 
be calculated from ambient PM2.5 and PM10 data 
using certain assumptions for average light extinction efficiency 
attributed to specific components of PM (such as sulfates, nitrates, 
elemental carbon, and so on). One can use these same assumptions to 
evaluate whether potential emission reduction strategies will lead to 
perceptible visibility changes in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Pitchford, M. and Malm, W. ``Development and 
Applications of a Standard Visual Index,'' Atmospheric Environment, 
v.28, no. 5, March 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An advantage to using the deciview is that it can be used to 
express changes in visibility impairment linearly with human 
perception. The scales for light extinction coefficient and visual 
range do not express perception linearly. For example, a 5-mile change 
in visual range can in some cases be very significant, such as a change 
from 5 to 10 miles in an impaired environment, whereas it may be barely 
perceptible on a clearer day (such as from 95 to 100 miles). The EPA 
recognized the deciview as an appropriate metric for regulatory 
purposes in chapter 8 of the Staff Paper for the Particulate Matter 
NAAQS review.38 The EPA proposes use of the deciview metric 
in the proposed definition of the reasonable progress target, at 40 CFR 
301(z) of the proposed regulations, because of the importance that 
progress for visibility be measured in terms of ``perceptible'' changes 
in visibility, and due to the simplicity of its useful scale. In 
contrast, the sole use of a metric such as emission reductions or 
ambient particle mass would not directly relate to the visibility 
conditions since the composition of the ambient particle mass is key to 
its effect on visibility. Additionally, the atmospheric processes and 
transport that affect the way in which pollutant loadings translate 
into visibility impairment varies by location. The EPA requests comment 
on its proposed use of the deciview metric in EPA's visibility 
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Criteria 
for Particulate Matter. Research Triangle Park, NC: National Center 
for Environmental Assessment. Office of Research and Development. 
July 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is also proposing, as noted in the discussion below, to use 
the tracking of pollutant emissions to supplement the periodic 
evaluation of deciview changes in implementing the regional haze 
reasonable progress requirement. When calculating the ability of a SIP 
or Tribal plan 39 to demonstrate reasonable progress, the 
States or Tribes can consider other emissions reduction requirements 
(e.g., emission reductions meeting RFP for the NAAQS) toward meeting 
the reasonable progress target. However, given that other air quality 
progress measures rely on tracking emissions reductions of key 
pollutants, the EPA requests comments regarding appropriate methods for 
translating other program metrics into visibility changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ EPA has referenced Tribal plans because section 301(d) of 
the Act calls for EPA to issue regulations specifying those 
provisions of the Act for which it is appropriate to treat Indian 
Tribes in the same manner as States. On August 25, 1994, EPA 
published its proposed rules. See 59 FR 43956. EPA has not yet 
issued final rules. However, the proposed rules would allow eligible 
Tribes that seek to be treated in the same manner as States to 
administer visibility implementation plans. See 59 FR 43966 and 
43980. If the final rules addressing Tribal authority under the 
Clean Air Act are issued and similarly allow eligible Indian Tribes 
to administer visibility implementation plans, EPA may make 
conforming changes in the final visibility rules proposed here (in 
this action) to reflect such potential Tribal plans without 
providing additional opportunity for public comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Reasonable Progress Target
    a. Protection for Most Impaired and Least Impaired Days. The 
proposed

[[Page 41146]]

definition in 40 CFR 51.301(z) for ``reasonable progress target'' sets 
forth presumptive quantitative objectives to be met in each mandatory 
Class I Federal area nationally. The proposed targets provide for 
progress toward the national visibility goal of reducing any existing 
and preventing any future impairment by perceptibly improving the days 
that are most impaired (i.e., the average of the 20 percent most 
impaired days over an entire year) and allowing no degradation in the 
``cleanest'' or least impaired days (i.e., the average of the 20 
percent least impaired days over an entire year). In deciding upon an 
appropriate characterization of the ``most'' and ``least'' impaired 
days, EPA considered the typical frequency of visibility monitoring in 
the IMPROVE network 40 (twice a week), and the number of 
samples that would be available for analysis annually (104 possible 
samples per year). The EPA determined that basing these targets on any 
fewer than 20 data points annually would allow an average value to be 
unduly influenced by a single anomalous data point. EPA's basis is 
consistent with the approach used by the GCVTC in its technical 
assessment work. The GCVTC also characterized the most and least 
impaired days as the average of the best and worst 20% days in a given 
year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ The IMPROVE network is described in Unit I.H. of this 
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The approach of improving the most impaired days and preventing 
degradation of the least impaired days is also supported by the 
legislative history of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the 
reasonable progress definition used by the GCVTC. The legislative 
history provides that, ``At a minimum, progress and improvement must 
require that visibility be perceptibly improved compared to periods of 
impairment, and that it not be degraded or impaired during conditions 
that historically contribute to relatively unimpaired visibility.'' 
41 The approach taken by the GCVTC, also emphasized 
improving the impaired days and protecting the clean days. The GCVTC 
interpreted the requirement for reasonable progress to be met by 
``achieving continuous emissions reductions necessary to reduce 
existing impairment and attain a steady improvement in visibility in 
mandatory Class I areas, and managing emissions growth so as to prevent 
perceptible degradation of clear air days.'' 42 In 
establishing this definition, the GCVTC in effect set forth continuous 
emission reductions as a basic strategy for meeting the goals of 
improving the most impaired days and maintaining the least impaired 
days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 136 Cong. Rec. S2878 (daily ed. March 21, 1990) (statement 
of Sen. Adams).
    \42\ GCVTC Report, p. x.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In today's rulemaking, EPA is similarly providing for ``attaining a 
steady improvement in visibility'' and ``preventing perceptible 
degradation of clean air days'' through its proposed definition of a 
reasonable progress target. Under the proposed rules, States meeting 
the reasonable progress target requirements would satisfy the 
reasonable progress requirements of section 169A for the purpose of 
addressing regional haze impairment. The EPA is setting forth proposed 
requirements for periodic reasonable progress demonstrations to be 
developed for all mandatory Class I Federal areas beginning as early as 
July 2003 and every 3 years thereafter.43 These 
demonstrations should incorporate control strategies developed by each 
State, in conjunction with strategies developed for the NAAQS and other 
programs. Recognizing that many factors will determine if a State can 
develop and implement control measures to meet a specific increment of 
visibility change, EPA is also proposing in 40 CFR 51.306(d)(5) that 
States, in consultation with the Federal Land Managers and approval 
from EPA, may develop alternate reasonable progress targets. At the 
same time, the alternate target must be explained based on relevant 
statutory factors and may not allow for visibility 
degradation.44 The relevant statutory factors are listed in 
section 169A(g)(1) and include the costs of compliance, the time 
necessary for compliance, and the energy and nonair quality 
environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of 
any existing source subject to such requirements. Inclusion of the 
alternative reasonable progress provision is intended to recognize that 
the qualitative factors listed in the Act may influence what is 
considered ``reasonable progress'' in individual mandatory class I 
Federal area. In such cases consideration of these factors might lead a 
State to adopt an alternative target for a given mandatory Class I 
Federal area which might differ from targets of other mandatory Class I 
Federal areas within a larger planning region. Further discussion of 
the alternate progress target is included in Unit I.I. of this preamble 
below. The EPA requests public comment on the presumptive ``reasonable 
progress target'' proposed in this action as well as the proposal to 
allow alternative targets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See proposed 40 CFR 51.306
    \44\ See CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 169A(g)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed ``reasonable progress target'' has two elements: (1) 
For the most impaired days, a rate of improvement equivalent to 1.0 
deciview over a 10-year or 15-year period; and (2) for the least 
impaired days, no increase in deciview as compared to the baseline 
conditions.45 The EPA is proposing two options for the rate 
of improvement for the most impaired days. One option is 1.0 deciview 
improvement every 10 years, the second option is 1.0 deciview every 15 
years. The EPA proposes to express the presumptive reasonable progress 
targets in terms of deciview changes to reflect perceptible changes for 
complex scenes like those found in mandatory Federal Class I areas. The 
EPA believes it is important to express progress measures for 
visibility in terms of ``perceptible'' changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See proposed 40 CFR 51.301(z).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes the presumptive rate of progress for the most impaired 
days equivalent to a 1.0 deciview improvement over 10 to 15 years for 
three main reasons. The first reason is that tracking visibility over 
longer time periods, allows for better analysis of trends despite 
inter-annual changes in weather conditions, transport patterns, and 
variances in naturally occurring emissions of fine particles. Secondly, 
the 10 to 15 year time periods are consistent with the Clean Air Act 
requirement for each SIP to contain a long term strategy for visibility 
protection covering the next 10-15 years.46 It logically 
follows that the public would expect a visibility strategy covering a 
10 to 15-year period to actually result in a perceptible improvement in 
visibility over that period. Third, a gradual improvement in visibility 
conditions over a 10 to 15 year period is consistent with the GCVTC 
definition of reasonable progress, which is ``achieving continuous 
emission reductions necessary to reduce existing impairment and attain 
steady improvement of visibility in mandatory Class I areas * * *''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See CAA Section 169A(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In considering the choice between the 10 and 15 year options, EPA 
notes the following. Both time periods are within the statutory 
provisions for long-term strategies of 10 to 15 years. However, while 
the 15-year option allows more time for States to plan and implement 
control strategies, a presumptive rate of 1.0 deciview in 15 years 
would take 50 percent longer to attain the national goal than a 
presumptive rate of 1.0 deciview in 10 years. Congress did not specify 
a time frame within which the national

[[Page 41147]]

goal is to be achieved, but given the magnitude of current impairment 
in some areas, even with the more expeditious 10-year presumptive 
target, it will take a long time to achieve the national visibility 
goal in all mandatory Class I Federal areas. At the same time, the 
costs of the program may be substantial (see Unit II.A below). The more 
conservative 15-year presumptive target would allow these costs to be 
spread out over a longer time period. The EPA solicits comment on these 
two options for presumptive rate of improvement for the most impaired 
days.
    With respect to the ``no degradation'' target (0.0 deciview change) 
for the least impaired days, EPA believes this target is consistent 
with the national goal of preventing future impairment, as well as with 
the GCVTC definition of reasonable progress (``* * * managing emissions 
growth so as to prevent perceptible degradation of clean air days'').
    The EPA solicits comment on these and any other proposed options 
for reasonable progress targets for the most impaired and least 
impaired days. Commenters should address how alternative proposals 
would ensure reasonable progress toward the national visibility 
protection goal.
    The proposed regulations require States to provide a demonstration 
of reasonable progress every 3 years. The EPA intends that a 
demonstration of compliance with the presumptive reasonable progress 
targets be the principal means of measuring reasonable progress with 
respect to regional haze impairment. Measures to achieve this progress 
must include measures to address Best Available Retrofit Technology 
requirements and other measures necessary to achieve such progress that 
are contained in State SIPs and long-term strategies.
    b. Determining Baseline Conditions. The demonstration of compliance 
with the reasonable progress targets, beginning as early as 2003, will 
require States to determine the baseline conditions, for both the 
haziest days and the clearest days, 47 for all mandatory 
Class I Federal areas in the State. The EPA proposes that for each 
Class I area in the State, the State computes a simple annual average 
of the haziest and clearest days to establish a record over time. As 
noted in the previous section, the haziest and clearest days are to be 
represented by the average of the 20% highest and lowest deciview 
values measured each calendar year. Baseline values should be 
calculated based on a minimum of three years of monitoring data 
collected at the Class I area, or at a monitoring location that is 
determined to be representative of that Class I area. EPA would allow 
up to nine years of monitoring data collected prior to the first 
reasonable progress demonstration SIP submittal (due as early as 2003) 
to be used to establish baseline haziest and clearest conditions. 
Currently, there are 30 Class I sites with 8 consecutive years of 
visibility monitoring data (1988-95). A baseline established on more 
than three years of data may better account for inter-annual 
variability due to meteorology. However, a baseline established on more 
than three years of data also may not accurately represent current 
conditions if significant emission reductions have occurred during that 
time period. The EPA is considering allowing any State that establishes 
a baseline using only three years of data to call that baseline an 
interim baseline, and to be able to modify that baseline at the time of 
future reasonable progress demonstration SIP revisions so that up to 
nine years of data are used for establishing a final baseline. It 
should be noted that if there are substantial changes to regional 
emissions during this time period that affect visibility levels (e.g. 
large reduction in emissions from the acid rain program) then the State 
should demonstrate why use of that time period is appropriate for 
baseline determinations. The EPA solicits comment on this approach for 
setting baselines from which to track reasonable progress for the 
haziest and cleanest days, specifically on the use of the simple annual 
averaging of the twenty percent haziest and clearest days, on the three 
year minimum and nine year maximum number of years used in establishing 
current baseline conditions, and on the interim baseline concept.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \\47 See proposed 40 CFR 51.306(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is proposed that tracking of the haziest and clearest days be 
maintained on a three year SIP review and revision cycle. The EPA is 
contemplating using a simple average of the 20 percent most impaired 
days and the 20 percent least impaired days for each year over a three 
year period as the indicator for determining whether the ``reasonable 
progress target'' is being met. Since a three year period may be 
subject to higher variation in both meteorological conditions and 
natural emissions that impair visibility than a ten-year period, EPA is 
considering supplementing the three year review of measured visibility 
progress with evaluation of the emissions reductions used to support 
the planned improvement in visibility during SIP development. This 
evaluation of planned emission reductions is based on the approach 
taken by the GCVTC in calling for continuous emissions reductions and 
tracking. Analysis of IMPROVE data collected since 1988 shows that some 
sites may not be meeting the proposed reasonable progress targets. If 
the monitoring data representing a Class I area does not track along 
the presumptive reasonable progress rate, the State would need to 
review emissions inventory estimates for both anthropogenic and natural 
emissions and anthropogenic emissions reduction assumptions, that were 
used in estimating compliance with the presumptive rate as part of the 
three year SIP revision process. If anthropogenic emissions tracked as 
planned, the State, using any additional visibility data (i.e., optical 
instrument measurements) and meteorological data, should demonstrate 
that current emissions strategies will make progress in the next 3-year 
planning period. A State would need to revise its SIP emission 
reduction strategies in order to bring the visibility conditions to a 
level at or below the reasonable progress target when anthropogenic 
emissions were shown to exceed levels used in planning to meet the 
reasonable progress target. The EPA solicits comment on this approach 
toward tracking the reasonable progress target, specifically on (1) 
approaches other than a simple block average, (2) the approach for 
compliance with the presumptive target supplemented by a check on 
anthropogenic emissions, and (3) on whether the compliance assessment 
should be set forth in the regulations proposed here or in guidance.
    Under the proposed rules, once the visibility conditions for the 
haziest days in a mandatory Class I Federal area are within 1.0 
deciview of natural conditions, the visibility SIP would be considered 
a type of maintenance plan. The reasonable progress demonstration would 
need to reflect no further degradation of visibility conditions for 
both the haziest and clearest days consistent with the national goal to 
prevent future impairment.
    Due to the broad variety of scenic, atmospheric, and lighting 
conditions at the mandatory Class I Federal areas across the country, 
at any specific time a given area may contain vistas for which slightly 
more or less than one deciview above background conditions represents a 
perceptible impact for the components of the scene. For example, a view 
of a snow-capped mountain may be more sensitive to changes in air

[[Page 41148]]

quality than a view of a forest with the result that less than a 1.0 
deciview change is perceptible for that portion of the scene. 
Conversely, in another scene a deciview change slightly greater than 
1.0 may not be perceptible. The EPA proposes a one deciview increment 
above natural conditions to be perceived as sufficiently near to 
natural conditions for those sensitive scenes that are thought to exist 
in all mandatory Class I Federal areas. However EPA acknowledges that 
for specific scenes a greater or lesser deciview change can be 
perceived, and so requests comments on whether it would be more 
appropriate to establish a 0.5 deciview, 1.5 deciview, or 2.0 deciview 
cut point for determining when visibility planning should become 
exclusively preventative to assure maintenance of existing natural 
conditions.
    This concern is less important for the presumptive reasonable 
progress target of 1.0 deciview improvement in the haziest days every 
ten to fifteen years contained in today's proposal. Generally, a rate 
of progress for the haziest days equivalent to 1.0 deciview every 10 or 
15 years should result in a perceptible improvement across the range of 
complex views found in all Class I areas. If there are particular Class 
I areas for which a slight variation can be demonstrated, the adequacy 
of 1.0 deciview in realizing perceptible improvement may be a relevant 
consideration in evaluating an alternative reasonable progress target 
so that a perceptible improvement is the target for the planning 
period.
    c. Protecting Vistas Seen From Within Class I Areas. The proposed 
presumptive reasonable progress targets are designed to improve 
visibility conditions in all mandatory Class I Federal areas. The 
scenic vistas enjoyed by visitors to many parks often extend to 
important natural features outside these parks. In developing the 1980 
program addressing reasonably attributable impairment, the EPA afforded 
the Federal Land Managers the opportunity to account for specific 
impairment outside of the mandatory Federal class I areas by 
establishing ``integral vistas.'' Integral vistas are views perceived 
from within a mandatory Class I Federal area of a specific panorama or 
landmark located outside the Class I area boundary. These vistas are 
considered ``integral'' to the enjoyment of the Class I area and were 
afforded a level of protection similar to views contained within the 
Class I boundaries. With respect to regional haze, a monitoring station 
in or near the Class I area that is established as representing the 
regional haze conditions for that area may not be representative of all 
views that can be seen from that Class I area, many of which may have 
been critical to the reasons Congress established these protected 
areas. The EPA solicits comment on whether, under a regional haze 
program, such important views require special protection, what support 
under the Clean Air Act exists for establishment of such protection, 
and the appropriate mechanism for protecting such views outside Class I 
areas within requirements of a State implementation plan.
    d. Calculating Changes in Deciviews. The revised rule proposes in 
40 CFR 51.306(d) that every 3 years, States perform a comparison of 
actual or representative monitoring data to presumptive reasonable 
progress targets. The EPA expects that tracking of visibility 
conditions will be accomplished by measuring the particle constituents 
at representative monitoring sites using techniques developed and peer-
reviewed, such as those used in the IMPROVE monitoring network. 
Progress is to be tracked in terms of deciviews. Deciviews can be 
calculated from light extinction values derived from speciated particle 
monitoring (known as reconstructed light extinction), or from optical 
measurements of light scattering (nephelometers) or light extinction 
(transmissometers). A deciview measure derived from reconstructed light 
extinction avoids the need of eliminating data for weather events which 
can obstruct optical monitoring devices and therefore allows for a 
consistent technique to be applied from year to year. The EPA solicits 
comments on using a reconstructed light extinction approach as the 
basis for calculating visibility changes in terms of deciview, whether 
this approach should be specifically included in the regulatory 
requirements, and on other approaches for calculating visibility 
changes using other monitoring information collected at Class I areas.

G. Implementation Plan Revisions

1. SIPs Due 12 Months After Promulgation
    40 CFR 51.302 of the existing visibility regulations required 
States to revise implementation plans within 9 months of rule 
promulgation to include a long-term strategy for making progress toward 
the national goal, provisions for notification of Federal Land Managers 
for certain new source permits, a monitoring strategy, an assessment of 
visibility impairment in mandatory Class I Federal areas, and emission 
limitations representing BART. Under 40 CFR 51.306(c) in the existing 
regulations, long-term strategies are to be reviewed and revised as 
appropriate every three years.
    Proposed section 40 CFR 51.302(a)(1)(ii) would require States to 
submit visibility SIP revisions for regional haze within 12 months of 
issuance of the final regional haze rules. This is consistent with 
section 169B(c)(2) of the Act and comparable to the time allowed for 
visibility SIP revisions under the 1980 regulations. Based on the 
current schedule, EPA plans to finalize this rule in February 1998, so 
the first visibility SIP revision would be due 12 months later, in 
February 1999.
    The EPA is proposing that 40 CFR 51.302 of the existing regulations 
be revised to incorporate timing requirements for future SIP revisions 
and to outline additional plan elements required specifically to 
address regional haze impairment. Specifically, proposed 40 CFR 
51.302(a)(1)(ii) requires that implementation plans be revised to 
require States to in the future revise SIPs in accordance with the 
proposed new timing requirements in proposed 40 CFR 51.306(c). In this 
proposed section, the next implementation plan revision is required 4 
years later in order to coordinate implementation plan revisions with 
those for the NAAQS to the extent possible. Future visibility 
implementation plan revisions are required in proposed 40 CFR 51.306(c) 
every 3 years thereafter. These implementation plan revisions will 
include an assessment of whether reasonable progress targets have been 
met for all mandatory Class I Federal areas in the State, and emission 
reduction strategies as appropriate for meeting reasonable progress 
targets for each subsequent 3-year period.
    Many of the 40 CFR 51.302 elements currently required in visibility 
SIPs for reasonably attributable impairment will also be needed in 
visibility SIPs to address regional haze impairment. These include 
provisions for coordination with FLMs as found in 40 CFR 51.302(b) of 
the existing regulations for which EPA is proposing revisions related 
to regional haze, and general implementation plan requirements for a 
long-term strategy and a monitoring strategy, as found in the existing 
40 CFR 51.302(c).
    In addition, implementation plan requirements due within 12 months 
that are specific to regional haze are proposed in 40 CFR 51.302(c)(5). 
The proposed revision identifies two principal new elements: 
identification of sources potentially subject to BART,

[[Page 41149]]

and revisions as necessary for the State to meet the requirements under 
section 110(a)(2) of the Act as they pertain to implementation of 
measures to address regional haze. These elements are discussed in 
greater detail in the next two sections below.
2. Plan Revisions To Address Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
    The first new element in proposed 40 CFR 51.302(c)(5) requires 
States to identify, within the first 12 months after rule promulgation, 
sources located in the State that are potentially subject to BART 
(i.e., ``existing stationary facilities'' as defined in existing 40 CFR 
51.301(e)). The list should include those sources potentially subject 
to BART that emit any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated 
to cause or contribute to regional haze visibility impairment in any 
mandatory Class I Federal area, and which meet certain specific 
criteria. These criteria require that potential BART sources are major 
stationary sources, including reconstructed sources, from one of 26 
identified source categories which have the potential to emit 250 tpy 
or more of any air pollutant, and which were placed into operation 
between August 1962 and August 1977. The 26 source categories 
identified in existing 40 CFR 51.301(e) and section 169A(g)(7) of the 
Clean Air Act include sources such as electric utilities, smelters, 
petroleum refineries, and kraft pulp mills. The purpose of this 
requirement is to have the States identify early in the planning 
process the universe of sources potentially subject to BART so related 
information can be taken into account in developing future control 
strategies, both for the NAAQS and regional haze.
    Several factors must be taken into consideration in determining 
BART, including the technology available, the costs of compliance, the 
energy and nonair environmental impacts of compliance, any pollution 
control equipment in use at the source, the remaining useful life of 
the source, and the degree of improvement in visibility which may 
reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such 
technology.48 The provisions in the Act requiring BART 
appear to demonstrate Congress' intention to focus attention on this 
specific set of large existing sources, which are minimally controlling 
emissions, as possible candidates for emissions reductions needed to 
make reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See CAA section 169A(g)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note that the States are responsible for revising their SIPs to 
contain ``such emission limits, schedules of compliance, and other 
measures'' as may be necessary to make reasonable progress toward the 
national visibility goal.49 Such implementation plan 
revisions are to include, at a minimum, provisions meeting the BART and 
long-term strategy requirements of the Act.50 Thus, these 
SIPs can ensure reasonable progress by addressing emissions reductions 
from a wide range of existing emissions sources that may reasonably be 
anticipated to cause or contribute to regional haze impairment, some of 
which are specifically subject to the BART requirement and some of 
which are not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See CAA section 169A(b)(2).
    \50\ See CAA section 169A(b)(2). The legislative history also 
explains that at a minimum, visibility SIPs are to include two 
principal elements: BART and the long-term strategy. H.R. Rep. No. 
564, 95th Congress, 1st Sess. at 154 (1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed 40 CFR 51.302(c)(5) also requires States to submit within 
12 months a plan and schedule for evaluating BART for applicable 
sources within the next 3 years after rule promulgation (i.e., between 
February 1998 and February 2001). A three-year time frame has been 
proposed for this requirement so that possible emission limits and 
associated emission reductions for all applicable BART sources can be 
integrated into future regional modeling and control strategy 
development activities for attainment of the PM2.5 and ozone standards 
as well. In this way, States can assess the degree to which reductions 
from sources subject to BART will also benefit other air quality 
problems, and vice versa. In this way, States can explore ways to 
integrate control strategies for ozone and PM with the requirement for 
BART. It is expected that control strategy options will be analyzed by 
States as part of regional technical assessments.
    The EPA believes that because regional haze is the cumulative 
product of emissions from many sources over a broad area, the test for 
determining whether a single source ``may reasonably be anticipated to 
contribute'' to regional haze in a mandatory Class I Federal area 
should not involve extremely costly or lengthy studies of specific 
sources. The National Academy of Sciences report supports this 
recommendation, stating that ``it would be an extremely time-consuming 
and expensive undertaking to try to determine, one source at a time, 
the percent contribution of each source to haze.'' While one of the 
factors to consider in determining BART is ``the degree of improvement 
in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated,'' EPA believes this 
factor should be evaluated to reflect the degree of improvement in 
visibility that could be expected at each class I area if BART 
requirements are implemented for applicable BART sources. This 
evaluation would be similar to developing attainment strategies for the 
NAAQS, and could be accomplished using a basic technique, such as a 
speciated rollback approach,51 or a more complex technique, 
such as a regional model (like REMSAD or MODELS3).52 Thus, 
while the other BART factors would be evaluated for each source that is 
reasonably anticipated to contribute to regional haze in a mandatory 
Class I Federal area, EPA proposes that the degree of visibility 
improvement expected to result would be evaluated in the context of the 
overall emissions reduction strategy. As the descriptive name 
``regional haze'' implies, regional haze is characterized by regional 
or region wide impairment of mandatory Class I Federal areas. The EPA 
requests public comments on this proposed approach for the BART 
assessment process for regional haze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ The 1993 report of the National Research Council, 
Protecting Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas, 
provides an example, using a speciated rollback model, of the 
apportionment of anthropogenic light extinction among source types 
in the eastern, southwestern, and northwestern United States. This 
example illustrates some of the key issues that arise in any 
apportionment of visibility impairment.
    \52\ REMSAD and MODELS3 are regional-scale computer models under 
development that will predict particulate matter and visual air 
quality based on emissions, transport, and atmospheric chemistry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By comparison, under the existing visibility regulations, the BART 
process is triggered by the Federal land manager. The FLM may certify 
to the State at any time that impairment exists in any mandatory Class 
I Federal area. See existing 40 CFR 51.302(c)(1). State implementation 
plans must provide for a BART analysis for any existing stationary 
facility that may cause or contribute to ``reasonably attributable'' 
impairment in any Class I area identified by the Federal land manager. 
In determining BART, the State must consider the various factors listed 
in section 169A(g)(2), including costs of compliance and the degree of 
improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result 
from the use of such technology on a specific source. See existing 40 
CFR 51.301(c).
    The proposed approach to evaluating potential improvements in 
regional haze visibility impairment due to BART differs from the 
current approach for reasonably attributable impairment in that the 
degree to which visibility is expected to improve in a mandatory

[[Page 41150]]

Class I Federal area would take into account the emission reductions 
from the multiple sources affecting that Class I area. An alternative 
approach would be to evaluate the degree of improvement in regional 
haze impairment expected from each specific BART source. Under this 
approach, a single source's contribution to regional haze visibility 
impairment in a Class I area would be assessed. Section 169A(b)(2)(A) 
provides that BART is required for applicable sources that emit air 
pollution that is reasonably anticipated to contribute to any 
visibility impairment in a Class I area.
    Thus, the ``degree of improvement'' estimated under section 
169A(g)(2), which in most cases may be less than perceptible, would be 
based on the improvement projected from a single BART source. The 
concern with this approach is the substantial technical difficulty in 
establishing source-specific receptor relationships for a regional 
transport environmental effect. The National Academy of Sciences 
Committee on Haze in National Parks and Wilderness Areas has expressed 
doubt that such source specific attributions could be the basis for a 
workable visibility protection program. However, allowing assessment of 
BART sources on a source-specific basis would not preclude States from 
including controls on BART sources in their long-term strategy in order 
to achieve the applicable reasonable progress targets, even if source-
specific impairment could not be demonstrated. This option would likely 
give States greater flexibility in developing the most cost-effective 
means to address the BART and long-term strategy requirements. The EPA 
requests comment on these alternative approaches to implementing the 
BART and long-term strategy requirements to address regional haze 
visibility impairment.
    In the proposed 40 CFR 51.306(d)(3), this action also sets forth 
the timing requirement for States to include provisions to address the 
BART requirement in their implementation plans due in July 2003 except 
as discussed in Unit I.I. This approach is consistent with 
recommendations of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) and its 
Subcommittee to integrate control strategies across programs to the 
greatest extent possible. The CAAAC's Subcommittee on Ozone, 
Particulate Matter, and Regional Haze Implementation Programs is 
currently discussing a number of issues related to control strategies, 
and EPA intends to consider any CAAAC recommendations in future 
implementation guidance.
    Finally, with respect to proposed regulatory changes related to 
BART, EPA notes that the existing 40 CFR 51.302(c)(4)(iv) of the 
existing visibility regulations requires BART to be implemented no 
later than five years after ``plan approval.'' EPA proposes to clarify 
this provision to read ``plan approval or revision'' consistent with 
section 169A(g)(4) of the Act.
    The EPA requests comment on all of the proposed BART requirements 
discussed above including whether additional regulatory revisions 
beyond those addressed here are necessary. While EPA requests comment 
on possible emission reduction strategies to be used for implementing 
BART and long-term strategy requirements under the regional haze 
program, EPA also expects to address more specific control strategy 
options for BART and the long-term strategy requirements for regional 
haze in later guidance.
3. Plan Revisions for Section 110(a)(2) Requirements
    The second element of proposed 40 CFR 51.302(c)(5) relates to SIP 
revisions necessary to meet the various requirements under section 
110(a)(2) of the Act. Section 169B(e)(2) provides for EPA to require 
States to revise their section 110 implementation plans within 12 
months to contain ``such emission limits, schedules of compliance, and 
other measures as necessary'' to carry out these regulations. In 
addition, visibility protection is specifically provided for in section 
110(a)(2)(J).
    The elements of section 110(a)(2) are critical to establishing a 
strong foundation for ongoing implementation of the visibility 
protection program. The EPA believes that during this initial 12-month 
period, the States should focus first on plan requirements providing 
for adequate future planning activities in conjunction with other 
States.
    Important planning activities include development of enhanced 
emission inventories and emissions tracking systems, monitoring network 
deployment, and refinement of regional models. The EPA encourages all 
States to participate in regional planning activities. This planning 
will then facilitate the future assessment of regional strategies to 
achieve reasonable progress targets, and will also provide beneficial 
data and tools needed for attainment of the new ozone and PM NAAQS.
    States will need to address each of the section 110 elements 
needing revision to support implementation of the revised visibility 
program. The EPA believes that the following sections should be closely 
reviewed for meeting the needs of a regional haze program.
     Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires the State plan to contain 
adequate provisions to prohibit interstate transport that contributes 
significantly to nonattainment in or interferes with maintenance by 
other States with respect to the NAAQS or interferes with measures in 
other States to protect visibility. This provision is highlighted to 
emphasize the critical role of transport in dealing with visibility 
issues and to serve as an incentive to regional planning and 
cooperation among States.
     Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires SIPs to provide for air 
quality modeling for the NAAQS and collection of necessary emissions 
inventory information to use as input to the models. Many primary and 
secondary PM and ozone emissions (VOC, NOX, SO2, ammonia, 
primary PM, elemental carbon, organic carbon) also result in visibility 
impairment, so developing enhanced statewide emission inventories for 
these pollutants will benefit all three programs. Further, sections 
110(a)(2)(F), 110(a)(2)(A), and 169A(b) provide specific authority for 
emissions inventory requirements and general authority to require 
measures necessary to protect visibility. It will be important for 
States to develop inventories both for sources potentially subject to 
BART, and for other sources that are reasonably anticipated to 
contribute to regional haze visibility impairment. The inventories can 
then be used as inputs to regional models and possibly as the basis for 
regional pollutant trading programs, as suggested by the GCVTC. 
Integrated modeling tools such as MODELS3 are under development which 
will be able to predict ozone and PM concentrations, as well as the 
resulting regional haze, using the enhanced inventory data. It is 
anticipated that emission inventory inputs to regional modeling will be 
needed in the 1999-2000 time frame. The need for enhanced inventory 
development and expanded regional modeling capabilities has been 
greatly emphasized by a number of organizations, including the GCVTC 
and CAAAC.
     Section 110(a)(2)(B). Expansion of the existing visibility 
monitoring network to provide for representative monitoring of all 
Class I areas is the third major technical task for State emphasis. 
Proposed revisions related to monitoring are more fully discussed in 
Unit I.H. of this action.
     Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires States to submit enforceable 
emission limits and compliance schedules. The EPA

[[Page 41151]]

believes that, in general, enforceable ``emission limitations'' and 
``schedules of compliance'' as required under sections 169A and 169B of 
the Act should be appropriately incorporated into SIPs after assessment 
of regional strategies can be coordinated with the ozone and PM 
implementation programs. However, it is important to recognize that 
regional haze ``areas of concern'' (i.e., mandatory Class I Federal 
areas) are already defined, and modeling work can begin early in the 
planning process to define the areas of influence affecting them. In 
addition, there may be some parts of the country that have no 
nonattainment areas (or areas of violation) for which the assessment of 
regional strategies for haze could proceed earlier, but these modeling 
activities would be dependent upon completion of inventory enhancements 
and availability of adequate regional models.
    Timing requirements for future SIP revisions after the ``12-month 
SIP'' are included in proposed section 40 CFR 51.306(c). The proposal 
states that the next SIP revision will be due 4 years after the first 
SIP revision is required, in July 2003, except as noted below. By doing 
this, EPA seeks to allow for integration of planning activities and 
control strategy development to the maximum extent possible. The EPA 
recognizes that the implementation schedule for the Ozone and PM NAAQS 
may change in light of monitoring data availability and other factors 
related to development of a SIP attainment strategy.
    In light of EPA's intent to foster coordinated planning and 
implementation of the regional haze requirements proposed and the new 
PM2.5 while still addressing the need to ensure reasonable 
progress in addressing visibility impairment, EPA is also proposing to 
allow States preparing nonattainment plans for fine particulate matter 
(PM2.5) to submit their regional haze emissions control 
strategy SIP revisions by but not later than the required date for 
submittal of the State's PM2.5 attainment control strategy 
SIP revisions. See proposed 40 CFR 51.306 (d)(3) and (d)(6). This 
approach would allow the initial emissions management measures portion 
of the regional haze long-term strategies to be developed in 
conjunction with the first round of PM2.5 nonattainment 
actions. EPA also takes comment on how to appropriately balance 
coordination among SIP requirements with the potential delay in 
ensuring reasonable progress toward the national visibility protection 
goal.
    The proposed 40 CFR 51.306(c) also states that visibility SIPs are 
to be revised every 3 years thereafter (e.g., 2006, 2009, etc.) This 
requirement is consistent with the overall need to track reasonable 
progress over time, as well as with the 3-year requirement for long-
term strategy review and revision in the current rules. The EPA has 
clarified this provision by proposing to remove reference to periodic 
review and revision ``as appropriate.'' The EPA proposes to require a 
SIP revision every 3 years, and proposes that the process for 
developing the plan revision include consideration of a ``report'' 
outlining progress toward the national goal. The EPA believes that a 
requirement for regular SIP revisions will result in a more effective 
program over time and provide a focus for demonstrating ongoing 
progress and making mid-course corrections in emissions strategies.
    To the extent possible, the EPA will endeavor to coordinate timing 
requirements for RFP submittals for the NAAQS with long-term strategy 
revisions for visibility. The timing of progress reviews for RFP for 
the NAAQS will be addressed in future guidance.
    Instead of periodic SIP revisions every three years, the EPA is 
also considering requiring that the SIPs be revised every 5 years after 
the initial visibility long-term strategy SIP (e.g., 2008, 2013, etc.). 
This would allow more time for collection of visibility data to be used 
in assessing compliance with the visibility target. This longer time 
period would also be less influenced by unusual meteorological 
conditions than a three-year period. Periodic five-year revisions would 
also reduce the administrative burden on the States. However, a five-
year period may not as easily allow for mid-course corrections in 
sufficient time to ensure meeting the progress target over a 10-year or 
15-year period. A 5-year revision period would also be inconsistent 
with the 3-year timing for long-term strategy revisions for reasonably 
attributable visibility impairment in the existing rules. The EPA 
requests public comment on the frequency of periodic SIP revisions. In 
particular, EPA seeks public input on whether a five-year periodic SIP 
revision schedule would be more appropriate. In considering a 5-year 
review period for regional haze, the EPA also seeks comment on whether 
it should revise current rules to adopt a 5-year SIP revision schedule 
for ``reasonable attributable'' impairment SIP requirements to allow 
for administrative efficiency.

H. Visibility Monitoring

    Visibility monitoring is authorized under the section 169A(b)(1) 
provision for issuing guidelines to the States on monitoring, the 
section 169A(b)(2) provision requiring SIPs to address ``other measures 
as may be necessary,'' as well as the section 110(a)(2)(B) authority 
requiring State implementation plans to provide for the monitoring of 
ambient air quality. Since 1986, visibility monitoring (using aerosol, 
optical, and photographic techniques) has been coordinated through the 
IMPROVE program, a cooperative, multi-agency approach with 
participation by EPA, the FLMs, and States. Each of the participants in 
the IMPROVE Steering Committee contributes funding for the purchase and 
operation of monitoring equipment, and participates in resource and 
siting decisions. Speciated fine PM data and reconstructed light 
extinction data has been collected since 1988 for 30 sites, and more 
than 60 sites have at least 1 year of data collected using IMPROVE 
protocols. The IMPROVE protocols and quality assurance procedures that 
have been enhanced over the years are the basis for forthcoming EPA 
guidance.
    EPA believes that continued coordination of visibility monitoring 
is critical due to the common responsibilities of States, FLMs, and EPA 
for visibility protection. Proposed in 40 CFR 51.305(b) are various 
monitoring requirements for implementation of the regional haze 
program, including a requirement that development of monitoring 
strategies be coordinated with the FLMs and other agencies, such as 
EPA, that are involved in existing visibility monitoring efforts.
    Proposed 40 CFR 51.302(c)(2)(iv) requires States to submit 
monitoring strategies (revisions for those States with existing 
strategies) as part of their implementation plans within 12 months of 
promulgation, and proposed section 40 CFR 51.302(c)(2)(v) requires 
revisions of these strategies four years later (in 2003), and every 3 
years thereafter, at the same time that long-term strategy revisions 
would be required.
    A central element of each State's visibility program will be the 
demonstration every 3 years of current trends in visibility compared to 
reasonable progress targets for each mandatory Class I Federal area in 
the State. This demonstration must rely on historical monitoring data 
to the greatest extent possible. Since visibility monitoring does not 
exist at all 156 mandatory Class I Federal areas, it will be essential 
for each State to develop a monitoring strategy, in conjunction with 
the appropriate FLMs and other States, which ensures that 
``representative'' monitoring has been or will be

[[Page 41152]]

established for each mandatory Class I Federal area in the State.
    Proposed 40 CFR 51.305(b)(2) requires that additional monitoring 
sites be established within 12 months of plan submittal as necessary to 
ensure that progress in relation to the reasonable progress targets can 
be determined. The EPA recognizes that due to resource limitations, it 
would be difficult to establish monitoring sites at all 156 mandatory 
Class I Federal areas. This section, in conjunction with the proposed 
new provisions in 40 CFR 51.305(b)(1) and (b)(3), call for the 
establishment of additional monitoring sites such that monitoring can 
be considered representative of all Class I areas. The EPA believes 
that several additional sites are needed to more effectively 
characterize regional transport of haze on a national basis. However, 
the concept of a ``representative'' network will likely be the subject 
of much discussion, and ultimately it will need to incorporate both 
technical and policy concerns of the States and FLMs. The EPA 
encourages the States and FLMs to discuss this issue in depth, possibly 
using the IMPROVE Steering Committee as a forum for further discussion. 
EPA takes comment on whether 12 months from plan submittal is an 
adequate amount of time for installation of new sites.
    In the strategy, the participants in the monitoring network should 
address the following questions:

--For areas with monitoring funded solely by one agency, will such 
monitoring remain in place until the next progress demonstration?
--For an area without existing monitoring, is there a monitoring site 
nearby that can be considered ``representative'' of this area? If not, 
the strategy should implement the addition of a site to the network.
--For which mandatory Class I Federal areas in the State will new 
visibility or fine particle monitoring be initiated within the next 3 
years?

    The EPA plans to issue a visibility monitoring guidance document in 
the near future that will be designed to assist the States in 
developing this monitoring strategy. The document will provide guidance 
for determining ``representative'' sites and will include technical 
criteria and procedures for conducting aerosol, optical, and scene 
monitoring of visibility conditions in Class I areas. The procedures 
currently used in the IMPROVE network will be included in this 
guidance. For the purpose of assuring that monitoring data will be 
complete in assessing and modifying long-term strategies, States should 
review the existing monitoring strategy with the FLMs and other 
participating agencies to assess the need for additional monitoring 
sites or modifications to existing ones on the same periodic basis as 
the long-term strategy revisions.
    States should emphasize the coordination of the design of 
monitoring networks for PM2.5 and visibility to the greatest 
extent possible in order to optimize resources. In some situations, 
existing visibility monitoring sites can be used to meet Part 58 
requirements to characterize regional PM2.5 levels. However, 
States needing to establish new PM2.5 monitoring sites to 
characterize regional levels should consider siting new monitors at or 
near a mandatory Class I Federal area that currently has no monitoring. 
Reconstructed light extinction can be calculated for any 
PM2.5 site collecting aerosol data that undergoes 
compositional analysis. This information can help fill certain spatial 
gaps and can be used for calibration of regional models for PM and 
visibility, as well as for assessments of visibility nationally under 
the secondary particulate matter standard.
    Proposed 40 CFR 51.305(b)(4) requires the States to report to EPA 
all visibility monitoring data on at least an annual basis. The 
characterization of visibility trends is one important reason for this 
requirement. It will be important for States to track annual trends in 
relation to the reasonable progress targets. Annual trend data can 
provide the States with an early indication of the effectiveness of 
current strategies in meeting presumptive reasonable progress targets 
for specific mandatory Class I Federal areas before the triennial long-
term strategy review comes due. Annual consolidation of this data will 
also enable EPA to better characterize national and regional visibility 
trends in its annual air quality trends report.
    Another important reason for this requirement is to provide for the 
ultimate integration of monitoring data from the new PM2.5 
monitoring network and the visibility monitoring network, both of which 
will include PM2.5 and PM10 mass as well as 
compositional analysis by aerosol species. Class I area particle mass 
and speciation data can fill important data gaps in defining regional 
concentrations for air quality modeling analyses. As noted above, EPA 
seeks for these two monitoring networks to be developed in a 
complementary manner.
    Due to the well-established quality assurance procedures and 
accessibility of data collected through the IMPROVE network, EPA does 
not expect this reporting requirement to be exceptionally burdensome. 
The electronic transfer of data should facilitate the process as well. 
The EPA requests public comment on its proposed requirement for 
reporting of data, and on the other proposed revisions to the 
visibility monitoring requirements.

I. Long-Term Strategy

    The existing long-term strategy provisions in 40 CFR 51.306 require 
several basic elements:

--A strategy for making reasonable progress in improving visibility in 
all mandatory Class I Federal areas in the State. Specifically, the 
strategy should include measures necessary to remedy any reasonably 
attributable impairment certified by a FLM. The strategy should specify 
emission reduction measures for sources subject to BART requirements, 
and for other sources causing or contributing to such visibility 
impairment in these areas. The strategy should also include measures 
necessary for reasonable progress to be achieved in other mandatory 
Class I Federal areas located outside the State that may be affected by 
emissions within the State.
--A SIP assessment every 3 years, including a review of progress made 
and a revision of the long-term strategy as appropriate, including 
consultation with the FLM and a report to EPA and the public.
--Provisions for review of new source impacts on visibility.
--Coordination with existing plans and goals, including those of FLMs.

    The basic framework for the long-term strategy provisions in 40 CFR 
51.306 remains the same. The proposed revisions do not affect the on-
going requirement for States to continue to address reasonably 
attributable impairment while adding new provisions to address regional 
haze impairment. The EPA has specifically revised the regulation to 
preserve the requirements in the existing visibility program for 
addressing reasonably attributable impairment. These requirements are 
to continue to be implemented independent of whether the State is 
currently meeting reasonable progress targets or not. Proposed 40 CFR 
51.306(a)(1) has been revised to address this point. This proposed 
revision requires the State to first identify whether there is an 
active certification of reasonably attributable impairment for any 
Class I area in the State. If an active certification is pending, the 
long-

[[Page 41153]]

 term strategy needs to address the progress made in assessing BART 
pursuant to this certification and other related activities. This 
proposed section provides that all other visibility impairment will be 
considered as regional haze and be addressed in accordance with other 
provisions in 40 CFR 51.306, including the proposed 40 CFR 51.306(d).
    The proposed 40 CFR 51.306(d) (1) and (2) set forth requirements 
for the State, within 12 months to develop a procedure that will, by a 
date 5 years from rule promulgation, determine current visibility 
conditions for every mandatory Class I Federal area. The procedure 
should provide for coordination with the FLMs and use appropriate data 
available or planned for under the monitoring plan. Current conditions 
are to be defined (or estimated for mandatory Class I Federal areas 
without monitoring at the time of promulgation of these revisions) for 
the average of the 20 percent most impaired days and 20 percent least 
impaired days, using the deciview scale. The State should use all years 
where monitoring data are available or estimation and apportionment 
techniques noted in Agency guidance can be applied. As mentioned in the 
discussion of the baseline in Part E. above, a minimum of three years 
of monitoring data should be used. Adjustments to a baseline using 3 
years of data can be made using more ambient data up to nine 
consecutive years.
    In addition, proposed 40 CFR 51.306(d)(1) requires the State to 
establish a procedure in consultation with the FLMs by which levels of 
naturally-occurring PM-fine and visibility will be established within 
five years. Estimates from NAPAP 1990 and developed by Trijonis 
(PM2.5: 1.5 g/m\3\ in west, 3.3 g/m\3\ in 
east) may be converted to deciview and used as a default as necessary. 
After the SIP revision due in 2003, these assessments will then be 
required every 3 years. The periodic assessment of natural and current 
conditions should take into consideration new findings from the 
research community, improved emissions estimates for wildfire, 
prescribed fire and windblown dust, and any future policies for 
ecosystem management, prescribed fire, and so on.
    The proposed 40 CFR 51.306(d)(3) also requires that the regional 
haze long-term strategy submitted within 1 year of the final 
promulgation of these rules include provisions for requiring that for 
each Class I area with existing anthropogenic impairment greater than 1 
deciview, the State shall within 5 years of rule promulgation (except 
in the case of States concurrently preparing nonattainment control 
strategy SIP revisions for PM2.5) adopt measures and revise 
its SIP to include emission reduction strategies that would meet the 
reasonable progress targets within the next 3-year period. These 
measures are to address the best available retrofit technology 
requirement, as well as other necessary measures from non-BART sources 
to ensure that reasonable progress targets are achieved. Such measures 
should include a combination of local and regional measures. Regional 
measures recommended through the multistate implementation process are 
expected to take regional modeling efforts into consideration. States 
will take these assessments into account, but will be the ultimate 
authority responsible for control strategy development and 
implementation. The types of analyses conducted by the GCVTC to 
identify and assess the various source categories contributing to 
regional haze on the Colorado plateau can serve as a model for regional 
approaches to develop strategies for making reasonable progress. 
Although the GCVTC process did not emphasize analysis of sources 
potentially subject to BART, EPA believes it is important that States 
make such an analysis a primary component of the long-term strategy.
    The proposed timing for required emission reduction strategies for 
regional haze is designed to allow sufficient time to conduct technical 
assessments on a regional scale. The EPA also proposes that emission 
reduction strategies for visibility be revised every 3 years thereafter 
in order to meet the reasonable progress targets for any mandatory 
Class I Federal areas located in the State. These revised strategies 
are to be implemented through SIP revisions.
    Section 51.306(f) of 40 CFR specifies a number of factors, 
currently set forth in 40 CFR 51.306(e), in considering the need for 
visibility-specific measures, including the measures being implemented 
for other programs. It is possible that for some areas of the country, 
such as parts of the Eastern U.S., emission reductions achieved for the 
acid rain program could be sufficient to meet the presumptive 
reasonable progress targets initially. The EPA has proposed revisions 
that would require the State to address the anticipated net effect on 
visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source 
emissions over the next 10-15 years when developing emissions 
strategies that will meet the reasonable progress requirements. In some 
areas, these changes in emissions would be expected primarily from 
population growth, while in others emissions changes may result from 
potential new industrial, energy, natural resource development, or land 
management activities.
    The proposed 40 CFR 51.306(d)(3)(ii)(B) would require SIPs to 
explicitly address the contribution by each State needed to meet 
reasonable progress targets. This section provides that such strategies 
should be consistent with strategies recommended through regional 
planning processes conducted for related air quality issues. This 
provision should serve as an incentive for States to participate in 
regional planning activities. The EPA believes that multi-state 
planning, modeling, and control strategy assessment will be important 
in addressing regional haze. At the same time, each State is ultimately 
responsible for determining its contribution to ensure reasonable 
progress in mandatory Class I Federal areas affected by its emissions 
sources and implementing appropriate emissions control strategies. In 
evaluating visibility SIP revisions, the EPA will consider the 
information submitted by the State as well as any relevant regional 
planning analysis.
    The proposed 40 CFR 51.306(d)(4) sets forth requirements to be 
addressed by the State in the implementation plan revision if it has 
not met the presumptive reasonable progress targets over the past 3-
year period. This provision requires the State to first determine 
whether targeted emissions reductions planned for in its previous long-
term strategy revision were achieved. This approach follows from the 
GCVTC definition of reasonable progress as ``continuous emission 
reductions.'' This step would involve reviewing emissions sources, 
inventories, and other data used as the ``baseline'' for any modeling 
assessments or assumptions used in developing the strategy. If such 
reductions were found to have been actually achieved, the State must 
then evaluate other factors, such as meteorological conditions, that 
were responsible for not achieving the targets. This assessment must be 
provided to EPA as part of the implementation plan revision process. If 
planned emission reductions were not achieved, then the State must 
revise its emissions reduction strategies to enable it to meet over the 
next 3-year period the presumptive reasonable progress targets that 
would have been required if the targets had been achieved initially. 
This 3-year submittal, review and adjustment of emission reduction 
strategies is similar to the tracking of reasonable

[[Page 41154]]

further progress for the NAAQS. Additional discussion on achieving 
reasonable progress targets is found in Unit I.F.2.b., Determining 
Baseline Conditions, of this action.
    The proposed 40 CFR 51.306(d)(5) introduces requirements for States 
to follow in developing ``alternate progress targets.'' A State would 
pursue development of such targets if it can demonstrate that 
achievement of the presumptive targets would not be reasonable due to 
the factors found in section 169(A)(g)(1) of the Act that are to be 
considered in developing long-term strategies. These factors include 
the costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy 
and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the 
remaining useful life of any affected source or equipment therein. This 
section requires the State to provide to EPA a satisfactory 
justification for any alternate progress target. The State should 
consult with other States whose emissions may contribute to regional 
haze in the Class I area, the appropriate Federal Land Manager, and EPA 
in development of an alternative reasonable progress target for any 
Class I area. This provision recognizes that consideration of these 
factors may lead a State to adopt alternative reasonable progress 
targets for a mandatory Class I Federal area that differ from those of 
other mandatory Class I Federal areas within a planning region. 
However, the proposed rules prohibit States from interpreting the 
alternative target to allow a degradation of visibility conditions due 
to human-caused emissions. At a minimum, for any three year period 
between long-term strategy revisions, the State's plan should provide 
maintenance of current conditions for the most and least impaired days. 
The alternative target and corresponding justification must be 
submitted as part of the State visibility SIP revision process. Any 
alternative reasonable progress target submitted by the State will be 
reviewable through public hearings on the SIP revision and will be 
subject to approval by EPA.
    The EPA seeks public comment on all aspects of its proposed 
regulatory revisions to the visibility long-term strategy requirements 
in 40 CFR 51.306 as well as all of the other proposed policies and 
regulatory revisions related to regional haze SIP requirements set 
forth in this action.

II. Regulatory Requirements

    The discussion below addresses requirements of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, Paperwork Reduction Act, 
Executive Order 12898, and Executive Order 12866 for purposes of the 
proposed regional haze rule.

A. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866, the Agency must determine whether a 
regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) review and other requirements of the 
Executive Order. The order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as 
one that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another Agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    In view of its important policy implications, the proposed regional 
haze rule has been judged to be a ``significant regulatory action'' 
within the meaning of the Executive Order, and EPA has submitted it to 
OMB for review. The drafts of proposed rules submitted to OMB, the 
documents accompanying such drafts, written comments thereon, written 
responses by EPA, and identification of the changes made in response to 
OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the public 
docket and made available for public inspection at EPA's Air and 
Radiation Docket Information Center (Docket No. A-95-38).
    The EPA has prepared and entered into the docket a Regulatory 
Impact Analysis (RIA) entitled Regulatory Impact Analysis for Proposed 
Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standard and 
Regional Haze Rule. This RIA assesses the costs, economic impacts, and 
benefits associated with the implementation of the current and several 
alternative NAAQS for ozone and PM and the regional haze rule. As 
discussed in the RIA, there are an unusually large number of 
limitations and uncertainties associated with the analyses and 
resulting cost impacts and benefit estimates. Furthermore, the 
assumptions regarding implementation are necessarily speculative in 
nature. Under the proposed regional haze rule, States bear the primary 
responsibility for establishing control requirements for assuring 
reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal. Until such 
time as States make decisions regarding control measures, EPA may only 
speculate as to which sources may be regulated and as to what types of 
control requirements or emission limits may be required.
    The proposed regional haze rule establishes presumptive targets for 
visibility improvements in mandatory Class I Federal areas, but also 
provides discretion to the States to establish alternate targets where 
warranted. The EPA has prepared a RIA that analyzes the costs and 
benefits of implementing a regional haze program to achieve 2 different 
presumptive targets for visibility improvement: one target equal to a 
rate over 10 years, the other over 15 years. The targets can be 
attained by taking into account emissions reductions achieved under 
other air quality programs, including implementation of the new ozone 
and particulate matter standards. The RIA analysis estimates that 
annual costs over the period 2000-2010 would likely result in the 
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments and the private 
sector, in aggregate, of over $100 million per year for both 
presumptive options.
    It is important to note, however, that there is significant 
uncertainty in these cost estimates for a number of technical reasons 
specific to the analysis, but more importantly because of the 
flexibility that States have in establishing alternate targets and in 
developing emissions control strategies to meet the target. The EPA has 
no way of estimating the number of States that may seek to establish 
alternate progress targets for any of the 156 mandatory Class I Federal 
areas required to make progress or in predicting the actual control 
measures that will be employed. For this reason, the costs associated 
with the presumptive target options in the RIA may be significantly 
overstated. As stated in the RIA, total annual costs of the rule in 
2010 would be zero if all States adopted alternative reasonable 
progress targets which imposed no additional controls beyond those 
required for the PM NAAQS, $2.1 billion if all States adopted the 
proposed presumptive reasonable progress target of 1.0 deciview 
improvement in the most impaired days over 15 years, and $2.7 billion 
if all States adopted the proposed presumptive reasonable progress 
target of 1.0 deciview improvement over 10 years. Nevertheless, it is 
likely that they would exceed the $100 million threshold in any event.

[[Page 41155]]

    Total annual benefits in 2010 under these three alternative 
scenarios would be $0, $1.3 to $3.2 billion, or $1.7 to $5.7 billion 
respectively. Since it is likely that some States will adopt the 
presumptive targets and some will adopt alternative targets for 
mandatory Class I Federal areas, actual costs and benefits would 
probably fall within these ranges. These benefits are incremental to 
the visibility benefits, including those for mandatory Class I Federal 
area visibility improvement expected from implementation of the PM and 
Ozone NAAQS recently promulgated on July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652 and 
38856). There are important benefits to human health and welfare, and 
to the environment from improving air quality in these important 
natural areas by reducing emissions of fine particles (the main 
contributors to visibility impairment).

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
provides that, whenever an agency is required to publish a general 
notice of rulemaking for a proposed rule, the agency must prepare 
regulatory flexibility analyses for the proposed and final rule unless 
the head of the agency certifies that it will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 
entities include small businesses, small governments (e.g., cities, 
towns, school districts), and small non-profit organizations. The 
regional haze rule being proposed today applies to States, not to small 
entities. It proposes to establish presumptive visibility protection 
goals for certain national parks and wilderness areas that States may 
modify, where appropriate, based on a review of specific criteria 
related to the degree of visibility impairment, the costs of 
controlling emissions and other relevant information, after 
consultation with the Federal Land Managers. In addition, the rule 
proposes planning, monitoring and progress reporting requirements that 
would apply to States to assure that States are making progress toward 
the national visibility goal for mandatory Class I Federal areas.
    Under the proposed rules, States would decide how to obtain 
sufficient emissions control measures through State-level rulemakings. 
In developing emission control measures, section 169A of the Clean Air 
Act requires States to address best available retrofit technology 
requirements (BART) for a select list of major stationary sources 
defined by the Clean Air Act section 169A(g)(7). Before any such major 
stationary source would be subject to BART for regional haze, however, 
the State would have to make a determination which involves some State 
discretion in considering a number of relevant statutory factors set 
forth in section 169A(g)(2), including the costs of compliance, any 
existing control technology in use at the source, the remaining useful 
life of the source, the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts 
of compliance, and the degree of visibility improvement that may 
reasonably be anticipated. Further, EPA is seeking public comment on 
the potential for alternative approaches to addressing the BART 
requirement, as discussed earlier in this action. For BART and for 
other measures the State may adopt to meet the requirements of a 
regional haze rule, EPA will also be exploring further policy issues in 
a future implementation guidance. The potential consequences of today's 
proposal are thus speculative at this time. Any requirements for 
emission control measures, like the SIP process for attaining national 
ambient air quality standards, will be established by State rulemaking. 
Because the States will exercise substantial intervening discretion in 
implementing the proposed rule, EPA certifies that the regional haze 
rule being proposed today will not, if promulgated, have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the 
meaning of the RFA. The legal reasoning supporting this certification 
is analogous to the reasoning explained in certifying the recent NAAQS 
rulemakings for ozone and particulate matter; a full statement of this 
reasoning was published previously in the Federal Register as part of 
the Notices of Final Rulemaking on July 18, 1997, for those two NAAQS 
rulemakings (62 FR 38652 and 38856).
    The EPA's finding that today's proposed regional haze rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities also entails that the small-entity provisions in section 609 
of the RFA do not apply. Nevertheless, EPA undertook small-entity 
outreach activities modeled on these provisions on a voluntary basis. 
These activities include conducting a review panel, following RFA 
procedures, to solicit advice and recommendations from representatives 
of small businesses, small governments, and other small organizations. 
This panel review resulted in a final report entitled ``Final Report of 
the Review Panel Convened to Consider EPA's Planned Phase I Guidance on 
Implementation of New or Revised Ozone and Particulate Matter NAAQS and 
Proposed Rule on Regional Haze'', dated June 10, 1997. A copy of the 
report has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking. The EPA has 
also added a number of additional small-entity representatives to its 
CAAAC Subcommittee on NAAQS and regional haze implementation.
    The goal of this outreach activity is to work with the small-entity 
representatives to find implementation approaches that minimize impacts 
on small entities, and to help and encourage the States to use these 
approaches as they develop their State Implementation Plans for NAAQS 
attainment and regional haze reduction. It should be noted that the 
principal way States can minimize small-entity impact is by their 
choices of control strategies. While development of control strategies 
will be required in order for States to fully implement a regional haze 
program, EPA plans to address coordination of regional haze and NAAQS-
related implementation strategies in future guidance. However, the 
small-entity review panel felt that it was important to share whatever 
information available with the States, so that states can begin 
thinking about small-entity impacts as part of their early planning. 
Therefore, the panel recommended that EPA develop and publish a 
guidance memorandum to the States which will summarize current 
knowledge on approaches to minimize small-entity impacts. The EPA has 
accepted that recommendation, and will publish such a memorandum 
shortly after today's action appears. Included in the guidance 
memorandum will be a preliminary list of various actions that States 
might take to alleviate adverse implementation impacts on small 
business while at the same time assuring that air quality goals are 
achieved. This list will then continue to be refined as part of the 
process to develop the future guidance.

C. Impact on Reporting Requirements

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule 
relating to State requirements for the protection of visibility in 
specially-protected national parks and wilderness areas have been 
submitted to OMB for review under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3501, et seq. An Information Collection Request document has 
been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1813.01 and a copy may be obtained from 
Sandy Farmer, Information Policy Branch; EPA; 401 M St., SW (Milked 
2137); Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740.
    This collection of information has an estimated reporting burden 
for the fifty

[[Page 41156]]

States and District of Columbia, averaging 623 hours per year per 
State. The Agency expects the Federal burden will be approximately 216 
hours per year. The Agency anticipates annual States costs of about 
$1.0 million, approximately $25,000 per State. The Agency estimates the 
annual Federal costs to be approximately $7000. These estimates include 
time for reviewing requirements and instructions, evaluating data 
sources, gathering and maintaining data, and completing and reviewing 
the collection of information.
    Send comments by October 20, 1997 regarding these burden estimates 
or any other aspect of these collections of information, including 
suggestions for reducing this burden to Chief, Information Policy 
Branch; EPA; 401 M St., SW. (Mailcode 2137), Washington, DC 20460; and 
to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 
Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk 
Officer for EPA.'' The final rule will be accompanied with responses to 
OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements 
contained in this proposal.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``Unfunded 
Mandates Act'') (signed into law on March 22, 1995) requires that the 
Agency must prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a 
rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the 
private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. The budgetary 
impact statement must include: (i) Identification of the Federal law 
under which the rule is promulgated; (ii) a qualitative and 
quantitative assessment of anticipated costs and benefits of the 
Federal mandate and an analysis of the extent to which such costs to 
State, local, and tribal governments may be paid with Federal financial 
assistance; (iii) if feasible, estimates of the future compliance costs 
and any disproportionate budgetary effects of the mandate; (iv) if 
feasible, estimates of the effect on the national economy; and (v) a 
description of the Agency's prior consultation with elected 
representatives of State, local, and tribal governments and a summary 
and evaluation of the comments and concerns presented. Section 203 
requires the Agency to establish a plan for obtaining input from and 
informing, educating, and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule. Section 204 requires 
the Agency to provide for an effective process for State, local, and 
Tribal officials to provide meaningful and timely input in the 
development of regulatory proposals containing significant 
intergovernmental mandates.
    Under section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act, the Agency must 
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives 
before promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact statement must 
be prepared. The Agency must select from those alternatives the least 
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative, for 
State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector, that 
achieves the objectives of the rule, unless the Agency explains why 
this alternative is not selected or unless the selection of this 
alternative is inconsistent with law.
    This rule is being developed under the Federal Clean Air Act. The 
RIA, discussed in Unit II.A. above, contains an assessment of the costs 
and benefits of this proposed rule. Federal funds are available to meet 
some of the largely administrative costs to State, local, and Tribal 
governments through grants provided by EPA under the authority of 
section 105 of the Clean Air Act.
    As reflected in the RIA, the rule is expected to have a greater 
effect initially on the private sector in the western United States 
than the eastern U.S. because certain emissions control measures under 
the Clean Air Act acid rain program are already under way to reduce 
sulfur oxides emissions in the eastern U.S., a major precursor to 
sulfate particles, the dominant fine particle constituent in the 
eastern U.S. Phase II of the acid rain trading program will continue 
through 2007. The rule is not expected to have any disproportionate 
budgetary effects on any State, local, or tribal government, or urban 
or rural or other type of community. The rule is not expected to have a 
material effect on the national economy.
    In developing the proposed rule, EPA has provided numerous 
opportunities for consultation with interested parties, including 
State, local, and tribal governments. These opportunities include 
meetings and discussions under the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee, 
Subcommittee on Ozone, Particulate Matter, and Regional Haze 
Implementation Programs, and the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport 
Commission. The EPA's consideration of the recommendations from these 
two groups is discussed extensively in Unit I.C. of the preamble. The 
principal comments of State, local, and Tribal groups are also 
documented in the Subcommittee's Initial Report on Subcommittee 
Discussions (April 1997) and the GCVTC's Recommendations on Improving 
Western Vistas. Being comprised of State and Tribal governments, the 
GCVTC issued recommendations on a wide range of topics, including 
emission management alternatives, technical findings, and areas for 
further research. The EPA also will have a public comment period of at 
least 60 days on the proposed rule, as well as a public hearing, in 
order to allow for additional meaningful input into the development of 
the regulation.
    The Agency is considering two main options for presumptive 
reasonable progress targets in developing the rule. EPA believes that 
because the rule also includes the flexibility for States to propose 
alternate reasonable progress targets based on certain criteria, one of 
which is the costs of compliance, the proposed rule meets the UMRA 
requirement in section 205 to select the least costly and burdensome 
alternative in light of the statutory mandate to issue regulations that 
make reasonable progress toward the national visibility protection 
goal. EPA also has provided a technical rationale in the preamble for 
defining the presumptive reasonable progress target rate equal to 1.0 
deciview improvement in the most impaired days over 10 or 15 years.

E. Environmental Justice

    Executive Order 12898 requires that each Federal agency make 
achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and 
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human 
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and 
activities on minorities and low-income populations. These requirements 
have been addressed to the extent practicable in the RIA cited above.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, 
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Transportation, Volatile 
organic compounds.

    Dated: July 18, 1997.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 51 of chapter I of 
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended 
as follows:

[[Page 41157]]

PART 51--REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF 
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

    1. The authority citation for part 51 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7410, 7414, 7421, 7470-7479, 7491, 7492, 
7601, and 7602.

Subpart P--Protection of Visibility

    2. Section 51.300 is amended as follows:
    a. Adding a colon at the end of the words ``this subpart are'' in 
paragraph (a) introductory text and adding a semicolon in place of the 
comma at the end of paragraph (a)(1).
    b. Revising ``Sec. 51.24'' to read ``Sec. 51.166'' in paragraph 
(a)(2);
    c. Adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (a)(2);
    d. Adding a heading to paragraph (b)(1) and revising paragraph 
(b)(1) introductory text;
    e. Revising paragraph (b)(2) introductory text;
    f. Adding a new paragraph (b)(3), to read as follows:


Sec. 51.300  Purpose and applicability.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * * This subpart sets forth requirements addressing 
visibility impairment in its two principal forms: ``reasonably 
attributable'' impairment (i.e., impairment attributable to a single 
source/small group of sources) and regional haze (i.e., widespread haze 
from a multitude of sources which impairs visibility in every direction 
over a large area).
    (b) * * * (1) General applicability. The provisions of this subpart 
pertaining to implementation plan requirements for assuring reasonable 
progress in preventing any future and remedying any existing visibility 
impairment are applicable to:
* * * * *
    (2) The provisions of this subpart pertaining to implementation 
plans to address reasonably attributable visibility impairment are 
applicable to the following States:
* * * * *
    (3) The provisions of this subpart pertaining to implementation 
plans to address regional haze visibility impairment are applicable to 
all States as defined in section 302(d) of the Clean Air Act except 
Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands.
    3. Section 51.301 is amended as follows:
    a. Adding the words ``(or the Secretary's designee)'' after the 
word ``area'' to paragraph (g);
    b. Revising ``Sec. 51.24'' to read ``Sec. 51.166'' in paragraph 
(p);
    c. Adding the words ``light extinction,'' after the phrase ``in 
terms of'' in paragraph (q);
    d. Adding the words ``light extinction,'' to the beginning of the 
parenthetical ``(visual range, contrast, coloration)'' in paragraph 
(x);
    e. Adding new paragraphs (z) through (cc), to read as follows:


Sec. 51.301  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (z) Reasonable progress target means for the purposes of addressing 
regional haze visibility impairment: an improvement in the average of 
the twenty percent most impaired days each year, equivalent to an 
improvement (decrease) of [Option A: 1.0 deciview per 10 years or 
Option B: 1.0 deciview per 15 years], and no degradation (less than 0.1 
deciview increase) in the average of the twenty percent least impaired 
days each year.
    (aa) Regional haze visibility impairment means any humanly 
perceptible change in visibility (light extinction, visual range, 
contrast, coloration) from that which would have existed under natural 
conditions that is caused predominantly by a combination of many 
sources, over a wide geographic area. Such sources include, but are not 
limited to, major and minor stationary sources, mobile sources, area 
sources, fugitive emissions, and forestry and agricultural practices.
    (bb) Deciview (dv) means the metric, based on light extinction, 
used for an atmospheric haze index, such that uniform changes in 
haziness correspond to the same metric increment across the entire 
range from pristine to highly impaired haze conditions. Deciview values 
are calculated by multiplying by 10 the natural logarithm of 1/10th of 
the atmospheric light extinction coefficient expressed in units of 
inverse megameters.
    (cc) State means State as defined in section 302(d) of the Clean 
Air Act.
    4. Section 51.302 is amended as follows:
    a. Revising paragraph (a)(1);
    b. In paragraph (a)(2)(i) by revising ``Sec. 51.4'' to read 
``Sec. 51.102'';
    c. Revising ``Sec. 51.4'' to read ``Sec. 51.102'' in paragraph 
(a)(2)(ii);
    d. Adding the word ``revision'' after the word ``plan'' at the end 
of paragraph (a)(2)(ii);
    e. Revising ``Sec. 51.5'' to read Sec. 51.103'' in paragraph 
(a)(3);
    f. Revising paragraph (b);
    g. Adding the words ``reasonably attributable'' after the word 
``exists'' in paragraph (c)(1);
    h. Revising paragraph (c)(2) introductory text;
    i. Adding the phrase ``, including a schedule'' after the word 
``measures'' in paragraph (c)(2)(i);
    j. Adding paragraphs (c)(2)(iv) and (c)(2)(v);
    k. Adding the words ``reasonably attributable'' after the phrase 
``For any existing'' in paragraph (c)(4) introductory text;
    l. Adding the words ``or revision'' after the word ``approval'' at 
the end of the sentence in paragraph (c)(4)(iv);
    m. Adding a new paragraph (c)(5), to read as follows:


Sec. 51.302  Implementation control strategies.

    (a) * * *
    (1) (i) Each State identified in Sec. 51.300(b)(2) must have 
submitted, not later than September 2, 1981, an implementation plan 
revision meeting the requirements of this subpart pertaining to 
reasonably attributable visibility impairment.
    (ii) Each State identified in Sec. 51.300(b)(3) must submit, by 
[date one year from publication of final rule revisions to this 
subpart], an implementation plan revision meeting the requirements set 
forth in this subpart addressing regional haze visibility impairment, 
including provisions for submittal of future implementation plan 
revisions in accordance with Sec. 51.306(c), with the exception of 
requirements related to reasonably attributable visibility impairment 
in paragraphs (c)(2)(iii) and (c)(4) of this section, Sec. 51.304 and 
Sec. 51.305(a).
* * * * *
    (b) State and Federal Land Manager coordination. (1) The State must 
identify to the Federal Land Managers, in writing and by [date 30 days 
from the date of publication of the final rule revisions to this 
subpart], the title of the official to which the Federal Land Manager 
of any mandatory Class I Federal area can submit a recommendation on 
the implementation of this subpart including but not limited to:
    (i) Identification of reasonably attributable and regional haze 
visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I Federal area(s);
    (ii) Identification of elements for inclusion in the visibility 
monitoring strategy required by Sec. 51.305; and
    (iii) Identification of elements for inclusion in the long-term 
strategy and its periodic revisions required by Sec. 51.306.
    (2) The State must provide opportunity for consultation, in person

[[Page 41158]]

and at least 60 days prior to holding any public comment on proposed 
implementation plan revisions, with the Federal Land Manager on the 
proposed SIP revisions required by this subpart. This consultation must 
include the opportunity for the affected Federal Land Managers to 
discuss their:
    (i) Recommendations on the methods for estimating natural 
conditions and levels of impairment of visibility in any mandatory 
Class I Federal area; and
    (ii) Recommendations on the development and implementation of the 
long-term strategy.
    (3) The plan or plan revisions must provide procedures for 
continuing consultation between the State and the Federal Land Manager 
on the implementation of the visibility protection program required by 
this subpart.
    (c) * * *
    (2) The implementation plan must contain the following to address 
reasonably attributable and regional haze visibility impairment:
* * * * *
    (iv) A monitoring strategy as required in Sec. 51.305.
    (v) A requirement for revision of the plan, including revisions to 
the monitoring strategy required in Sec. 51.305 and the long-term 
strategy required in Sec. 51.306, no later than four years from the 
date of the plan revision required in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this 
section, and no later than every 3 years thereafter.
* * * * *
    (5) Plan revisions for regional haze visibility impairment. The 
implementation plan due pursuant to paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this 
section by [date one year from the date of the Federal Register 
publication of the final rule] must contain:
    (i) A list of existing stationary facilities in the State, and a 
plan and schedule for evaluating, by [date 3 years from the date of 
Federal Register publication of the final rule], the best available 
retrofit technology and corresponding potential emission reductions for 
those existing stationary facilities the State determines may 
reasonably be anticipated to contribute to regional haze visibility 
impairment in any mandatory Class I Federal area located within or 
outside the State.
    (ii) Revisions as necessary for the State to meet the requirements 
of section 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act as they pertain to 
implementation of measures to address regional haze visibility 
impairment.
    5. Section 51.305 is amended as follows:
    a. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (a) introductory text;
    b. Redesignating existing paragraph (b) as paragraph (c);
    c. Adding new paragraph (b), to read as follows:


Sec. 51.305  Monitoring.

    (a) For the purposes of addressing reasonably attributable 
visibility impairment, each State containing a mandatory Class I 
Federal area where visibility has been identified as an important value 
(i.e., each State identified in Sec. 51.300(b)(2)) must include in the 
plan a strategy for evaluating visibility in any mandatory Class I 
Federal area by visual observation or other appropriate monitoring 
techniques. * * *
    (b) For the purposes of addressing regional haze visibility 
impairment, the State must include in the plan required under 
Sec. 51.302(a)(1)(ii) a monitoring strategy for characterizing regional 
haze visibility impairment that is representative of all mandatory 
Class I Federal areas within the State. The strategy must be revised no 
later than four years from the date of the plan revision required in 
Sec. 51.302(a)(1)(ii), and no later than every three years thereafter. 
The strategy must be coordinated as appropriate with Federal Land 
Managers, other States, and EPA, and must take into account such 
guidance as is provided by the Agency.
    (1) The plan must provide for establishment, within 12 months, of 
any additional monitoring sites needed to assess whether reasonable 
progress targets are being achieved for all mandatory Class I Federal 
areas within the State.
    (2) The plan must include a requirement to assess the relative 
contribution to regional haze visibility impairment at each mandatory 
Class I Federal area in the State by emissions from within and outside 
the State.
    (3) A State required to submit a plan under Sec. 51.302(a)(1)(ii) 
and having no mandatory Class I Federal areas must include in its plan 
procedures by which monitoring data will be used to determine the 
contribution of emissions from within the State to regional haze 
visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I Federal area.
    (4) The plan must provide for the reporting of all visibility 
monitoring data to EPA at least annually for each mandatory Class I 
Federal area in the State having such monitoring. The State should 
follow reporting procedures found in applicable EPA guidance. To the 
extent possible, reporting of visibility monitoring data shall be 
accomplished through electronic data transfer techniques.
* * * * *
    6. Section 51.306 is amended as follows:
    a. Adding introductory text to paragraph (a);
    b. Revising paragraph (a)(1);
    c. Revising paragraphs (c) introductory text, (c)(1), (c)(2) and 
(c)(4);
    d. Redesignating paragraphs (d) through (g) as new paragraphs (e) 
through (h);
    e. Adding new paragraph (d);
    f. Amending the newly redesignated paragraph (e) by adding the 
words ``on reasonably attributable impairment and regional haze 
impairment'' after the word ``impacts'' in the first sentence, by 
revising ``Sec. 51.24'' to read ``Sec. 51.166'', and by revising 
``Sec. 51.18'' to read ``Sec. 51.165'';
    g. Amending newly redesignated paragraph (f)(5) by removing the 
word ``and'' at the end of the paragraph;
    h. Amending newly redesignated paragraph (f)(6) by removing the 
period at the end of the paragraph and adding ``, and'' in its place;
    i. Adding a new paragraph (f)(7);
    j. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (g), to read as follows:


Sec. 51.306  Long-term strategy.

    (a) For the purposes of addressing reasonably attributable 
visibility impairment and regional haze visibility impairment:
    (1) Each plan required under Sec. 51.302(a)(1) (i) and (ii) must 
include a long-term (10-15 years) strategy for making reasonable 
progress toward the national goal specified in Sec. 51.300(a). This 
strategy must cover any existing reasonably attributable visibility 
impairment the Federal Land Manager certifies to the State at least 6 
months prior to plan submission, or 6 months prior to the due date for 
subsequent long-term strategy revisions as required by this section, 
unless the State determines that this impairment is not reasonably 
attributable to a single source or small group of sources. Any 
impairment determined by the State not to be reasonably attributable 
impairment must be addressed as regional haze impairment according to 
the provisions in this section. The long-term strategy must address any 
integral vista which the Federal Land Manager has adopted in accordance 
with Sec. 51.304.
* * * * *
    (c) The plan must provide for periodic revision of the long-term 
strategy no later than four years from the date of the plan revision 
required in Sec. 51.302(a)(1)(ii), and no later than every three years 
thereafter. This process for developing the periodic plan revision must 
include consultation with the appropriate Federal Land Managers, and

[[Page 41159]]

a State report to the public and the Administrator on progress toward 
the national goal, including:
    (1) The progress achieved in remedying existing impairment of 
visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area, including an 
evaluation of whether the reasonable progress target was achieved for 
each mandatory Class I Federal area addressed by the plan since the 
last plan revision;
    (2) The ability of the long-term strategy to prevent future 
impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area, 
including an evaluation of whether the reasonable progress target will 
be achieved for each mandatory Class I Federal area addressed by the 
plan until the next plan revision;
* * * * *
    (4) Additional measures, including the need for SIP revisions, that 
may be necessary to assure reasonable progress toward the national goal 
and achievement of the reasonable progress target for any mandatory 
Class I Federal area;
* * * * *
    (d) Regional haze long-term strategy. The plan required under 
Sec. 51.302(a)(1)(ii) must include a long-term strategy that addresses 
regional haze visibility impairment for each mandatory Class I Federal 
area within the State and for each mandatory Class I Federal area 
located outside the State which may be affected by emissions within the 
State, including provisions requiring the following:
    (1) Not later than [date 12 months from the date of Federal 
Register publication of final rules] the State, in consultation with 
the appropriate Federal Land Managers, must define the procedure to be 
used for estimating the visibility under natural conditions expressed 
in deciviews, in each mandatory Class I Federal area, for the average 
of the twenty percent most impaired days and for the average of the 
twenty percent least impaired days for a representative year. In the 
long-term strategy revision due after determination of the procedure, 
the State must complete the procedure and establish the natural 
conditions estimate. For each long-term strategy revision due after 
establishment of the natural conditions estimate, the State shall 
consider, in consultation with the Federal Land Manager, any new data 
since the last long-term strategy revision that would alter the 
established estimate of natural conditions and propose appropriate 
changes as part of the plan revision.
    (2) Not later than [date 12 months from the date of Federal 
Register publication of the final rules], the State, in consultation 
with the appropriate Federal Land Managers, must determine for each 
mandatory Class I Federal area a procedure for establishing current 
visibility conditions expressed in deciviews, for the average of twenty 
percent most impaired days each year, and for the average of the twenty 
percent least impaired days each year using the existing visibility 
monitoring network taking into account the monitoring techniques 
described in EPA guidance. For mandatory Class I Federal areas without 
representative data, the plan shall identify procedures to be followed 
to establish current visibility conditions not later than [date 5 years 
from Federal Register publication of final rules].
    (3) No later than [date 5 years from the date of Federal Register 
publication of final rules] and as part of each long-term strategy 
revision due thereafter, the State must:
    (i) Identify visibility under representative natural conditions for 
the average of the twenty percent most and least impaired days for each 
mandatory Class I Federal area;
    (ii) For any mandatory Class I Federal area where current 
conditions for the average of 20 percent most impaired or 20 percent 
least impaired days exceed natural background by one deciview or more, 
include, in the plan, emission management strategies to meet the 
reasonable progress target for the period covered by the long-term (10-
15 years) strategy. At a minimum, these emission management strategies 
must include:
    (A) Provisions to address the BART requirement for those existing 
stationary facilities determined to be causing or contributing to 
regional haze visibility impairment, in accordance with 
Sec. 51.302(c)(4) (ii) through (v).
    (B) Other measures necessary to obtain the portion of emission 
reductions from sources located within the State, developed based upon 
all available information, to achieve the reasonable progress target 
for each mandatory Class I Federal area in the State or affected by 
emissions from the State. These measures should be consistent with 
strategies developed in conjunction with other States through regional 
planning processes to address related air quality issues and clearly 
identify the emissions changes expected to occur that will produce the 
expected improvement in visibility. The portion of emissions 
contribution being addressed by a State's plan revision and the 
technical basis for the apportionment should be clearly specified.
    (4) States not achieving the reasonable progress target for any 
mandatory Class I Federal area over the three year time period since 
establishment of the strategy or the prior plan revision (i.e., State 
more than 10 percent deficient in meeting the reasonable progress 
target for either the most or least impaired days) must provide in the 
plan revision a review of emissions reduction estimates relied on in 
the development of the prior long-term strategy revision. If expected 
emissions reductions occurred, then the State must at a minimum provide 
an assessment of meteorological conditions, completeness of emissions 
sources subject to strategies, and other factors that likely influenced 
the relationship between emissions and visibility conditions. If 
expected emissions reductions were not achieved, the State shall revise 
emissions management strategies as appropriate to achieve the 
presumptive reasonable progress target.
    (5) For establishment of an alternate reasonable progress target 
for a mandatory Class I Federal area, the State must provide a 
justification for the alternate target demonstrated to the satisfaction 
of EPA. Any justification for an alternate reasonable progress target 
must address the following factors: the availability of source control 
technology, the costs of compliance with the reasonable progress 
target, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of 
compliance, the existing pollution control measures in use at sources, 
the remaining useful life of sources, the degree of improvement of 
visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from 
application of control technologies or other measures. In no event 
shall an alternate progress target allow visibility to degrade over the 
planning period covered. The State shall consult with the Federal Land 
Managers and all other States the emissions from which may reasonably 
be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in the 
affected mandatory Class I Federal area in considering development of 
an alternate target.
    (6) States preparing nonattainment plans for fine particulate 
matter (PM2.5) may submit the plan requirements under 
paragraph (d)(3) of this section by but no later than the required date 
for submittal of the State's PM2.5 attainment control 
strategy plan.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (7) The anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected 
changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the next 10-15 
years.

[[Page 41160]]

    (g) The plan must explain why the factors in paragraph (f) of this 
section and other reasonable measures were or were not evaluated as 
part of the long-term strategy.
* * * * *


Sec. 51.307  [Amended]

    8. Section 51.307 is amended as follows:
    a. Revising ``Sec. 51.24'' to read ``Sec. 51.166'' in paragraph (a) 
introductory text;
    b. Revising ``Sec. 51.24'' to read ``Sec. 51.166'' in paragraph 
(a)(2);
    c. Revising ``Sec. 51.24'' to read ``Sec. 51.166'' in paragraph 
(c).
    9. In addition to the previous amendments, in the sections listed 
in the first column remove the reference listed in the middle column 
and add the reference listed in the third column in its place:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Section                   Remove                  Add        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
51.301(v)...................  section 303.........  Sec.  51.303.       
51.302(c)(2)(i).............  section 305.........  Sec.  51.305.       
51.302(c)(2)(i).............  section 306.........  Sec.  51.306.       
51.302(c)(2)(i).............  section 300(a)......  Sec.  51.300(a).    
51.302(c)(4)(i).............  section 304(b)......  Sec.  51.304(b).    
51.303(a)(1)................  section 302.........  Sec.  51.302.       
51.303(c)...................  section 303.........  Sec.  51.303.       
51.303(d)...................  section 303.........  Sec.  51.303.       
51.303(g)...................  section 303.........  Sec.  51.303.       
51.303(h)...................  section 303.........  Sec.  51.303.       
51.304(c)...................  section 306(c)......  Sec.  51.306(c).    
51.306(c)(6)................  section 303.........  Sec.  51.303.       
51.306(e)...................  section 307.........  Sec.  51.307.       
51.307(b)(1)................  section 304.........  Sec.  51.304.       
51.307(b)(1)................  section 304(d)......  Sec.  51.304(d).    
51.307(c)...................  section 300(a)......  Sec.  51.300(a).    
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 97-19546 Filed 7-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P