[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 126 (Thursday, July 1, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35714-35774]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-13941]



[[Page 35713]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Part 51



Regional Haze Regulations; Final Rule

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

[[Page 35714]]


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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 51

[FRL-6353-4]
RIN 2060-AF32
[Docket No A-95-38]


Regional Haze Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Section 169A of the Clean Air Act (CAA) sets forth a national 
goal for visibility which is the ``prevention of any future, and the 
remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in Class I areas 
which impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' There are 156 
Class I areas across the country, including many well-known national 
parks and wilderness areas, such as the Grand Canyon, Great Smokies, 
Shenandoah, Yellowstone, Yosemite, the Everglades, and the Boundary 
Waters. Regional haze is visibility impairment caused by the cumulative 
air pollutant emissions from numerous sources over a wide geographic 
area. The EPA promulgated regulations in 1980 to address visibility 
impairment that is ``reasonably attributable'' to one or a small group 
of sources, but EPA deferred action on regional haze regulations until 
monitoring, modeling, and scientific knowledge about the relationship 
between pollutants and visibility effects improved. In 1993, the 
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) concluded that ``current scientific 
knowledge is adequate and control technologies are available for taking 
regulatory action to improve and protect visibility.''
    On July 31, 1997 (62 FR 41138), EPA published proposed amendments 
to the 1980 regulations to set forth a program to address regional haze 
visibility impairment. The EPA also published a notice of availability 
of additional information on the proposed regional haze regulation on 
September 3, 1998. This notice took comment specifically on new 
implementation plan timelines set forth in the Transportation Equity 
Act for the 21st Century, Public Law 105-178, and on a proposal from 
the Western Governors' Association (WGA) for addressing the 
recommendations of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission 
(GCVTC) in the final rule. The EPA received more than 1300 comments 
overall on the proposal and notice of availability.
    Today's final rule calls for States to establish goals and emission 
reduction strategies for improving visibility in all 156 mandatory 
Class I national parks and wilderness areas. Specific provisions are 
included in the rule allowing nine western States to implement the 
recommendations of the GCVTC within the framework of the national 
regional haze program. In addition, EPA encourages States to work 
together in regional partnerships to develop and implement multistate 
strategies to reduce emissions of visibility-impairing fine particle 
pollution.

DATES: The regulatory amendments announced herein take effect on August 
30, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Docket. The public docket for this action is available for 
public inspection and copying between 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday excluding legal holidays, at the Air and Radiation 
Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention: Docket A-95-38, Room 
M-1500, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, phone 202-260-7548, fax 
202-260-4400, email: A-and-R-D[email protected]. A reasonable fee 
for copying may be charged. The regional haze regulations are subject 
to the rulemaking procedures under section 307(d) of the CAA. The 
documents relied on to develop the regional haze regulations have been 
placed in the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general questions regarding this 
notice, contact Richard Damberg, U.S. EPA, MD-15, Research Triangle 
Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-5592, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Availability

    The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public 
version, has been established under docket number A-95-38 (including 
comments and data submitted electronically as described below). A 
public version of this record, including printed, paper versions of 
electronic comments, which does not include any information claimed as 
Confidential Business Information, is available for inspection from 
8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The official rulemaking record is located at the address in 
ADDRESSES at the beginning of this document. World Wide Web sites have 
been developed for overview information on visibility issues and 
related programs. These web sites can be accessed from Uniform Resource 
Locator (URL): 
http://www.epa.gov/airlinks/.

Table of Contents

I. Overview of Today's Final Rule
II. Background Information on the Regional Haze Program
    A. Regional Haze
    B. How Today's Final Rule Responds to the CAA
    C. The 1980 Visibility Regulation--Commitment to a Regional Haze 
Program
    D. Sources of Scientific Information and Policy Recommendations 
on Regional Haze
    E. Relationship to Secondary NAAQS for PM
    F. Regional Planning and Integration with Programs to Implement 
the NAAQS for Ozone and Particulate Matter
III. Discussion of National Program Requirements and Response to 
Comments
    A. Scope of Rule--Extending Coverage to All States
    B. Timetable for Submitting the First Regional Haze SIP
    C. Tracking Deciviews and Emissions Reductions
    D. Regional Haze Implementation Plan Principles
    E. Determination of ``Baseline,'' ``Natural'' and ``Current'' 
Visibility
    F. Reasonable Progress Goals
    G. Long-Term Strategy
    H. Best Available Retrofit Technology(BART)
    I. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan 
Requirements
    J. Periodic SIP Revisions and 5-Year Progress Reports
    K. Coordination with Federal Land Managers
IV. Treatment of the GCVTC Recommendations
    A. Background
    B. General Requirements of Section 51.309
    C. Elements of the GCVTC-Based State and Tribal Implementation 
Plans
    D. Requirements for States Electing Not To Follow All Provisions 
of the Section 51.309(e)
    E. Annex to the GCVTC Report
    F. Additional Class I Areas
V. Implementation of the Regional Haze Program in Indian Country
    A. Background on Tribal Air Quality Programs
    B. Issues Related to the Regional Haze Program in Indian Country
VI. Miscellaneous Technical Amendments to the Existing Rule
VII. Administrative Requirements
    A. Regulatory Planning and Review by the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) (Executive Order 12866)
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act--Impact on Reporting Requirements
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Environmental Justice--Executive Order 12898
    F. Congressional Review Act
    G. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and 
Safety Risks--Executive Order 13045
    H. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership-- Executive Order 
12875

[[Page 35715]]

    I. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

I. Overview of Today's Final Rule

    This preamble provides the details and rationale for the final 
regional haze rule. Unit II includes background information on regional 
haze and on the legal and scientific basis for today's action. Unit III 
describes the provisions of the national requirements for regional haze 
and includes a discussion of the comments received on the July 1997 
proposal. Unit IV discusses specific regional provisions for 16 western 
Class I areas that were the subject of a 1996 report by the GCVTC. Unit 
V is a discussion of issues related to implementation of the rule by 
Indian tribes. Unit VI summarizes several technical amendments to 
existing visibility regulations in order to coordinate those 
requirements with the requirements of today's final rule. Unit VII 
discusses how today's final rulemaking is in compliance with the 
requirements of various executive orders and statutes.

II. Background Information on the Regional Haze Program

A. Regional Haze

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a 
multitude of sources and activities which emit fine particles and their 
precursors and which are located across a broad geographic 
area.1 Twenty years ago, when initially adopting the 
visibility protection provisions of the CAA, Congress specifically 
recognized that the ``visibility problem is caused primarily by 
emission into the atmosphere of SO2, oxides of nitrogen, and 
particulate matter, especially fine particulate matter, from 
inadequate[ly] controlled sources.'' 2 The fine particulate 
matter (PM) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental 
carbon, and soil dust) that impairs visibility by scattering and 
absorbing light can cause serious health effects and mortality in 
humans, and contribute to environmental effects such as acid deposition 
and eutrophication. Data from the existing visibility monitoring 
network show that visibility impairment caused by air pollution occurs 
virtually all the time at most national park and wilderness area 
monitoring stations.3 Average visual range in many Class I 
areas 4 in the Western United States is 100-150 kilometers 
(13.6-9.6 deciviews), 5 or about one-half to two-thirds of 
the visual range that would exist without manmade air pollution. In 
most of the east, the average visual range is less than 30 kilometers 
(25 deciviews or more), or about one-fifth of the visual range that 
would exist under estimated natural conditions. The role of regional 
transport of fine particles in contributing to elevated PM levels and 
regional haze impairment has been well documented by many researchers 
6 and recognized as a significant issue by policymakers from 
Federal, State and local agencies, industry and environmental 
organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ U.S. EPA. Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter. 
Office of Research and Development, National Center for 
Environmental Assessment. EPA/600/P-95/001bF. Research Triangle 
Park, NC. 1996.
    \2\ H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at 204 (1977).
    \3\ National Park Service. Air Quality in the National Parks: A 
Summary of Findings from the National Park Service Air Quality 
Research and Monitoring Program. Natural Resources Report 88-1. 
Denver, CO, July 1988.
    \4\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas are 
those national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and 
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 areas, and all international 
parks which were in existence on August 7, 1977. Visibility has been 
identified as an important value in 156 of these areas. See 40 CFR 
part 81, subpart D. The extent of a Class I area includes subsequent 
changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. (CAA section 
162(a)). States and tribes may designate additional areas as Class 
I, but the requirements of the visibility program under section 169A 
of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I Federal areas,'' and 
they do not directly address any additional areas.
    \5\ ``Deciview'' is a visibility metric discussed further in 
unit III.C. of today's notice, and defined in section 51.301(bb) of 
the rule. Higher deciview values indicate greater levels of 
visibility impairment.
    \6\ See National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program. Acid 
Deposition: State of Science and Technology. Report 24, Visibility: 
Existing and Historical Conditions--Causes and Effects, Table 24-6. 
Washington, DC 1991. See also U.S. EPA. Air Quality Criteria for 
Particulate Matter. Office of Research and Development, National 
Center for Environmental Assessment. EPA/600/P-95/001bF. Research 
Triangle Park, NC. 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. How Today's Final Rule Responds to the CAA

    The visibility protection program under sections 169A, 169B, and 
110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA is designed to protect Class I areas 
7 from impairment due to manmade air pollution. Congress 
adopted the visibility provisions in the CAA to protect visibility in 
these ``areas of great scenic importance.'' 8 The current 
regulatory program addresses visibility impairment in these areas that 
is ``reasonably attributable'' 9 to a specific source or 
small group of sources. In adopting section 169A, the core visibility 
provisions adopted in the 1977 CAA Amendments, Congress also expressed 
its concern with visibility problems caused by pollutants that 
``emanate from a variety of sources.'' It noted the problem of 
``hazes'' from ``regionally distributed sources,'' 10 and 
concluded that additional provisions were needed to remedy ``the 
growing visibility problem.'' The purpose of today's final rule is to 
revise the existing visibility regulations 11 in order to 
integrate provisions addressing regional haze impairment. Today's final 
rule establishes a comprehensive visibility protection program for 
Class I areas. Figure 1 is a map indicating the locations of the Class 
I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For the purposes of this preamble, the term ``Class I area'' 
will be used to describe the 156 mandatory Class I Federal areas 
identified in section 51.301(o) and in part 81, subpart D of this 
title.
    \8\ H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. at 205 (1977).
    \9\ ``Reasonably attributable'' visibility impairment, as 
defined in section 51.301(s), means ``attributable by visual 
observation or any other technique the State deems appropriate.'' It 
includes impacts to Class I areas caused by plumes or layered hazes 
from a single source or small group of sources.
    \10\ H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at 204 (1977).
    \11\ 45 FR 80084 (December 2, 1980) and section 51.300-307.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-U

[[Page 35716]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01JY99.000


BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 35717]]

C. The 1980 Visibility Regulation--Commitment to a Regional Haze 
Program

    Section 169A of the CAA, established in the 1977 Amendments, sets 
forth a national visibility goal that calls for ``the prevention of any 
future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in 
Class I areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' 
The EPA's initial visibility regulations, developed in 1980, address 
visibility impairment that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single 
source or small group of sources. Under the 1980 rules, the 35 States 
and 1 territory containing Class I areas 12 are required to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The States and one territory having at least one Class I 
area are listed in section 51.300(b)(2). These States and one 
territory are as follows: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, 
California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, 
Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, 
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, 
Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, 
Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Virgin Islands, Washington, West Virginia, 
and Wyoming. For a specific list of Class I areas located in each 
state or territory, see 40 CFR 81.401-437.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Revise their SIPs to assure reasonable progress toward the 
national visibility goal;
    (2) Determine which existing stationary facilities should install 
the best available retrofit technology (BART) for controlling 
pollutants which impair visibility;
    (3) Develop, adopt, implement, and evaluate long-term strategies 
for making reasonable progress toward remedying any existing and 
preventing any future impairment in the Class I areas;
    (4) Adopt certain measures to assess potential visibility impacts 
due to new or modified major stationary sources, including measures to 
notify Federal land managers (FLMs) of proposed new source permit 
applications, and to consider visibility analyses conducted by FLMs in 
their new source permitting decisions; and
    (5) Conduct visibility monitoring in Class I areas.
    The 1980 rules addressing ``reasonably attributable'' visibility 
impairment were designed to be the first phase in EPA's overall program 
to protect visibility. The EPA explicitly deferred national rules 
addressing regional haze impairment until some future date:

* * * when improvement in monitoring techniques provides more data 
on source-specific levels of visibility impairment, regional scale 
models become refined, and our scientific knowledge about the 
relationships between emitted air pollutants and visibility 
impairment improves.13

    \13\ 45 FR 80086.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA believes that the technical tools and our scientific 
understanding of visibility impairment are now sufficiently refined to 
move forward with a national program addressing regional haze in Class 
I areas. The EPA's position is supported by the NAS 1993 report, 
Protecting Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas. One of 
the principal conclusions of this report is that ``current scientific 
knowledge is adequate and control technologies are available for taking 
regulatory action to improve and protect visibility.'' 14 
Section II.D. describes a number of other studies and information now 
available which provide the technical basis to move forward with a 
regional haze program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ National Research Council Committee on Haze in National 
Parks and Wilderness Areas, Protecting Visibility in National Parks 
and Wilderness Areas, National Academy Press, 1993, p. 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, EPA finds the visibility protection provisions of the 
CAA to be quite broad. Although EPA is addressing visibility protection 
in phases, the national visibility goal in section 169A calls for 
addressing visibility impairment generally, including regional 
haze.15
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ State of Maine v. Thomas, 874 F.2d 883, 885 (1st Cir. 1989) 
(``EPA's mandate to control the vexing problem of regional haze 
emanates directly from the CAA, which `declares as a national goal 
the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, 
impairment of visibility in Class I areas which impairment results 
from manmade air pollution.' '') (citation omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, Congress added section 169B as part of the 1990 Amendments 
to the CAA to focus attention on regional haze issues; it calls for EPA 
to issue regional haze rules within 18 months of receipt of the final 
report from the GCVTC. In addition, section 169B includes provisions 
for EPA to conduct visibility research with the National Park Service 
and other Federal agencies, to develop an interim findings report on 
the visibility research,16 to develop a Report to Congress 
on expected visibility improvements due to implementation of other air 
pollution programs,17 and to provide periodic reports to 
Congress on trends in visibility improvements. Section 169B also 
provides the authority to the Administrator to establish visibility 
transport commissions in response to a petition from two or more 
States, or on her and/or his own motion. To date, EPA has not received 
any petitions from groups of States requesting formation of a 
visibility transport commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ U.S. EPA, Interim Findings on the Status of Visibility 
Research, Office of Research and Development, EPA/600/R-95/021, 
February 1995. See also 60 FR 8659 notice announcing the report 
availability and how to obtain copies (Feb. 15, 1995.
    \17\ U.S. EPA, Effects of the 1990 CAA Amendments on Visibility 
in Class I Areas: An EPA Report to Congress, October 1993 (EPA-452/
R-93-014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 169B(f) called for EPA to establish a visibility transport 
commission for the region affecting visibility of the Grand Canyon 
National Park. The purpose of this commission was to assess scientific 
and technical information pertaining to adverse impacts on visibility 
at the Park from existing emissions and projected growth in emissions. 
The statute specifically called for a report to EPA recommending 
measures to remedy such impacts and to address long-term strategies for 
addressing regional haze.18 In 1991, EPA established the 
GCVTC,19 and the GCVTC issued its final report in June 
1996.20 The recommendations of the GCVTC and their 
incorporation as potential SIP requirements into the final rule, are 
discussed in greater detail in unit IV of the preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ CAA section 169B(d)(2)(C).
    \19\ 56 FR 57522, November 12, 1991.
    \20\ Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission, 
Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas, Report to the U.S. 
EPA, June 10, 1996 (hereafter referred to as ``GCVTC Report'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, section 169B(e) calls for the Administrator to consider 
past research and the recommendations of visibility transport 
commissions in carrying out the ``regulatory responsibilities under 
section 169A, including criteria for measuring `reasonable progress' 
toward the national goal.'' 21 The EPA is required by the 
CAA to meet these regulatory responsibilities within 18 months of 
receiving the GCVTC report. Today's final rule fulfills EPA's 
responsibility under section 169A, pending since 1980, to put in place 
a national regulatory program that addresses both reasonably 
attributable and regional haze visibility impairment. Today's action is 
also EPA's response to the GCVTC report as anticipated by section 169B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ CAA section 169B(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Sources of Scientific Information and Policy Recommendations on 
Regional Haze

    In developing today's revisions to the visibility regulations, EPA 
has taken into account a significant body of scientific information and 
policy recommendations on visibility issues that have been developed 
over more than 20 years. This unit highlights key sources of 
information upon which the final regional haze rule is based.
    For many years, visibility impairment has been considered the 
``best understood and most easily measured

[[Page 35718]]

effect of air pollution.'' 22 Visibility degradation has 
also been recognized as an indicator of multiple human-health effects 
and environmental effects resulting from air pollution all over the 
world.23 Visibility conditions have been monitored and 
evaluated for many years, using airport visibility data collected from 
the 1940's to the present.24
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Council on Environmental Quality, Visibility Protection for 
Class I Areas: The Technical Basis, Washington, DC, 1978.
    \23\ National Research Council, NAS Committee on Haze in 
National Parks and Wilderness Areas, Protecting Visibility in 
National Parks and Wilderness Areas, National Academy Press, 1993, 
p. 23.
    \24\ National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP), 
Acid Deposition: State of Science and Technology. Report 24, 
Visibility: Existing and Historical Conditions--Causes and Effects, 
Washington, DC, 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In October 1979, EPA published a Report to Congress describing the 
state of the science on visibility.25 The report, required 
under section 169A(a)(3), described available methods for visibility 
monitoring, modeling, and assessment of strategies to make progress 
toward the national goal. This report was developed in advance of the 
1980 visibility regulations. As noted above, EPA deferred action on 
regional haze until monitoring techniques, modeling capabilities, and 
the understanding of the pollutants affecting visibility were improved. 
In 1986, the IMPROVE (Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual 
Environments) visibility monitoring program was initiated in 30 Class I 
areas. The IMPROVE program has been coordinated through a cooperative, 
multiagency approach with participation by EPA, the FLMs, and States. 
Through the IMPROVE program, significant progress has been made in 
understanding the effect of various pollutants on current visibility 
conditions and trends, in developing well-accepted monitoring 
protocols, and in developing a sound approach for calculating light 
extinction values from aerosol and humidity data. The IMPROVE program 
has issued two major reviews of the monitoring data collected to 
date,26 and numerous technical papers have been developed 
using data collected by the network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ U.S. EPA, Protecting Visibility: An EPA Report to Congress; 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA-450/5-79-008, 
October 1979.
    \26\ Sisler, J. et al., Spatial and Seasonal Patters and Long-
Term Variability of the Chemical Composition of the Haze in the 
U.S.: An Analysis of Data from the IMPROVE Network, Fort Collins, 
CO, Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, Colorado 
State University, 1996. See also Sisler, J., et al., Spatial and 
Temporal Patters and the Chemical Composition of the Haze in the 
United States: An Analysis of Data From the IMPROVE Network, 1988-
1991, Fort Callins, CO, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, in 1996 EPA began to include a chapter on visibility 
trends, based on data collected throughout the IMPROVE network, in the 
National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report in 1996.27 
Data from 1988 to the present are analyzed for the best 20 percent, 
middle 20 percent, and worst 20 percent days of the annual 
distribution, and aggregated for eastern and western sites. Annual 
summary data are also presented for each individual site in an 
appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ U.S. EPA, National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 
1996, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA 454/R-97-
013, January 1998. See also U.S. EPA, National Air Quality and 
Emissions Trends Report, 1997, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, EPA 454/R-98-016, January 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Visibility research continued throughout the 1980's and is 
documented in many published articles and the proceedings of three 
major visibility conferences.28 In addition, the NAPAP 
completed a comprehensive review of the state of the science of 
visibility in 1991.29 This peer-reviewed report reached a 
number of important conclusions, including: (1) Light scattering is 
dominated by fine particles; (2) sulfates are the dominant source of 
light extinction in the east, and one of several major sources of 
extinction in the west; (3) rural visibility varies significantly 
between the east and west; (4) average natural visibility conditions 
are 150 kilometers visual range (9.6 deciviews) in the east and 230 
kilometers visual range (5.3 deciviews) in the west; and (5) haze 
trends in the eastern United States have been dominated by sulfur 
emission trends since the late 1940's.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Atmospheric Environment, Proceedings of EPA Symposium on 
Plumes and Visibility--Measurements and Model Components, November 
1980, Atmos. Environ., 15:1785-2646. See also Bhardwaja, P.J., ed., 
Visibility Protection: Research and Policy Aspects. Transactions of 
APCA Specialty Conference, September 1986, Grand Tetons National 
Park, WY. Air Pollution Control Assoc., Pittsburgh, PA, 1987. See 
also Mathai, C.V., ed., Visibility and Fine Particles. Transactions 
of AWMA specialty conference, October 1989, Estes Park, CO. Air and 
Waste Management Assoc., Pittsburgh, PA, 1990.
    \29\ National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP), 
Acid Deposition: State of Science and Technology, Report 24, 
Visibility: Existing and Historical Conditions--Causes and Effects, 
Washington, DC, 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NAS formed a Committee on Haze in National Parks and Wilderness 
Areas in 1990 to address a number of regional haze-related issues, 
including methods for determining anthropogenic source contributions to 
haze and methods for considering alternative source control measures. 
The 1993 report by this Committee contributed significantly to the 
state of the science regarding regional haze visibility 
impairment.30 The Committee issued several important 
conclusions in the report, including: (1) Current scientific knowledge 
is adequate and control technologies are available for taking 
regulatory action to address regional haze; (2) progress toward the 
national goal will require regional programs that operate over large 
geographic areas and limit emissions of pollutants that can cause 
regional haze; (3) a program to address regional haze visibility 
impairment that focuses solely on determining the contributions of 
individual emission sources to such visibility impairment is likely to 
fail, and instead, strategies should be adopted to consider 
simultaneously the effect of many sources on a regional basis; (4) 
visibility impairment can be attributed to emission sources on a 
regional scale through the use of several kinds of models; (5) 
visibility and control policies might need to be different in the west 
than the east; (6) efforts to improve visibility within Class I areas 
will benefit visibility outside these areas and could help alleviate 
other types of air quality problems as well; (7) achieving the national 
visibility goal will require a substantial, long-term program; and (8) 
continued progress toward this goal will require a greater commitment 
toward atmospheric research, monitoring, and emissions control research 
and development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ National Research Council, NAS Committee on Haze in 
National Parks and Wilderness Areas, Protecting Visibility in 
National Parks and Wilderness Areas, National Academy Press, 
Washington, DC, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also in 1993, EPA developed its Report to Congress on the projected 
effects on visibility in Class I areas due to implementation of the 
1990 CAA Amendments. 31 The report concluded that conditions 
on the worst visibility days are expected to improve by approximately 3 
deciviews by 2010 across the most impaired portions of the Eastern 
United States. Most of this improvement is expected in the 1995-2005 
timeframe due to sulfur dioxide reductions under the acid rain program. 
In the Southwestern United States, the visibility change was predicted 
to be less than 1 deciview in most Class I areas except San Gorgonio 
Wilderness (which is located downwind of Los Angeles), for which a 1-2 
deciview improvement is expected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ U.S. EPA, Effects of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments on 
Visibility in Class I Areas: An EPA Report to Congress, Office of 
Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA-452/R-93-014, October 1993.

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

[[Page 35719]]

    As required by section 169B(a)(2) of the CAA, EPA issued a report 
in 1995 on interim findings on the status of visibility research 
completed since 1990.32 This report reviewed four major 
visibility related reports published since 1990,33 provided 
citations of published research papers, and summarized research under 
way by the GCVTC, four Federal agencies, and the Electric Power 
Research Institute. As noted above, the GCVTC issued a report in June 
1996 containing recommendations for protecting visibility at 16 Class I 
areas on the Colorado Plateau. Based on EPA's discretionary authority 
under section 169B(c), it expanded the scope of the GCVTC:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ U.S. EPA, Interim Findings on the Status of Visibility 
Research, Office of Research and Development, EPA/600/R-95/021, 
February 1995.
    \33\ These repdorts have already been mentioned in this section: 
the 1993 NAS report, the 1993 IMPROVE report (Sisler et al.), the 
1993 EPA Report to Congress, and the 1991 NAPAP Report to Congress.

* * * to include additional Class I areas in the vicinity of the 
Grand Canyon National Park---what is sometimes referred to as the 
``Golden Circle'' of parks and wilderness areas. This includes most 
of the national parks and national wilderness areas of the Colorado 
Plateau.34
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 56 FR 57523
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The GCVTC was charged with assessing information about visibility 
impacts in the region and making policy recommendations to EPA to 
address such impacts. The CAA called for the GCVTC to assess studies 
conducted under section 169B as well as other available information 
``pertaining to adverse impacts on visibility from potential or 
projected growth in emissions for sources located in the * * * 
Region,'' and to issue a report to EPA recommending what measures, if 
any, should be taken to protect visibility. 35 The CAA 
specifically provided for the GCVTC's report to address the following 
measures: (1) The establishment of clean air corridors, in which 
additional restrictions on increases in emissions may be appropriate to 
protect visibility in affected Class I areas; (2) the imposition of 
additional new source review requirements in clean air corridors; 
36 and (3) the promulgation of regulations addressing 
regional haze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ CAA Section 169B(d).
    \36\ A clean air corridor is defined as a region that generally 
brings clear air to a receptor region, such as the Class I areas of 
the Golden Circle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In unit IV of the proposal, EPA discusses the major recommendations 
of the GCVTC. The GCVTC's recommendations have components that 
contemplate implementation through a combination of actions by EPA, 
other Federal agencies, States and tribes in the region, and voluntary 
measures on the part of public and private entities throughout the 
region. The GCVTC's recommendations also distinguish between 
recommended actions and policy or strategy options for consideration. 
Unit IV addresses how EPA took these recommendations, as well as the 
body of technical information developed by the GCVTC, into account in 
developing the final rule.
    Response to comments. Some commenters on the regional haze proposal 
suggested that EPA had not provided an adequate scientific or legal 
justification for developing a regional haze program. The commenters 
asserted that the science of regional haze is not understood well 
enough to develop regulations at this time. In addition, some 
commenters claimed that EPA has not provided adequate technical 
guidance for implementation of the rule, and that providing such 
guidance is a legal prerequisite to promulgating a regional haze rule. 
The EPA does not agree with these claims.
    First, EPA believes it has relied upon a substantial amount of 
scientific evidence to support development of the regional haze 
program. Many of the important studies, reports, and other scientific 
and technical information on which the regional haze rule is based are 
referenced earlier in this section. In particular, the NAS Committee on 
Haze in National Parks and Wilderness Areas concluded that ``Current 
scientific knowledge is adequate and control technologies are available 
for taking regulatory action to improve and protect visibility.'' 
37 Thus, EPA believes that its decision to move forward with 
promulgation of the regional haze program is reasonable, particularly 
in light of the fact that the Agency's obligation to address regional 
haze originated more than 20 years ago with passage of the 1977 CAA 
Amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ National Research Council, NAS Committee on Haze in 
National Parks and Wilderness Areas, Protecting Visibility in 
National Parks and Wilderness Areas, National Academy Press, 
Washington, DC, 1993, p. 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, as discussed in the response to comments, today's final 
rule provides the States with the necessary guidelines to implement a 
regional haze program. The EPA believes that the supposition that all 
technical guidance associated with a program be developed before a rule 
can be promulgated is unfounded. The EPA recognizes the importance of 
timely implementation guidance and is committed to providing such 
guidance, as appropriate, for the regional haze program.
    The EPA does not interpret sections 169A and 169B as requiring all 
technical guidance to be issued by the Agency before the rule is 
finalized. The EPA is committed to working closely with the States and 
other interested parties in developing effective guidance documents 
within a reasonable period of time after promulgation of the final 
regional haze rule.

E. Relationship to Secondary NAAQS for PM

    Today's final rule is an important element in EPA's overall 
approach to protecting visibility under the CAA. In July 1997, EPA 
established national secondary ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) 
for particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a 
nominal 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5) as part of its final 
decision on revision of the existing NAAQS for particulate matter under 
section 109(d) of the CAA.38 The secondary standards were 
based on EPA's determination that the levels selected were ``requisite 
to protect the public welfare'' against visibility impairment on a 
nationally uniform basis as provided in section 109(b). Consistent with 
the purposes of section 169A, however, EPA recognized that such 
nationally uniform standards would not eliminate all visibility 
impairment in all parts of the country.39 The visibility 
impacts remaining in Class I areas are addressed by today's final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 62 FR 38652 (July 18, 1997).
    \39\ See section 160(1); H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at 205 (1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today's final rule has additional benefits, as EPA expects the 
regional strategies implemented as part of the regional haze program to 
improve visibility outside of Class I areas as well. Thus, the regional 
haze program should contribute to the improvement of local visibility 
impacts outside of Class I areas that may persist after attainment of 
the secondary standards.

F. Regional Planning and Integration With Programs to Implement the 
NAAQS for Ozone and Particulate Matter

    The regional haze program is being promulgated in a manner that 
facilitates integration of emission management strategies for regional 
haze with the implementation of programs for new NAAQS for ozone and 
PM. This is being done because of the existing scientific evidence that 
these air quality problems have common precursor pollutants, emission 
sources, atmospheric processes, spatial scales for transport, and 
geographic areas of concern.

[[Page 35720]]

Because of the key role of regional pollutant transport in contributing 
to haze at Class I areas, most of which are in remote locations, the 
regional haze program recognizes the value of multistate coordination 
for regional haze program planning and implementation. Consistent with 
the recommendations of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee, 
Subcommittee on Ozone, Particulate Matter, and Regional Haze 
Implementation Programs,40 EPA strongly encourages States to 
undertake multistate regional planning efforts addressing regional haze 
in a way that coordinates technical analyses and strategy development 
with the NAAQS to the maximum extent possible. Examples of ongoing 
coordination among States to address visibility issues include the 
Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) and the Southern Appalachian 
Mountain Initiative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Subcommittee for Ozone, Particulate Matter, and Regional 
Haze Implementation Programs, Final Report on Subcommittee 
Discussions, May 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA believes that States (and tribes, at their discretion), in 
partnership with other interested stakeholders, should consider 
conducting future regional air quality planning efforts to address the 
implementation of the ozone and PM NAAQS and regional haze program. We 
encourage States to continue to work together to establish common 
protocols and approaches for emissions inventory development, emissions 
tracking, application of regional models, and development of effective 
emission reduction strategies.
    The EPA plans to participate early and actively in regional 
planning efforts. The EPA recognizes that we must provide early input 
on issues and to make our views known as issues arise. The EPA has a 
responsibility to independently review the adequacy of implementation 
plans in the public rulemaking process and to consider all public 
comments received on a plan in determining if it meets applicable 
requirements. However, it is equally important that EPA be open in 
letting participants know of our views and concerns throughout the 
process.
    The EPA will soon issue final guidance on such regional planning 
efforts for the purposes of implementing the ozone, particulate matter, 
and regional haze implementation programs.41 Also, as a part 
of EPA's 1999 fiscal year budget, Congress provided $4 million dollars 
to support regional planning activities. EPA is currently involved with 
the States in a process to define the appropriate size and composition 
of regional planning bodies. The final planning guidance will provide a 
discussion of several important issues related to regional planning 
efforts. These issues include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See the November 17, 1998 draft of Implementation Guidance 
for the Ozone and Particulate Matter NAAQS and Regional Haze 
Program. EPA's internet site for an electronic version of this 
guidance: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/tlpgm.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Taking credit for emissions reductions in other States;
     Important principles for future regional planning efforts;
     The technical assessment process; and
     The strategy development process.
Some important principles discussed in the guidance for conducting 
regional planning efforts include the following points.
     Regional planning efforts should be a product of State 
(and, at the discretion of any tribe, tribal) leadership and, thus, 
should be led by States (and tribes), not EPA. Representatives should 
have the authority to speak for their organizations.
     States (and tribes at their discretion) should be prepared 
to make strong, early commitments to implementing the outcome of the 
regional process to ensure that SIP submittal dates are met.
     Participants in regional planning efforts should set up a 
work plan to carry out their work. The work plan should contain clearly 
stated products of the process, dates for completion of those products 
and mechanisms for funding the needed analyses.
     The technical assessment process should include steps for 
problem definition, development of emissions inventories, and 
development of tools to evaluate strategy alternatives.
     In the strategy development process, participants should 
strive to develop a consensus about (1) the set of regional emissions 
reductions strategies needed to attain the NAAQS or make ``reasonable 
progress'' toward the national visibility goal in Class I areas, and 
(2) the degree to which each State and relevant source category should 
be required to reduce emissions to implement the recommended 
strategies.

III. Discussion of National Program Requirements and Response to 
Comments

     Scope of Rule--Extending Coverage to All States
    Proposed rule. In the regional haze proposal, EPA proposed to amend 
section 51.300(b)(3) to extend coverage to all States (excluding 
certain territories) for the purpose of addressing regional haze 
visibility impairment. This approach differed from the 1980 visibility 
regulations for ``reasonably attributable'' impairment, which required 
the 35 States and the Virgin Islands containing Class I areas to submit 
SIP revisions and to revise them periodically to assure reasonable 
progress toward the national visibility goal. Thus, under the proposal, 
the following additional States and the District of Columbia would be 
required to submit visibility SIPs: Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Wisconsin, 
Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Mississippi, New York, Pennsylvania, 
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Maryland. The territories 
of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands 
were not included because their distance from any Class I area 
significantly exceed the distance that their emissions could be 
expected to be transported in order to contribute to visibility 
impairment in any Class I area. However, Hawaii, Alaska, and the Virgin 
Islands would be subject to the regional haze provisions because of the 
potential for emissions from sources within their borders to contribute 
to regional haze impairment in Class I areas also located within their 
own jurisdiction.
    In the proposal, EPA also recommended that all States initially 
participate in regional planning efforts to more precisely characterize 
which States are contributing to visibility impairment in other States, 
as well as the magnitude of such contributions. States could then 
develop strategies for making reasonable progress in Class I areas 
throughout the region. The EPA noted that as a result of this process, 
all States may not have to adopt control strategies. At the same time, 
EPA cited the 1993 NAS report, which observed that the requirement for 
a State to revise its implementation plan if it ``may reasonably be 
anticipated'' to contribute to visibility impairment indicates that 
Congress intended that ``the philosophy of precautionary action should 
apply to visibility protection as it applies to other areas [such as 
the NAAQS].'' Thus, EPA proposed that, at a minimum, all States should 
be required to develop visibility SIPs in order to ``prevent any future 
impairment'' as called for by the national goal in section 169A(a)(1).
    Contracts received. The EPA received a number of comments on the 
proposed applicability provisions. Many commenters approved of EPA's 
approach to require SIPs from all States. Those who did not agree with 
the scope of the program provided a number of reasons for their 
opposition. Some commenters recognized the need for a regional haze 
program, but stated that EPA must first conduct or review

[[Page 35721]]

additional scientific analyses in order to provide justification for 
requiring additional States to submit visibility SIPs. Other commenters 
felt that in the proposed applicability provisions, EPA exceeded its 
statutory authority by extending the regional haze program to States 
that have not been demonstrated to ``cause or contribute'' to 
visibility impairment. Some commenters suggested that EPA rely on 
States with Class I areas to engage nearby States, as appropriate, in 
regional planning efforts. Some commenters in States containing Class I 
areas suggested that, for their particular Class I areas, there was no 
demonstrated visibility problem. They asserted that because visibility 
levels should already be deemed acceptable, there was no need for a 
regional haze program in their States. Other commenters felt that EPA 
should include specific criteria (e.g., distance, emissions, and 
visibility impact cutoffs) for excluding States or geographic areas 
from consideration as contributing to regional haze visibility 
impairment.
    Final rule. Consistent with the proposal, EPA has concluded in 
today's final rule that all States contain sources whose emissions are 
reasonably anticipated to contribute to regional haze in a Class I area 
and, therefore, must submit regional haze SIPs. The rationale for this 
finding is discussed in more detail below.
    In making this finding, EPA considered three factors: (1) The 
specific statutory language in the CAA; (2) the weight of evidence 
demonstrating long-range transport of fine particulate pollution that 
affects visibility in Class I areas; and (3) current monitored 
conditions in Class I areas across the country. The EPA's consideration 
of each of these factors is discussed below.
    Two key provisions in section 169A support EPA's finding that all 
States must develop SIPs for regional haze. Section 169A(b)(2) requires 
EPA to promulgate regulations to require SIPs from those States where 
the emissions ``may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to 
any impairment of visibility'' in a mandatory Class I Federal area. The 
EPA believes that this provision does not require the Agency to provide 
absolute certainty regarding the effect of emissions from the State on 
visibility in a particular Class I area.
    The Ninth Circuit has interpreted the language, ``may reasonably be 
anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility,'' 
in a case involving identical language in section 169A(b)(2)(A) 
relating to BART.42 The EPA believes that the court's 
interpretation of this phrase may be appropriately used in regard to 
program applicability as well. In its decision, the court found that 
the language ``may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute'' 
establishes an ``extremely low triggering threshold'' for requiring a 
source to control emissions, adding that ``the NAS correctly noted that 
Congress has not required ironclad scientific certainty establishing 
the precise relationship between a source's emission and resulting 
visibility impairment. * * *'' 43 In considering whether 
additional States should be subject to the visibility program, EPA 
believes the court's reasoning supports adoption of the predicate 
requirement that States develop the necessary provisions in their 
implementation plans to determine whether and to what extent control of 
emissions from sources is needed. That is, given that the court 
believed this ``low triggering threshold'' was sufficient to require a 
source to control its emissions under BART, EPA believes it is 
reasonable that a similarly low or even lower threshold applies to 
whether States should be required to engage in air quality planning and 
analysis as a prerequisite to determining the need for control of 
emissions from sources within their State. The EPA believes this is 
particularly appropriate since the requirement for SIPs does not 
mandate the actual control of emissions from any source without further 
technical analysis by the State. Accordingly, EPA believes the concept 
of an ``extremely low triggering threshold'' can also apply in 
determining which States should submit SIPs for regional haze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Central Arizona Water Conservation District v. EPA, 990 
F.2d 1531 (1993).
    \43\ 990 F.2d at 1541.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 169A(a)(1) sets forth a national goal of ``the prevention 
of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of 
visibility in Class I areas which impairment results from manmade air 
pollution.'' Thus, in addition to requiring a program to reduce 
existing impairment, the CAA requires SIPs to be established in order 
to prevent future impairment. This preventative component of the 
national goal requires that States have the framework in place to 
address future growth in emissions from new sources or other activities 
that could impair visibility. For this reason, the EPA does not believe 
that it is appropriate to establish criteria for excluding States or 
geographic areas from consideration as potential contributors to 
regional haze visibility impairment.
    As noted in the proposal, EPA is not specifying in this final rule 
what specific control measures a State must implement in its initial 
SIP for regional haze. That determination can only be made by a State 
once it has conducted the necessary technical analyses of emissions, 
air quality, and the other factors that go into determining reasonable 
progress. As discussed in section II(F), because of the regional, 
multistate nature of visibility impairment in Class I 
areas,44 EPA recommends that these analyses and the 
determination of the extent of emissions reductions needed from 
individual States be developed and refined through multistate planning 
efforts using the best available technical tools, such as regional-
scale modeling. The EPA also recommends the coordination of resulting 
strategies for regional haze with strategies needed to attain the 
PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA anticipates that as a result of the 
more refined analyses required by this rule, some States may conclude 
that control strategies specifically for protection of visibility are 
not needed at this time because the analyses may show that existing 
measures are sufficient to meet reasonable progress goals. The EPA is 
requiring States to document their analyses, including any 
consultations with other States in support of their conclusions that 
further controls are not needed at this time. The EPA believes that 
there is more than sufficient evidence to support our conclusion that 
emissions from each of the 48 contiguous States may be reasonably 
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class 
I area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Refer to unit II of this final rule for additional 
background on the long-range transport of pollution contributing to 
regional haze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in EPA's proposal, a large body of evidence demonstrates 
that long-range transport of fine PM contributes to regional haze and 
other related effects such as acid rain. In the preamble to the 
proposal and in the relevant docket, EPA cited numerous studies that 
contribute to this body of evidence.45 Indeed, EPA 
recognized the role of long-range transport in relation to visibility 
impairment 20 years ago in its 1979 Report to Congress on 
visibility.46
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See Unit II, Background Information. See also July 29, 1997 
memorandum to regional haze docket A-95-38, ``Supporting Information 
for Proposed Applicability of Regional Haze Regulations,'' by 
Richard Damberg, EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
    \46\ U.S. EPA, Protecting Visibility: An EPA Report to Congress, 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA-450/5-79-008, 
October 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Among the more important studies on which EPA relied are the 1991 
report from the NAPAP, the 1993 NAS report Protecting Visibility in 
National Parks

[[Page 35722]]

and Wilderness Areas, EPA studies using the regional acid deposition 
model (RADM), the 1996 GCVTC report Recommendations for Improving 
Western Vistas, and two contractor reports prepared for 
EPA.47 All of these reports are available in the docket. 
They were referenced and discussed in EPA's proposal and in an 
additional memorandum to the docket. The NAPAP report included a 
comprehensive technical review of historical visibility 
trends.48 The NAS report found that the range of fine 
particle transport is on the order of hundreds or thousands of 
kilometers.49 Analyses using the RADM have estimated that 
sulfate and nitrate deposition receptors are influenced by sources 
located up to 600-800 kilometers away.50 In its 
deliberations and in its final report, the GCVTC acknowledged the role 
of long-range transport from sources and activities located across a 
very large geographic area, and its effect on the Class I areas on the 
Colorado Plateau.51
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See Latimer and Associates, Particulate Matter Source--
Receptor Relationships Between All Point and Area Sources in the 
United States and PSD Class I Area Receptors, Report prepared for 
EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, September 1996. 
See also ENVIRON International Corporation, Development of Revised 
Federal Class I Area Groups in Support of Regional Haze Regulations, 
Report prepared for EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, September 1996.
    \48\ National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program. Acid 
Deposition: State of the Science and Technology. Report 24, 
Visibility: Existing and Historical Conditions--Causes and Effects, 
Washington, DC, 1991.
    \49\ National Research Council, NAS Committee on Haze in 
National Parks and Wilderness Areas, Protecting Visibility in 
National Parks and Wilderness Areas, National Academy Press, 
Washington, D.C., 1993.
    \50\ Dennis, Robin L. ``Using the Regional Acid Deposition Model 
to Determine the Nitrogen Deposition Airshed of the Chesapeake Bay 
Watershed,'' in Atmospheric Deposition to the Great Lakes and 
Coastal Waters, edited by Joel Baker, 1996.
    \51\ GCVTC, Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas, Report 
to the U.S. EPA, June 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, two contractor modeling reports prepared for EPA provided 
information that preliminarily demonstrated that each State not having 
a Class I area had emissions contributing to impairment in at least one 
downwind Class I area. Some State commenters asserted that the 
contractor reports referenced in the proposal show relatively low 
contributions from all or part of their States toward visibility 
impairment in a nearby Class I area. As a result, these commenters 
suggested that EPA had sufficient information to reach a conclusion 
that all or part of their States could be excluded from the regional 
haze program. The EPA disagrees with these comments for two reasons.
    First, the EPA did not base its proposed applicability provisions 
only on the referenced contractor reports. The EPA based its decision 
on the assessments provided by these reports as well as a number of 
other studies and sources of information. Second, as explained above, 
EPA believes that all States must have a visibility SIP to prevent, at 
a minimum, future impairment of visibility. While EPA agrees that 
portions of some States may not need to implement additional measures, 
at this time, to improve visibility impairment in any Class I area, the 
EPA believes that more refined future assessments will be needed to 
support such a finding. Additionally, the EPA believes that a State 
wishing to demonstrate that it does not contribute to visibility 
impairment in any Class I area will need to provide information showing 
that it has consulted with other potentially affected States to assist 
EPA in assuring that the State's demonstration is not contradicted by 
evidence presented by other States.
    Current monitoring information for Class I areas shows that all of 
the monitored sites in the central and eastern parts of the country 
have visibility impairment levels exceeding estimated natural 
conditions for the 20 percent most impaired days, some by more than 20 
deciviews. Although the degree of impairment varies, the data 
demonstrate that no existing site has reached the goal in section 
169A(a)(1) of the CAA for ``remedying * * * any existing impairment of 
visibility.'' \52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Sisler, J. et al., Spatial and Seasonal Patterns and Long-
Term Variability of the Chemical Composition of the Haze in the 
United States: An Analysis of Data from the IMPROVE Network, Fort 
Collins, CO, Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, 
Colorado State University, 1996. See also Sisler, J., et al., 
Spatial and Temporal Patterns and the Chemical Composition of the 
Haze in the United States: An Analysis of Data from the IMPROVE 
Network, 1988-1991, Fort Collins, CO, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of this finding, EPA disagrees with the commenter who 
asserted that because visibility levels in its State are already 
``acceptable,'' there is no need for the State to implement a regional 
haze program. The section 169A national goal of the visibility program, 
a condition of no human-caused impairment, does not provide for 
judgments of acceptable visibility levels which are poorer than natural 
conditions in Class I areas. Through adoption of section 169A(a)(1), 
Congress established natural visibility conditions as the overall goal.
    The data also show that in the monitored locations in the central 
and eastern United States, sulfate is the key contributor to visibility 
impairment, responsible for between 45-90 percent of light extinction 
due to aerosols on the 20 percent most impaired days. This fact is 
significant because the broad, regional scale of long-range transport 
of sulfate has already been acknowledged in many studies done for the 
acid rain program. Based on these data, it appears that although the 
acid rain program is expected to improve visibility by approximately 3 
deciviews in the most impaired Class I areas in the Eastern United 
States by 2005,\53\ further regional reductions in SO2 
emissions may be needed after the acid rain program is complete to 
assure continued visibility improvement toward the national goal. Thus, 
EPA finds it is reasonable to require SIPs from the States without 
Class I areas which are located in the central and eastern parts of the 
United States since many, if not all, are expected to have sources 
contributing to regional loadings of SO2 emissions, even 
after implementation of the acid rain program is completed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ U.S. EPA, Effects of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments on 
Visibility in Class I Areas: An EPA Report to Congress, Office of 
Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA-452/R-93-014, October 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For all of the reasons stated above, EPA has concluded in today's 
final rule that EPA's statutory authority and scientific evidence are 
sufficient to require all States to develop regional haze SIPs to 
ensure the prevention of any future impairment of visibility, and to 
conduct further analyses to determine whether additional emission 
reduction measures are needed to ensure reasonable progress in 
remedying existing impairment in downwind Class I areas.

B. Timetable for Submitting the First Regional Haze State 
Implementation Plan (SIP)

    This final rule establishes a schedule setting forth deadlines by 
which the States must submit their first regional haze SIPs and 
subsequent revisions to that first SIP. In this unit, we discuss the 
deadlines for the first regional haze SIP, the concerns raised in 
comments regarding these deadlines, and recent legislation affecting 
the deadlines. The requirements for periodic revisions to this first 
regional haze SIP are discussed below in unit III.J.
    Proposed rule. The proposed rule, consistent with section 
169B(e)(2) of the CAA, would have required States to submit revisions 
to their SIP to address regional haze within 12 months of the effective 
date of the rule. We had intended that these 12-month SIP

[[Page 35723]]

submittals serve as program planning SIPs in which the States would 
review existing regulatory authorities and provide the framework for a 
number of future actions.
    Comments received. Commenters expressed the view that 12 months was 
an insufficient time period to meet the proposed requirements for the 
program planning SIP. Moreover, commenters were concerned that the 12-
month SIP requirement was not well coordinated with similar program 
planning for the new PM2.5 standard.
    Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). After the 
close of the comment period for the July 1997 proposal, Congress passed 
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), Public Law 
105-178. The TEA-21 superseded the statutory requirement for a 12-month 
SIP deadline and established a specific schedule for regional haze SIP 
submissions. In a September 3, 1998 notice of availability, EPA 
provided the public with an opportunity to comment on how the regional 
haze rule should address the TEA-21 requirements.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ 63 FR 46952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The TEA-21 provisions establish a timetable for the regional haze 
SIPs by first creating certain deadlines for PM2.5 
monitoring and area designations, and then by linking those deadlines 
to further deadlines for the regional haze program. The TEA-21 
amendments, in section 4102(a), require EPA to fund a PM2.5 
monitoring network. In section 4102(b), EPA and States are required to 
put this network in place by no later than December 31, 1999.
    Section 4102(c)(1) of TEA-21 establishes deadlines for States to 
use the data collected by the network for purposes of formally 
designating areas as attaining the PM2.5 standard or as 
nonattainment or unclassifiable. Section 4102(c)(1) states:

    (1) The Governors shall be required to submit designations 
referred to in section 107(d)(1) of the CAA for each area following 
promulgation of the July 1997 PM2.5 national ambient air 
quality standard within 1 year after receipt of 3 years of air 
quality monitoring data performed in accordance with any applicable 
Federal reference method for the relevant areas.

    Section 4102(c)(2) of TEA-21 contains the following language which 
links the timing requirements for the visibility program to the 
PM2.5 designation process:

    (2) For any area designated as nonattainment for the July 1997 
PM2.5 national ambient air quality standard in accordance 
with the schedule set forth in this section, notwithstanding the 
time limit prescribed in paragraph (2) of section 169B(e) of the 
CAA, the Administrator shall require State implementation plan 
revisions referred to in such paragraph (2) to be submitted at the 
same time as State implementation plan revisions referred to in 
section 172 of the CAA implementing the revised national ambient air 
quality standard for fine particulate matter are required to be 
submitted. For any area designated as attainment or unclassifiable 
for such standard, the Administrator shall require the State 
implementation plan revisions referred to in such paragraph (2) to 
be submitted 1 year after the area has been so designated. The 
preceding provisions of this paragraph shall not preclude the 
implementation of the agreements and recommendations set forth in 
the GCVTC Report dated June 1996.

To accompany the statutory changes contained in the TEA-21 law, 
Congress released a Conference Report. With respect to the visibility 
provisions of TEA-21, the Conference Report states:

    The Conferees recognize that the Regional Haze regulation has 
not been finalized and the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) is still considering the views of various 
stakeholders. The Conferees agree with EPA's public statements that 
the schedule for the State Implementation Plan due pursuant to 
section 169B(e)(2) of the * * * [Clean Air] * * * CAA should be 
harmonized with the Schedule for State Implementation Plan 
submissions required for PM2.5 ambient air quality 
standard promulgated in July, 1997.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 550, 105th Cong., 2d. Sess. 519 (1998), 
reprinted in 1998 U.S.C.C.A.N., No. 6 at 196.

This new statutory language has two effects. First, it supersedes the 
section 169B requirement for EPA to require States to submit SIPs 
within 12 months of the promulgation of today's final rule. Second, it 
spells out a timetable for SIP revisions that is linked to the dates of 
attainment/nonattainment designations for PM2.5. It is 
important to note that the timetable is based on the designation of 
areas within a State. Thus, under the legislation, one State could have 
multiple SIP submission deadlines depending on the dates of designation 
of each area within the State. This issue, and how EPA intends to 
address it, is further discussed later in this unit.
    According to a Presidential memorandum dated July 16, 1997, the EPA 
and States must collect 3 years of monitoring data in order to have a 
sufficient basis for designations. This point is reiterated in TEA-
21.\56\ Routine collection of monitoring data begins in 1999. Hence, we 
expect the requirements of TEA-21, section 4102(c)(1), to result in the 
following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See TEA-21, Section 4102(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Submissions of designation requests by States. States must submit 
designations within 1 year of the date that 3 years of PM2.5 
data are available. Because widespread monitoring for PM2.5 
is being implemented between January 1999 and December 31, 1999, we 
expect 3 years of data to be collected by December 31, 2001 for most 
areas and no later than December 31, 2002 for the remaining areas. 
Taking into account additional time (not more than 6 months) for 
quality assurance and certification of the data, we expect 3 years of 
data to be available for States to use for designations between July 
2002 and July 2003. In the TEA-21 amendments, States have up to 1 year 
to submit designations. Thus, we expect that the required date for 
submittal of designations generally will occur between July 2003 and 
July 2004.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ We expect that some States will want to move expeditiously 
with some designations, leading to submissions and final action on 
some areas as early as late 2002 or early 2003. Where this is the 
case, this would lead to earlier regional haze SIP submittal 
deadlines as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA action on State designations. The EPA is required to act upon 
the designations no later than 1 year after the date States are 
required to submit the designations, but not later than December 31, 
2005 in any case. If States submit their designations between July 2003 
and July 2004, EPA would be required to designate areas between July 
2004 and July 2005.
    For areas designated as attainment or unclassifiable, the TEA-21 
amendments require that States must submit SIPs for regional haze 
within 1 year after EPA publishes the designations. As a result, for 
these areas, regional haze SIPs are likely to be due generally between 
July 2005 and July 2006.
    For areas designated as nonattainment for fine particulate matter, 
the TEA-21 amendments require States to submit SIP revisions addressing 
regional haze ``at the same time as States submit SIPs as required by 
section 172 of the CAA implementing the July 1997 revision to the 
national ambient air quality standard for fine particulate matter.'' 
Section 172(b) of the CAA requires SIPs no later than 3 years after EPA 
publishes the nonattainment designation. If EPA designates areas 
nonattainment between July 2004 and July 2005, the regional haze SIPs 
for areas designated as nonattainment and the PM2.5 
nonattainment SIPs would both be due no later than the July 2007 to 
July 2008 timeframe.
    The date for startup of PM2.5 monitoring may vary in 
different parts of a given State. Accordingly, the EPA expects that 
States may not be able to submit designation requests at the same time 
for the entire State. Rather, EPA

[[Page 35724]]

expects that it is possible that individual ``areas'' within a given 
State may be designated at different times. Even if areas were all 
designated at the same time, in many States some areas will likely be 
designated attainment, with others designated nonattainment. In either 
case, the TEA-21 deadlines would require separate regional haze SIPs 
for each of these areas to be submitted at different times.
    While the language in TEA-21 establishing the timetable for 
submission of regional haze SIPs is generally clear, the transportation 
legislation does not address the situation where States are 
participating in a regional planning effort that incorporates numerous 
areas. On its face, TEA-21 requires the submission of separate regional 
haze SIPs on an area-by-area basis with varying deadlines that could 
range over a period of several years. As noted above, however, regional 
haze is the result of emissions from a number of sources located over a 
broad geographic area. Because of the long-range transport of 
pollutants causing regional haze, EPA believes that well-coordinated 
regional planning efforts are needed to make progress toward natural 
visibility conditions. As EPA noted in the September 3, 1998 notice of 
availability, we do not believe that Congress intended to inhibit 
regional planning efforts by requiring area-by-area submittals. In 
light of this, EPA requested comment on incorporating an optional 
approach into the final rule to facilitate regional planning.
    Notice of availability of additional information. The optional 
approach EPA described in the September 3, 1998 notice of availability 
would allow States which commit to participating in regional planning 
efforts to postpone addressing certain of the requirements of the 
regional haze program. Under this approach, States would have the 
option to first submit SIPs which contain commitments to specific 
integrated regional planning efforts but which do not set forth control 
strategies. States committing to regional planning would subsequently 
submit SIP revisions containing control strategies for attainment, 
unclassifiable, and nonattainment areas at the same time. This would 
allow multiple areas within a single planning region to have 
coordinated deadlines for regional haze control strategies. In the 
supplemental notice, we noted that this approach could have the effect 
of delaying control strategy plan submittal dates for some areas, but 
we believe that such an option will support more effective coordination 
between the PM2.5 and regional haze programs, will support 
coordinated regional planning for both programs, and will be consistent 
with the statement of congressional intent.
    Comments received. Some commenters argued that TEA-21 does not 
authorize EPA to defer implementation of the regional haze program in 
this way. The basis for this argument is the claim that the 1-year 
deadline in section 169B(e)(2) applies only to regulations promulgated 
pursuant to the report of a visibility transport commission. These 
commenters claim that EPA is obligated under section 169A to provide 
for more expedited implementation of measures to assure reasonable 
progress.
    The final rule. The regulations made final today are issued under 
the authority of CAA sections 169A and 169B. As discussed in unit II.C 
above, EPA in 1980 explicitly deferred issuing regulations to address 
regional haze until our scientific and technical knowledge was better 
developed. In 1990, Congress amended the CAA by adding section 169B. 
This section authorizes the establishment of visibility transport 
commissions which, among other things, must issue a report addressing 
``the promulgation of regulations under [section 169A] to address long 
range strategies for addressing regional haze.'' Section 169B further 
establishes explicit timeframes in which EPA must, taking into account 
any reports of visibility transport commissions, issue regulations 
under section 169A, and in which States must respond by submitting 
revised SIPs. Congress modified the timeframe for SIP submission in 
TEA-21 to ensure the ability of EPA to harmonize the implementation of 
today's final rule with the requirements for the new PM2.5 
NAAQS.\58\ Today's final rule carries out EPA's obligation under 
sections 169A and 169B to issue regulations addressing regional haze 
according to the timeframe as set forth in section 169B as modified by 
TEA-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 550, 105th Cong., 2d. Sess. 517.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule includes the deadlines for SIP submittals set forth 
in TEA-21 and incorporates an optional set of requirements for States 
which commit to participate in regional planning. Commenters generally 
agreed with EPA's view in the notice of availability that it is 
important to ensure that the PM2.5 program and regional haze 
program are fully integrated. The EPA believes that the approach taken 
in the final rule supports effective coordination between these 
programs, while also facilitating regional planning.
    In the final rule, the timetable for SIP submittals is set forth in 
section 51.308(b) and (c). Section 51.308(b) directly codifies the TEA-
21 timetable. Section 51.308(c) provides States that have committed to 
participate with other States in a regional planning process the option 
of choosing to defer submittal of a SIP which addresses the substantive 
requirements of the regional haze program. States are not required to 
exercise the option provided by section 51.308(c), but those which do 
must meet the deadlines set forth in that section for submitting a SIP 
which addresses the distinct requirements in section 51.308(c) and a 
SIP revision which addresses the substantive requirements of the 
regional haze program.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ The option for regional planning provided by section 
51.308(c) is not available for Alaska, Hawaii, and the Virgin 
Islands. Class I areas within their boundaries are not affected by 
emissions from any other State. As a result, regional planning will 
not be needed to develop regional haze SIPs for these areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a first step, States electing to participate in regional 
planning must submit a SIP demonstrating the State's ongoing 
participation in a regional planning process. This SIP must address all 
areas in the State and is due on the earliest date by which an 
implementation plan affecting any area within the State would be due 
under the TEA-21 deadlines. Unless an entire State is designated as 
nonattainment, this SIP will be due 1 year after EPA designates any 
area within the State as attainment or unclassifiable. This SIP 
submission must contain a number of specific elements to demonstrate 
the State's commitment to the regional planning process and to ensure 
that by the date of the SIP submittal, the States in the regional 
planning body have taken the necessary steps to initiate the regional 
planning process.
    The following briefly summarizes the required elements of the first 
SIP submittal called for under the optional approach for regional 
planning:
    Need for regional planning. In the SIP, the State must demonstrate 
the need for regional planning. The State must make this demonstration 
by showing that emissions from sources within the State contribute to 
visibility impairment in Class I areas in another State, or by showing 
that other States contribute to visibility impairment in the Class I 
areas in the State. The EPA does not intend for this to be an overly 
complex analysis.
    Description of regional planning organization. The State must also 
submit a detailed description of the regional planning process. In its 
SIP, the State must show that the participating

[[Page 35725]]

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                . . . States must
                                submit the first      . . . and the SIP
     For this case . . .       regional haze SIPs      must meet . . .
                                 no later than:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Areas designated as           1 year after EPA      ALL requirements of
 attainment or                 publishes the         section 51.308(d)
 unclassifiable for PM2.5.     designation           and (e).
                               (generally 2004-
                               2006).
Areas designated as           At the same time as   ALL requirements of
 nonattainment for PM2.5.      PM2.5 SIPs are due    section 51.308(d)
                               under section 172     and (e).
                               of the CAA. (That
                               is, 3 years after
                               EPA publishes the
                               designation,
                               generally 2006-
                               2008).
States participating in       Two phases:.........  The regional
 multistate regional           Commitment to         planning
 planning efforts for          regional planning     requirements listed
 combined attainment and       due 1 year after      in section
 nonattainment areas.          the EPA publishes     51.308(c).
                               the first
                               designation for any
                               area within the
                               State, and.
                               Complete             The ``core
                               implementation plan   requirements''
                               due at the same       listed in section
                               time as PM2.5 SIPs    51.308(d) and BART
                               are due under         requirements in
                               section 172 of the    section 51.308(e).
                               CAA. (That is, 3
                               years after EPA
                               publishes the
                               designation).
States following the          December 31, 2003...  SIPs must meet the
 recommendations of the                              specific provisions
 GCVTC, as contained in                              for Grand Canyon
 section 51.309 of the final                         Transport Region
 rule.                                               States listed in
                                                     section 51.309.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Tracking Deciviews and Emissions Reductions

    Visibility impairment is caused by particles and gases in the 
atmosphere. Some particles and gases scatter light, while others absorb 
light. The net effect is called ``light extinction.'' The result of 
these processes is a reduction of the amount of light from a scene that 
is returned to the observer, creating a hazy condition.
    Proposed rule. In the proposal, EPA established a regulatory 
framework by which a State would establish a ``reasonable progress 
target'' for each Class I area within its borders for the purpose of 
improving visibility on the worst visibility days over the next 10 or 
15 years. The States would implement emission management strategies to 
improve visibility in these Class I areas. The proposal also called for 
the States to monitor progress in improving visibility over time. The 
EPA proposed that visibility targets and tracking of visibility changes 
over time be expressed in terms of the ``deciview'' haze metric. The 
proposal also called for the tracking of pollutant emissions to 
supplement the tracking of monitored visibility changes for use in 
periodically reviewing State progress in achieving visibility targets. 
The proposal included the definition of the deciview metric for 
tracking visibility. The proposal also called for a review of emissions 
reductions achieved as part of the long-term strategy.
    Deciview. The proposal explained that the deciview is an 
atmospheric haze index that expresses changes in visibility. This 
visibility metric expresses uniform changes in haziness in terms of 
common increments across the entire range of visibility conditions, 
from pristine to extremely hazy conditions.60 Because each 
unit change in deciview represents a common change in perception, the 
deciview scale is like the decibel scale for sound. The proposal also 
stated that ``A one deciview change in haziness is a small but 
noticeable change in haziness under most circumstances when viewing 
scenes in Class I areas.'' 61
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ Pitchford, M. and Malm, W., ``Development and Applications 
of a Standard Visual Index,'' Atmospheric Environment, v. 28, no. 5, 
March 1994.
    \61\ 62 FR 41145.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal discussed that an advantage to using the deciview over 
other scales is that it can be used to express changes in visibility 
impairment in a way that corresponds to human perception in a linear, 
or one for one, manner. For example, this metric is designed such that 
a change of 3 deciviews in a highly impaired environment would be 
perceived as roughly the same degree of change as a 3 deciview change 
in a relatively clear environment. As noted in the preamble to the 
proposed regulation, the deciview is mathematically related to other 
common metrics used to describe visibility: the light extinction 
coefficient and visual range. However, the deciview metric can be used 
to compare changes in perception in a way that the other two metrics 
cannot. This feature makes the deciview a more useful metric for 
regulatory purposes. For example, a 5-

[[Page 35726]]

mile change in visual range can in some cases be very significant, such 
as from 5 to 10 miles in an impaired environment (equal to a change of 
6.9 deciviews), whereas a 5-mile change may not be perceptible in a 
less impaired environment, such as from 95 to 100 miles (equal to a 
change of 0.5 deciviews). The following sections discuss the comments 
received on specific issues and how such issues are addressed in the 
final rule.
    Tracking emissions versus visibility. Many commenters supported the 
use of the deciview metric to track changes in visibility improvement 
as a key aspect of the program. These commenters agreed with EPA's 
proposal that under a visibility-oriented program, progress in fact 
should be tracked in terms of a visibility-based metric. Others felt 
the program could be successfully implemented by tracking emissions 
only because this approach would not be greatly affected by 
meteorological variations as would an approach based on ambient 
monitoring.
    The final rule provides for the tracking of both visibility 
improvement and emissions reductions.62 The final rule 
presents visibility improvement and tracking of emissions as linked 
elements of the program. The EPA has retained the use of the deciview 
metric for tracking changes in visibility. The EPA believes the 
tracking of actual visibility improvements is necessary to be 
responsive to the goals of the CAA. Section 169A(a) of the CAA sets 
forth the national goal of the ``prevention of any future, and the 
remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in Class I areas 
which impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' The CAA also 
requires EPA to establish regulations to be implemented by the States 
to ensure that `reasonable progress' is made toward the national goal. 
In addition, section 169B(e) of the CAA calls for EPA to carry out its 
``regulatory responsibilities under section 169A, including criteria 
for measuring `reasonable progress' toward the national goal.'' 
63
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Tracking of visibility is addressed in section 51.308(d) 
and 51.308(g). Tracking of emissions reductions is addressed in 
section 51.308(g).
    \63\ Section 169B(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA believes that tracking of emissions reductions is also an 
important component of the regional haze program. The mechanism for 
achieving improvements in visibility will be the implementation of 
enforceable emissions reduction measures that have been adopted as part 
of the SIP. Tracking emissions will provide a good indicator of whether 
adopted measures are reducing emissions and is thus a useful indicator 
of progress in reducing visibility impairment. The tracking of 
emissions without concurrently tracking changes in visibility, however, 
would be problematic because of the variable effect on visibility of 
each of the principal constituents of PM, the more significant light 
scattering efficiency of fine PM versus coarse PM, and the generally 
greater effect of nearby versus distant sources on visibility 
impairment.
    Since the national goal is expressed in terms of air quality (i.e., 
visibility) rather than emissions, we believe that it is very important 
to require the quantitative tracking of visibility impairment as an 
integral element in measuring reasonable progress. Because ambient 
monitoring data are subject to meteorological fluctuations, EPA designs 
standards and requirements for analysis of monitoring data to limit the 
effects of unusual meteorological events. For regional haze, we have 
provided in this final rule for the tracking of visibility trends based 
on 5-year averages of annual deciview values for the most impaired and 
least impaired days. We believe that this approach responds to 
commenters' concerns about significant unusual fluctuations in annual 
average values for the best and worst days due to unusual 
meteorological conditions in any particular year. However, it is also 
important to note that EPA has long held that normal meteorological 
variations should be explicitly accounted for in air quality analyses 
and control strategy design. Air quality improvement plans should be 
able to assure protection of public health and welfare under the normal 
and foreseeable range of meteorological conditions.
    Tracking visibility in deciviews. Some commenters disagreed with 
the use of the deciview to measure changes in visibility, claiming that 
the deciview metric has not been adequately reviewed for use in a 
regulatory program. The EPA disagrees with this assertion. The EPA 
believes the deciview metric has been adequately reviewed for use in 
the regional haze program. The deciview concept was introduced in 1994 
in an article appearing in the peer-reviewed journal Atmospheric 
Environment.64 It was presented in the 1996 Criteria 
Document for the PM NAAQS as a valid metric for characterizing 
visibility impairment.65 The EPA also recognized the 
deciview as an appropriate metric for regulatory purposes in chapter 8 
of the 1996 Staff Paper for the PM NAAQS review.66 Both of 
these documents were reviewed and accepted by the Clean Air Scientific 
Advisory Committee. Visibility conditions at Class I areas have been 
characterized in terms of deciview in summary reports on the IMPROVE 
visibility monitoring network.67
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ Pitchford, M. and Malm, W., ``Development and Applications 
of a Standard Visual Index,'' Atmospheric Environment, V. 28, no. 5, 
March 1994.
    \65\ U.S. EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, 
Research Triangle Park, NC, National Center for Environmental 
Assessment. Office of Research and Development, July 1996.
    \66\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Review of the 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: 
Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information. OAQPS 
Staff Paper. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. July 
1996.
    \67\ Sisler, J., et al., Spatial and Seasonal Patterns and Long-
Term Variability of the Composition of the Haze in the United 
States: An Analysis of Data from the IMPROVE Network. Cooperative 
Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, Colorado State University, 
1996. See also Sisler, J., et al., Spatial and Temporal Patterns and 
the Chemical Composition of the Haze in the United States: An 
Analysis of Data From the IMPROVE Network, 1988-1991, Fort Collins, 
CO, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA also supports use of the deciview metric because it 
satisfies one of the recommendations of the NAS Committee on Haze in 
National Parks and Wilderness Areas. In its 1993 report on visibility, 
the NAS recommended the development of an index that takes into account 
both measurement of physical changes (i.e., changes in air quality) 
with elements of human perception.68 Further, a report on 
the regional haze proposal by the Congressional Research Service found 
that the deciview index ``conforms closely'' 69 to the NAS 
recommendation cited above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ National Research Council, Protecting Visibility in 
National Parks and Wilderness Areas, 1993, p. 354.
    \69\ Congressional Research Service, Regional Haze: EPA's 
Proposal to Improve Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness 
Areas, November 17, 1997, p. 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters stated that the final rule should not suggest that 
a one deciview change is the threshold of perception in all cases for 
all scenes. The EPA agrees with the comment that a one deciview change 
should not be considered the threshold of perception in all cases for 
all scenes. The EPA believes that visibility changes of less than one 
deciview are likely to be perceptible in some cases, especially where 
the scene being viewed is highly sensitive to small amounts of 
pollution. The EPA also acknowledges the technical point made by some 
commenters that for other types of scenes with other site-specific

[[Page 35727]]

conditions,70 a change of more than 1 deciview might be 
required in order for the change to be perceptible. However, EPA wishes 
to emphasize that the overall goal of the regional haze program is not 
to track changes in visibility for only certain vistas at a specific 
Class I area. Rather, the program is designed to track changes in 
regional visibility for the range of possible views of sky and terrain 
found in any Class I area, and to assure progress toward the national 
goal. For this purpose, EPA supports the use of the deciview metric as 
calculated from ambient monitoring data for tracking changes in 
regional visibility. The monitoring network is not designed to track 
changes in visibility for specific views in each Class I area. Rather, 
the network is designed to characterize visibility conditions that, for 
each site, are representative of a fairly broad geographic region. The 
EPA believes this approach is consistent with the nature of regional 
haze, which is defined as a uniform haze caused by numerous sources 
covering a broad area. Thus, although a 1 deciview change may not be 
the threshold of perception in all situations, the fundamental 
advantage of using the deciview remains: the deciview metric expresses 
uniform changes in haziness in terms of common increments across the 
entire range of visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy 
conditions. The metric provides a useful means of expressing changes in 
visibility caused by changes in air quality while also providing a 
scale that relates visibility to perception. The final rule maintains 
the deciview as the principle visibility metric used in establishing 
reasonable progress goals, in defining baseline, current, and natural 
conditions, and in tracking changes in visibility conditions over time. 
States may choose to express visibility changes in terms of other 
metrics, such as visual range or light extinction, as well as in terms 
of deciview. The definition in the final rule was modified slightly to 
provide additional clarity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ For example, where the sight path to a scenic feature is 
less than the maximum visual range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Light extinction calculated from aerosol data. Some other 
commenters did not support EPA's proposed approach to calculating light 
extinction based on monitored fine particle data (referred to as 
``reconstructed light extinction'' in the proposal). These commenters 
preferred other methods, such as direct measurement of light scattering 
or light extinction with an optical device. While such methods are 
desired in comprehensively monitoring visibility impairment, the EPA 
supports the use of a common approach for calculating visibility 
changes based on monitored fine particle data as the primary monitoring 
method for tracking visual air quality.
    Such an approach has been established and implemented for many 
years by the IMPROVE Steering Committee. The IMPROVE approach uses a 
set of standard assumptions,71 which have been tested and 
found to be reasonable, in calculating light extinction and deciviews 
from changes in air quality. Two important aspects of the approach are: 
(1) Standard rates of light extinction per unit mass of visibility-
impairing pollutants (e.g., sulfate, nitrate, organic carbon, elemental 
carbon, and crustal material); and (2) standard effects of humidity on 
sulfate and nitrate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See Sisler, et al., Spatial and Seasonal Patterns and Long-
Term Variability of the Composition of the Haze in the United 
States: An Analysis of Data from the IMPROVE Network. Cooperative 
Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, Colorado State University, 
1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through extensive analysis of empirical data, a value (or ``dry 
extinction coefficient'') has been developed for each aerosol component 
which represents the amount of light extinction (expressed in inverse 
megameters) caused by each microgram/m3 of that component. Light 
extinction is calculated by multiplying the aerosol mass for each 
component by its extinction coefficient and summing the products. 
Because sulfates and nitrates become more efficient at scattering light 
as humidity increases, the values for these two components are also 
multiplied by a relative humidity adjustment factor. It has been shown 
that annual and seasonal light extinction values developed according to 
this method correlate well with averages of optical measurements of 
light extinction for the same locations.\72\ The EPA plans to issue 
future guidance describing the details of calculating visibility 
changes in this manner and tracking visibility over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although light extinction can be measured directly by certain 
optical devices (i.e., transmissometers and nephelometers), EPA 
supports an approach based on the mass of PM components derived from 
ambient monitoring for calculating light extinction for two main 
reasons. First, this approach provides for the tracking of actual 
changes in the components of air pollution, and the information 
obtained from analysis of the chemical composition of PM is critical to 
the air quality modeling and strategy development processes. By 
understanding the chemical composition of particulate matter, we can 
better define the manmade and natural components contributing to 
overall light extinction. Second, direct measurements of visibility 
from some optical instruments (e.g., transmissometer) are more 
frequently disrupted by precipitation events (i.e., rain or snow) than 
are aerosol measurements.
    For all of the reasons discussed above, the final rule provides for 
the tracking of visibility and emissions reductions. The deciview will 
be the principal visibility metric for use in implementing the regional 
haze program. The deciview will be used for expressing reasonable 
progress goals, defining baseline, current, and natural conditions, and 
tracking changes in visibility conditions over time. The definition of 
deciview in the final rule in section 51.301(bb) was modified slightly 
to provide additional clarity and state that deciview values are to be 
derived from calculated light extinction based on aerosol measurements 
in accordance with EPA guidance.

D. Regional Haze Implementation Plan Principles

    Section 169A of the CAA calls for States to develop implementation 
plans ensuring reasonable progress toward the national goal, including 
emission limits, schedules of compliance and other measures as 
necessary. At a minimum, the CAA calls for SIPs to include a long-term 
strategy and provisions for BART for certain major stationary sources. 
We would like to emphasize several overarching themes for the specific 
implementation plan requirements in the final rule:
     Regional haze regulations and State implementation plans 
must address all of the statutory requirements outlined in 169A and 
169B of the CAA. Regional haze requirements must address a number of 
specific statutory requirements, including ``criteria for reasonable 
progress,'' long-term strategies addressing all types of sources and 
activities, and best available retrofit technology for certain 
stationary sources. The implementation plan requirements in the final 
rule are designed to ensure that all of these statutory requirements 
will be met.
     Tracking ``reasonable progress'' should involve the 
tracking of both emissions and visibility improvement. Regional haze 
implementation plans must include provisions for tracking the 
implementation of enforceable emission management strategies designed 
to make reasonable progress toward the national

[[Page 35728]]

visibility goal. Emission control measures will be the component that 
will be enforceable to ensure reasonable progress. Measuring reasonable 
progress should involve tracking the actual emissions achieved through 
implementation of such strategies, and the tracking of visibility for 
the most impaired and least impaired days using established monitoring 
and data analysis techniques.
     Strategies for improving visibility should address all 
types of sources. Section 169A provides for State long-term strategies 
to address all types of sources and activities emitting pollutants that 
contribute to visibility impairment in Class I areas, including 
stationary, mobile, and area sources. Implementation plans also must 
give specific attention to certain stationary sources built between 
1962 and 1977 and provide for meeting the BART provisions for these 
sources.
     Successful implementation of the regional haze program 
will involve long-term regional coordination among States. Pollution 
affecting the air quality in Class I areas can be transported long 
distances, even hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, States will need to 
develop strategies in coordination with one another, taking into 
account the effect of emissions from one jurisdiction to air quality in 
another. In addition, as noted by the NAS study, ``achieving the 
national visibility goal will require a substantial, long-term 
program.'' 73 Accordingly, the regional haze program 
requires the periodic review by each State of whether ``reasonable 
progress'' is being achieved and revisions of implementation plans as 
needed to continue progress toward the national visibility goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ National Research Council, Committee on Haze in National 
Parks and Wilderness Areas, Protecting Visibility in National Parks 
and Wilderness Areas, National Academy Press, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Determination of ``Baseline,'' ``Natural'' and ``Current'' 
Visibility

    Background. The fundamental goal of the visibility program, as 
provided by Congress, is the prevention of future visibility impairment 
and the remedying of existing impairment in Class I areas. Thus, the 
regional haze program must track progress toward the national goal.
    In order to facilitate this tracking process, the proposed rule 
required each State having one or more Class I areas to establish, and 
update as necessary, three important visibility parameters for the best 
and worst visibility days at each Class I area within the State. Each 
parameter is discussed in detail below.
     Baseline conditions--Baseline conditions represent 
visibility for the best and worst days at the time the regional haze 
program is established. Baseline conditions are calculated using 
multiyear averaging.
     Natural conditions--As specified in the CAA, estimated 
natural conditions, or the visibility conditions that would be 
experienced in the absence of human-caused impairment, constitute the 
ultimate goal of the program. Under the regional haze program, natural 
conditions need to be estimated for the 20 percent best and worst days.
     Current conditions--Current conditions for the best and 
worst days are calculated from a multiyear average, based on the most 
recent years of monitored data. This value would be revised at the time 
of each periodic SIP revision, and would be used to illustrate: (1) The 
amount of progress made since the last SIP revision, and (2) the amount 
of progress made from the baseline period of the program.
Baseline Conditions
    Proposed rule. The preamble to the proposal discussed an approach 
for determining baseline visibility conditions for the haziest 20 
percent and clearest 20 percent of days that would allow using a 
minimum of 3 years of monitored data, and up to a maximum of 9 years of 
data.
    Comments received. The EPA received some comments suggesting that 
it would be more equitable to use a standardized time period to 
establish baseline values for all Class I areas across the country. 
Other commenters supported the use of baseline values based on a 
varying number of years from site to site. Some commenters also 
supported the establishment of baseline conditions based on a period of 
time longer than 3 years because a 3-year period could be significantly 
influenced by unique meteorological circumstances.
    Final rule. After considering public comments on the baseline 
issue, EPA has determined that the most appropriate ``baseline period'' 
would be a fixed, 5-year period extending from calendar year 2000 
through calendar year 2004. The EPA concluded that a standard baseline 
period provides for greater national consistency in establishing this 
important value, and therefore, is preferable to a provision allowing 
the baseline period to be a variable number of years. Using a common 
number of years and data points to calculate the baseline value for 
each site is consistent with fundamental statistical principles and 
will provide for easy comparison of data from multiple sites as the 
program is implemented.
    The EPA also concluded that it would be preferable to have a 
baseline value based on more than 3 years in order to establish a more 
robust baseline value. The EPA agrees with commenters that a 5-year 
period, rather than a 3-year period, provides for a more stable 
treatment of the inherent variability in emissions and meteorology. 
This approach decreases the probability that the baseline period will 
be unduly affected by unusual or nonrepresentative events.
    In deciding upon the specific baseline period of 2000-2004, the 
Agency took into account the fact that EPA has obtained funding to 
provide several hundred monitors to the States for the purposes of 
characterizing PM2.5 concentrations in urban and rural areas 
nationally. In accordance with the part 58 monitoring provision 
enabling IMPROVE protocol aerosol monitors to be used to characterize 
PM2.5 conditions at background and transport sites, the 
IMPROVE network will be expanding from 30 to more than 100 sites by the 
end of 1999 in order to characterize both background PM2.5 
levels and visibility impairment levels in Class I areas. Thus, EPA 
concluded that the baseline period should begin in 2000, after 
monitoring coverage for Class I areas is expanded significantly.
    The approach to calculating baseline values will also provide for 
more stable values because the frequency of monitoring samples in the 
IMPROVE network will increase in 1999 to one sample every 3 days. In 
this way, the frequency of sampling for IMPROVE will be consistent with 
the PM2.5 monitoring approach. Thus, annual values should 
become more robust since 17 percent more samples will be collected each 
year. Baseline conditions must be determined in terms of deciviews for 
the years 2000-2004 for the ``most impaired days'' and the ``least 
impaired days.'' The final rule defines these values as the average of 
the 20 percent of monitored days with the highest or lowest light 
extinction values, expressed in deciviews. The EPA will issue guidance 
for calculating baseline visibility conditions based on ambient 
monitoring data. The baseline value is determined by calculating the 
average deciview value for the 20 percent most (or least) impaired days 
for each of the 5 years (2000 through 2004), and by averaging those 
five values.
    The final rule also calls for baseline conditions to be established 
by the State for any Class I area without on-site monitoring by using 
``representative'' monitoring data for the site. In the SIP, the State 
will need to provide an adequate demonstration supporting the

[[Page 35729]]

use of any ``representative'' data. The EPA will issue guidance to help 
the States address this issue. The IMPROVE Steering Committee 
(comprised of representatives from EPA, States, and FLMs) is working to 
develop acceptable criteria to configure the expanded visibility 
monitoring network in such a way that virtually all Class I areas will 
either have an aerosol monitor or will be characterized by a 
``representative'' site. The IMPROVE Steering Committee, including 
State representatives, will complete the process for identifying 
representative sites before monitoring for the expanded network begins 
in the year 2000. For this reason, it is expected that most States 
needing to rely on representative data from another site will be able 
to meet the requirement of section 51.308(d)(4) by referencing the 
Visibility Monitoring Guidance Document, which will be released shortly 
after promulgation of this rule, and other technical support materials 
developed by the IMPROVE Steering Committee to support the 
determination of representative sites.
    Finally, States that submit SIPs for regional haze by 2003 under 
section 51.309 (further discussion in unit IV) must determine baseline 
conditions based on the most recent 5-year period for which monitoring 
data are available for the Class I area. For an area without monitoring 
data, the State may use data from another representative Class I area.
Natural Visibility Conditions
    Proposal. The proposed rule called for each State having a Class I 
area, in consultation with the appropriate FLMs, to: (1) Develop a 
procedure to estimate natural conditions for the 20 percent most 
impaired and least impaired days at each Class I area within the State; 
and (2) provide this estimate with the State's first SIP revision for 
regional haze (in the 2003-2005 timeframe as stated in the proposal). 
The estimates for natural conditions would be expressed in deciviews. 
The preamble cited as a default annual average, estimates of natural 
visibility that were included in the 1991 NAPAP chapter on visibility. 
When converted to deciview values, these annual average estimates are 
9.6 deciviews in the Eastern United States and 5.3 deciviews in the 
Western United States.
    Comments received. A number of commenters noted that there are 
several factors which can make the determination of natural conditions 
difficult. For example, organic aerosols resulting from biogenic 
sources, windblown dust, and natural causes of fire all contribute to 
natural visibility conditions. Several commenters emphasized the 
difficulty in determining the estimated contribution of naturally-
caused fire to natural conditions. Some commenters suggested that EPA 
provide guidance on how to estimate natural conditions.
    Final rule. The EPA understands that estimating natural visibility 
conditions can involve many technically complex issues. The EPA is 
committed to working with the States, tribes, and FLMs on this issue to 
develop technical guidance on estimating natural visibility conditions. 
The EPA expects that these estimates may be refined over time. In 
addition, after the regional haze rule is promulgated, and in advance 
of SIP due dates, EPA plans to revise the Interim Air Quality Policy on 
Wildland and Prescribed Fires \74\ to address a number of issues, 
including the contribution of fire to natural visibility conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed 
Fires, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 
1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the proposal, the final rule retains the 
requirement that each State provide an adequate estimate of natural 
visibility conditions for best and worst visibility days in each Class 
I area within the State. These estimates will be due at the time the 
State submits its initial control strategy SIP for regional haze. 
However, because the requirement for a SIP revision within 12 months of 
promulgation has been overridden by the provisions of TEA-21, there no 
longer is a requirement for States to separately submit to EPA 
recommended procedures for estimating natural conditions in advance of 
their control strategy SIPs.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ See unit III.B. for a detailed discussion of the TEA-21 
provisions and their affect on the timing for implementation of the 
regional haze program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA recommends that the States work closely with the FLMs, 
tribes, and EPA in developing and documenting in their SIPs appropriate 
methods for estimating natural conditions. Estimates of natural 
visibility conditions are needed to aid all interested parties, 
including the general public, in understanding how ``close'' or ``far'' 
a particular Class I area is in relation to the ultimate goal of the 
program. Understanding the estimated relative contributions of natural 
PM constituents (such as organic carbon and crustal material) also can 
help the States and tribes in understanding the extent of the 
contribution from manmade components, and thus can help in designing 
appropriate emission management strategies in the future. With each 
subsequent SIP revision, the estimates of natural conditions for each 
Class I area may be reviewed and revised as appropriate as the 
technical basis for estimates of natural conditions improve.
    The EPA believes that, as a starting point, it will be appropriate 
to derive regional estimates of natural visibility conditions by using 
estimates of natural levels of visibility-impairing pollutants \76\ in 
conjunction with the IMPROVE methodology for calculating light 
extinction from measurements of the five main components of fine 
particle mass (sulfate, nitrate, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and 
crustal material). By using this approach with appropriate assumptions 
for annual average relative humidity, EPA estimates natural conditions 
for the worst visibility days to be approximately 11-12 deciviews in 
the east and 8 deciviews in the west. The EPA supports use of these 
estimating techniques as a valid starting point because they rely on 
peer-reviewed estimates of the natural composition of fine particle 
mass,\77\ and analysis of data from the IMPROVE program's well-
established approach, refined over the past 10 years or more, for 
calculating light extinction from monitored PM constituents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ See National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program. Acid 
Deposition: State of Science and Technology. Report 24, Visibility: 
Existing and Historical Conditions--Causes and Effects, Table 24-6. 
Washington, DC. 1991.
    \77\ The NAPAP estimates were cited in both the Criteria 
Document and EPA Staff for the PM NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because these values are expressed in regional terms only, further 
refinement of these estimates will need to take place in the future on 
a site-specific basis. However, because current conditions at most 
Class I areas with existing IMPROVE monitoring exceed the above 
estimates by at least several deciviews (with some of the more impaired 
Class I areas having values that exceed estimated natural conditions by 
20 deciviews or more), EPA does not believe that such refined values 
are necessary for the initial 10-year program implementation period. As 
the difference between current and natural conditions for a particular 
Class I area becomes smaller, it will be important to develop more 
precise techniques for estimating natural conditions.
Current Conditions
    Proposal. The proposed rule required the State to revise its long-
term strategy every 3 years and to compare current conditions to the 
visibility conditions existing at the time of its previous long-term 
strategy revision. Current conditions would be established for the most 
impaired and least impaired days, and would be expressed in deciviews.

[[Page 35730]]

    Comments received. Many commenters supported EPA's approach to 
periodic tracking of changes in visibility to determine reasonable 
progress. Some commenters felt that averaging 5 years of data, rather 
than 3, would be preferable.
    Final rule. Section 51.308(f)(1) of the final rule retains the 
requirement for each State, at the time of any SIP revision, to 
determine the current visibility conditions for the most impaired and 
least impaired days for each Class I area within the State. Current 
conditions are to be based on the 5 most recent years of monitoring 
data available at the time a SIP revision or progress report is 
submitted. The approach for calculating current conditions is similar 
to the approach for calculating baseline conditions discussed above: 
the value is determined by calculating the average for the 20 percent 
most impaired days for each of the 5 most recent years for which 
quality-assured data are available, and then by calculating the average 
of those five values.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Sections 51.308(f)(1) and 51.308(g)(3) of the final rule also 
require the State to calculate the difference between current 
conditions and several other parameters so that this information can be 
taken into account when the State is revising its SIP and considering 
new reasonable progress goals. A discussion of these calculations is 
provided in unit III.J of this preamble addressing periodic SIP 
revisions and progress reports.
Summary
    The following summary table further illustrates the uses of 
``baseline,'' ``natural,'' and current conditions in the regional haze 
program.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      How is it used in
            Term               What does it mean?     the regional haze
                                                          program?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Baseline conditions''.....  Visibility (in        ``Baseline''
                               deciviews) for the    conditions are used
                               20 percent most-      in two ways:
                               impaired days, and   (1) For the first
                               for the 20 percent    regional haze SIPs,
                               least-impaired        due in about 2006-
                               days, for the years   2008, baseline
                               2000 through 2004.    conditions are the
                                                     reference point
                                                     against which
                                                     visibility
                                                     improvement is
                                                     tracked.
                                                    (2) For subsequent
                                                     SIP updates (in the
                                                     year 2018 and every
                                                     10 years
                                                     thereafter),
                                                     baseline conditions
                                                     are used to
                                                     calculate progress
                                                     from the beginning
                                                     of the regional
                                                     haze program.
``Natural conditions''......  The level of          ``Natural
                               visibility (in        conditions''
                               deciviews) for the    represents the
                               20 percent most-      absence of
                               impaired days, and    visibility
                               for the 20 percent    impairment due to
                               least-impaired        human-caused
                               days, that would      emissions, the
                               exist if there were   ultimate goal of
                               no manmade            the regional haze
                               impairment..          program.
``Current conditions''......  ``Visibility (in      For the initial
                               deciviews) for the    planning SIPs,
                               20 percent most-      ``current'' and
                               impaired days, and    ``baseline''
                               for the 20 percent    conditions are the
                               least-impaired        same.
                               days, for the most   For subsequent 5-
                               recent 5-year         year progress
                               period.               reports, ``current
                                                     conditions''
                                                     describe the amount
                                                     of progress that
                                                     has been made at
                                                     the mid-course
                                                     review point
                                                     halfway through an
                                                     implementation
                                                     cycle.
                                                    For subsequent
                                                     comprehensive
                                                     regional haze SIPs
                                                     (beginning in 2018
                                                     and every 10 years
                                                     thereafter),
                                                     ``current
                                                     conditions'' will
                                                     be used to show how
                                                     much progress has
                                                     been made relative
                                                     to the
                                                     ``baseline,'' and
                                                     will serve as the
                                                     reference point for
                                                     tracking progress
                                                     for the next
                                                     implementation
                                                     period.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Reasonable Progress Goals

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

[[Page 35731]]

 * * *'' 79 As noted in unit III.C., EPA also proposed to 
track progress in relation to the targets through the use of monitored 
air quality data and calculation of light extinction values from this 
aerosol data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ GCVTC Report, June 1996, p. x.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal also provided a process by which a State could 
establish alternate reasonable progress targets, expressed in 
deciviews, provided the State justified the alternate target based on a 
review of the relevant statutory factors.80 These factors 
are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ See CA A section 169A(g)(1) and 169A(g)(2). See also 62 FR 
41145-41148.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The costs of compliance;
     The time necessary for compliance;
     The energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of 
compliance; and
     The remaining useful life of any existing source subject 
to such requirements.
    Comments received. A number of commenters advocated a faster rate 
of improvement than the proposed presumptive rate of 1 deciview every 
10 or 15 years since, as proposed, they claimed it could take more than 
200 years to reach the national visibility goal in some eastern 
locations. They felt that this rate of progress should not be 
considered ``reasonable.'' Many of these commenters supported a rate of 
improvement for the worst days equal to 10-20 percent of the current 
deciview value (i.e., 3-6 deciviews per 10 years in an average eastern 
location with a worst day value of 30 deciviews, and 1.5-3.0 deciviews 
for an average southwestern location with a worst day value of 15 
deciviews). A number of other commenters interpreted the proposed rule 
as requiring an inflexible visibility ``standard'' of 1 deciview 
improvement every 10 or 15 years. They maintained that such a standard 
would be infeasible to achieve in some areas of the country, and that 
EPA had failed to justify such a presumption through an analysis of the 
statutory factors in section 169A(g). These commenters wanted the 
States to have greater flexibility in setting visibility goals. Some 
commenters stated that 1 deciview is not the threshold of perception in 
all situations, and that for this reason the one deciview presumptive 
target in the proposal should be dropped. Other commenters asserted 
that the no degradation target for the best visibility days would 
prevent new source growth in some areas. Some commenters also opposed 
the presumptive target because of the concern that a State could be 
subject to a citizen lawsuit for not meeting a reasonable progress 
target.
    Final rule. In considering how to address the reasonable progress 
target issue in the final rule, EPA was mindful of the balance that 
must be maintained between the need for strategies that will achieve 
meaningful improvements in air quality and the need to provide 
appropriate flexibility for States in designing strategies that are 
responsive to both air quality and economic concerns. After considering 
the comments on the ``presumptive target'' issue, EPA has revised the 
rule to eliminate ``presumptive targets.'' There is no presumptive 
target that States are required to meet to achieve reasonable progress. 
States have flexibility in determining their reasonable progress goals 
based on consideration of the statutory factors. However, as discussed 
below, the final rule requires States to conduct certain analyses to 
ensure that they consider the possibility of setting an ambitious 
reasonable progress goal, one that is aimed at reaching natural 
background conditions in 60 years.
    The final rule calls for States to establish ``reasonable progress 
goals,'' 81 expressed in deciviews, for each Class I area 
for the purpose of improving visibility on the haziest days and not 
allowing degradation on the clearest days over the period of each 
implementation plan or revision. The EPA believes that requiring States 
to establish such goals is consistent with section 169A of the CAA, 
which gives EPA broad authority to establish regulations to ``ensure 
reasonable progress,'' and with section 169B of the CAA, which calls 
for EPA to establish ``criteria for measuring reasonable progress'' 
toward the national goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ See section 51.308(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This approach is designed to address the concerns of those 
commenters interested in greater State flexibility in setting 
visibility goals, as well as the concerns of those commenters who 
believed that the presumptive 1 deciview target approach could actually 
provide a disincentive for some States to pursue more ambitious rates 
of progress, particularly for the most impaired Class I areas in the 
East. The EPA has taken this approach in the final rule because the CAA 
national visibility goal and ``reasonable progress'' provisions do not 
mandate specific rates of progress, but instead call for ``reasonable 
progress'' toward the ultimate goal of returning to natural background 
conditions. Today's final rule requires the States to determine the 
rate of progress for remedying existing impairment that is reasonable, 
taking into consideration the statutory factors, and informed by input 
from all stakeholders.
    Required analysis of rate of progress which would attain natural 
conditions in sixty years. The EPA received numerous comments 
expressing the concern that a rate of progress that would result in 
reaching the national goal in 200 years should not be considered 
``reasonable.'' These comments are based on the fact that the most 
impaired Eastern United States Class I areas have current conditions 
for the worst days (around 26-31 deciviews) that exceed estimated 
natural conditions (approximately 10-12 deciviews) by 16-20 deciviews 
or more. At the proposed presumptive rate of progress of 1 deciview per 
10 years, it would take 200 years or more to reach the national 
visibility goal in many Eastern Class I areas. In addition, several 
commenters felt that rates of progress should vary between the east and 
the west because many parts of the western United States have much 
lower levels of visibility impairment than the east. For example, they 
asserted that a 1 deciview improvement over 10 years may not be very 
ambitious in an eastern location, whereas it could be very ambitious in 
some of the least impaired Class I areas in the west.
    In order to address the diverse concerns of commenters on the 
proposal, EPA is establishing an analytical requirement that takes into 
account the varying levels of visibility impairment in Class I areas 
around the country while ensuring an equitable approach nationwide. To 
determine an equitable analytical approach, we considered the CAA 
amendments of 1990, which require actions to attain air quality health 
standards over a 20-year period for the 1-hour ozone standard, 
depending on the severity of the area's problem, and over a 10-year 
period for new standards, such as the new 8-hour ozone standard and the 
PM2.5 standards. The CAA also requires reductions over the 
same time period to address acid rain. In the eastern United States, 
EPA's analyses show that the reductions from these and other CAA 
programs will result in a rate of improvement estimated at 
approximately 3 deciviews over the period from the mid-1990's to about 
2005.82 The EPA calculated that if this rate of improvement 
could be sustained, these areas would reach the national goal in 60 
years.83 The EPA

[[Page 35732]]

concluded that it would be reasonable to establish an analytical 
requirement based on this rate of progress given that this rate of 
improvement is expected to be achieved due to emissions under CAA 
programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ U.S. EPA, Effects of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments on 
Visibility in Class I Areas: An EPA Report to Congress. Office of 
Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA-452/R-93-014, 1993.
    \83\ Calculated by dividing 3 deciviews (per 10 years) into an 
average of 18 deciviews away from natural conditions, and 
multiplying 6 increments by 10 years, assuming 10 years to achieve 
each increment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA also believes that the analytical requirement of the rate 
of improvement needed to reach natural conditions in 60 years is 
reasonable because in the near-term, cost-effective controls will 
continue to be available to reduce emissions that contribute to 
visibility impairment in Class I areas across the country. Recent 
analyses for other air quality programs show that significant emissions 
can be achieved through cost-effective control measures.
    In addition, in the longer term, it can be expected that continued 
progress in visibility will be possible as industrial facilities built 
in the latter half of the 20th century reach the end of their ``useful 
lives'' and are retired and/or replaced by cleaner, more fuel-efficient 
facilities. Significant improvements in pollution prevention 
techniques, emissions control technologies, and renewable energy have 
been made over the past 30 years, and continue to be made. History 
strongly suggests that further innovations in control technologies are 
likely to continue in future decades, leading to the ability of new 
plants to meet lower emissions rates.
    In light of this analysis of progress that could potentially be 
achieved, EPA has established in section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B) an 
analytical requirement for setting reasonable progress goals that 
should provide for greater equity between goals set for the more 
impaired Eastern United States and the less impaired Western United 
States. This analytical requirement has the following four steps.
    First, the State (or regional planning group) must compare the 
baseline visibility conditions in the years 2000-2004 (in deciviews) 
for the most impaired days with the natural background conditions, for 
each relevant Class I area. From this comparison, the State must 
determine the amount of progress needed to reach natural background 
conditions in 60 years, that is, by the year 2064. For example, if the 
baseline visibility is 30 deciviews, and the natural background is 12 
deciviews, then this step would show the need for an 18 deciview 
improvement between 2004 and 2064.
    Second, the State must identify the uniform rate of progress over 
the 60 year period that would be needed to attain natural background 
conditions by the year 2064. For the example case noted above, where 18 
deciviews is the amount for the 60-year period, this would result in a 
uniform rate of progress for each year of (18/60), or 0.3 deciviews for 
a year.
    Third, the State must identify the amount of progress that would 
result if this uniform rate of progress were achieved during the period 
of the first regional haze implementation plan. For example, if the 
first implementation plan covers a 10-year period, then for the above 
example, the State would identify a 3 deciview amount of progress over 
that time period.
    Fourth, the State must identify and analyze the emissions measures 
that would be needed to achieve this amount of progress during the 
period covered by the first long-term strategy, and to determine 
whether those measures are reasonable based on the statutory factors. 
These factors are the costs of compliance with the measures, the time 
necessary for compliance with the measures, the energy and nonair 
quality environmental impacts of the compliance with the measures, and 
the remaining useful life of any existing source subject to the 
measures.
    In doing this analysis, the State must consult with other States 
which are anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in the 
Class I area under consideration. Because haze is a regional problem, 
States are encouraged to work together to develop acceptable approaches 
for addressing visibility problems to which they jointly contribute. If 
a contributing State cannot agree with the State establishing the 
reasonable progress goal, the State setting the goal must describe the 
actions taken to resolve the disagreement.
    If the State determines that the amount of progress identified 
through the analysis is reasonable based upon the statutory factors, 
the State should identify this amount of progress as its reasonable 
progress goal for the first long-term strategy, unless it determines 
that additional progress beyond this amount is also reasonable. If the 
State determines that additional progress is reasonable based on the 
statutory factors, the State should adopt that amount of progress as 
its goal for the first long-term strategy.
    If the State determines, based on the statutory factors, that the 
identified uniform rate of progress needed to reach natural conditions 
is not reasonable, the State must provide in its plan submission the 
analysis and rationale supporting this determination. The State then 
must provide a demonstration as part of its SIP submission showing why 
a less ambitious goal is reasonable, based on the statutory factors. 
The EPA intends to issue guidance interpreting the statutory factors 
and providing examples of ways in which they may be applied.
    The State must also provide to the public, in accordance with 
section 51.308(d)(1)(ii), an assessment of the number of years it would 
take to reach natural conditions if the State continued to make 
progress at the alternative rate of progress it selected. For example, 
if average worst day visibility at the class I area is 18 deciviews 
from estimated natural conditions, the uniform rate of progress needed 
to reach natural conditions is 3 deciviews per 10 years. If the State 
determined that 3 deciviews is not reasonable but 2 deciviews is, then 
the State would have to include a statement in its SIP that it would 
take 90 years to reach natural conditions if this rate is maintained.
    It should be noted that in developing the first regional haze 
implementation plan (and subsequent revisions), there is a time period 
of several years between the time period for which data are available 
and the date of plan submission. The first regional haze implementation 
plans for most of the United States will use the years 2000 through 
2004 as the baseline for monitoring and emission inventories, while the 
first implementation plan for much of the country will not be due until 
a deadline that occurs between 2006 to 2008. In identifying the amount 
of progress needed by the end of the implementation period (the third 
step described above), States must account for this time period. 
Assume, for example, for the case discussed above (i.e., a 30 deciview 
baseline, and a uniform rate of progress of 0.3 deciviews per year to 
reach natural conditions in 60 years) that the first regional haze SIPs 
covers the years 2009 through the year 2018. For this case, there would 
thus be a 4-year period (2005 through 2008) that would occur between 
the baseline and the date of SIP submission. The uniform rate of 
progress of 0.3 deciviews per year over this time period would result 
in 1.2 deciviews of improvement before the plan submission. Hence, for 
this example, in identifying the amount of progress needed between the 
baseline and the end of the implementation period (i.e., the year 
2018), the State must evaluate strategies that provide for a total of 
4.2 deciviews: 1.2 deciviews between the last year of the baseline 
period and plan submission, and 3 deciviews for the implementation

[[Page 35733]]

period. The effect of this provision is that States must be mindful of 
the expected activities that take place before plan submission. 
Generally, we expect for the first plan submission period that progress 
in visibility improvement will continue to occur during the 2004 to 
2008 period due to implementation of other CAA programs.
    Rationale for the required 60-year analysis. The EPA has adopted 
this analytical requirement for two reasons. First, a common analytical 
framework that recognizes regional differences meets the concerns of 
several commenters by providing greater equity between the Eastern 
United States and Western United States.
    Second, EPA believes this analysis will provide important 
additional information for the public to consider as States establish 
progress goals. The EPA believes this analysis will provide for a more 
informed and equitable decision making process by giving the public 
information about the level of emissions needed, related costs, and 
other factors associated with improvements in visibility. The EPA 
recommends that as part of this process, the States use computer-based 
scene optics modeling tools to present to the general public the 
anticipated change in Class I area visibility that would result from 
one reasonable progress goal versus another.
    Consideration of other CAA measures. In determining the emissions 
and visibility improvement achieved during each implementation period, 
States should include all air quality improvements that will be 
achieved by other programs and activities under the CAA and any State 
air pollution control requirements. Therefore, any reasonable progress 
goal for a Class I area should reflect at least the rate of visibility 
improvement expected from the implementation of other ``applicable 
requirements'' under the CAA during the period covered by the long-term 
strategy. Consequently, States must take into account, at a minimum, 
the effect of measures to meet the NAAQS, the national mobile source 
program, and other applicable requirements under the CAA on Class I 
area visibility.
    While, as noted above, based on our current understanding, EPA 
expects in the eastern United States that the reductions from measures 
implementing the CAA requirements will provide the visibility 
improvement and emissions needed for reasonable progress during the 
first regional haze implementation plan, EPA also recognizes that 
States will not be submitting their regional haze plans for several 
years. In developing its submittal, each State will need to conduct 
analyses to support its reasonable progress goals according to 
information available at the time the plan is submitted about benefits 
from the existing CAA programs. Each State should set its goal(s) 
taking into consideration input from its stakeholders and based on the 
statutory factors described above. In addition, the State must also 
conduct a BART determination for each source subject to BART as 
required in section 51.308(e) of the rule and described in section 
III.H. of the preamble. In considering whether reasonable progress will 
continue to be maintained, States will need to consider during each new 
SIP revision cycle whether additional control measures for improving 
visibility may be needed to make reasonable progress based on the 
statutory factors.
    Some commenters expressed concern that the State would be subject 
to sanctions or enforcement actions in the event that a State fails to 
meet a reasonable progress target. As noted above, the reasonable 
progress goal is a goal and not a mandatory standard which must be 
achieved by a particular date as is the case with the NAAQS. Once a 
State has adopted a reasonable progress goal and determined what 
progress will be made toward that goal over a 10-year period, the goal 
itself is not enforceable. All that is ``enforceable'' is the set of 
control measures which the State has adopted to meet that goal. If the 
State's strategies have been implemented but the State has not met its 
reasonable progress goal, the State could either: (1) revise its 
strategies in the SIP for the next long-term strategy period to meet 
its goal, or (2) revise the reasonable progress goals for the next 
implementation period. In either case, the State would be required to 
base its decisions on appropriate analyses of the statutory factors 
included in section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) and (B) of the final rule.
    If a State fails to submit an approvable SIP, or if it fails to 
implement and enforce strategies adopted into its SIP, the State could 
be subject to sanctions under the CAA. If the State continues to fail 
in meeting its obligations, EPA could be required to develop and 
implement a Federal implementation plan (FIP).
    Allowing no degradation for the best days. Some commenters 
supported the goal of no degradation at a minimum, but they asserted 
that in many Class I areas, particularly in the east, the ``best days'' 
are in fact still quite impaired. In their view, a rule requiring only 
preservation of existing clean days would not meet the national 
goal.84 Other commenters stated that a ``no degradation'' 
target for the clearest days could result in limitations to economic 
growth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ Data from the IMPROVE network show that for several sites 
in the Eastern United States, the deciview values for the best days 
are greater than 14 deciviews, which is higher than even the NAPAP 
estimate of annual average conditions in the Eastern United States 
(9.6 deciviews).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule maintains the approach used in the proposed rule, 
which established a goal of no degradation for the best visibility 
days. The EPA believes this approach is consistent with the national 
goal in that it is designed to prevent future impairment, a fundamental 
concept of section 169A of the CAA. The EPA recognizes that the best 
days are still impaired in many Class I area locations, particularly in 
the east. The EPA encourages States to evaluate monitoring data to 
determine whether the same types of sources are affecting both the 
clear days and the hazy days. If the relative contribution of different 
particle types to light extinction is similar for both clear and hazy 
days, as it is for many sites currently monitored, then by developing 
strategies to improve conditions on the worst visibility days, the 
States will likely improve the entire distribution of hazy and clear 
days. Thus, under the final rule, the clean days for most Class I areas 
are expected to improve over time. Indeed, recent analyses of 
visibility trends have shown that at many Class I areas, deciview 
values for the 20 percent least impaired days are declining.
    If at a Class I area the average conditions for clear days degrades 
over time, the State must provide in the next plan revision an 
explanation of why this happened, a set of measures designed to reverse 
this trend, and a plan for implementation during the next 10-year 
period. The State should review the effectiveness of these measures in 
subsequent 5-year progress reviews.
    Integral vistas. The scenic vistas enjoyed by visitors to many 
parks often extend to important natural features outside these parks. 
The 1980 rules included a provision whereby the States could identify 
specific vistas for protection. For this reason, EPA solicited comment 
on whether the integral vistas concept should be extended to the 
regional haze program.
    Some commenters supported reopening the vista identification 
program because such vistas are a significant resource of a Class I 
area. Several others opposed extending the program for a variety of 
reasons.

[[Page 35734]]

    The final regional haze rule does not extend the integral vista 
concept to the regional haze program. As noted earlier in the 
background section of this preamble, regional haze is caused by a 
multitude of sources across a broad geographic area, and it can create 
a uniform haze in all directions. The regional haze program is designed 
to bring about improvements in regional visibility for the range of 
possible views of sky and terrain found in any Class I area. 
Accordingly, the program does not protect only specific views from a 
Class I area. To address haze, regional strategies will be needed, and 
emissions resulting from these strategies are expected to improve 
visibility across a broad region, not just within a Class I area. Thus, 
although the regional haze program does not include a specific 
provision regarding integral vistas, the long-term strategies developed 
to meet reasonable progress goals would also serve to improve scenic 
vistas viewed from and within Class I areas.
    Use of 20 percent most-impaired days and 20 percent least-impaired 
days. The final rule maintains the approach discussed in the proposal 
of improving the most-impaired visibility days (i.e., the average of 
the 20 percent most impaired days over an entire year), and allowing no 
degradation in the ``cleanest'' or least impaired days (i.e., the 
average of the 20 percent least impaired days over an entire year). In 
deciding upon an appropriate characterization of the ``most'' and 
``least'' impaired days, EPA considered the typical frequency of 
aerosol monitoring in the IMPROVE network 85 (once every 3 
days), and the number of samples that would be available for analysis 
annually (122 possible samples per year). The EPA believes that 
calculating annual ``best'' and ``worst'' conditions on the basis of an 
average of the 20 percent best and worst visibility days represents a 
reasonable approach to characterizing the typical best and worst 
conditions without having these values unduly influenced by a single 
anomalous data point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ The IMPROVE network is described in unit III.I. of the 
preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's basis for maintaining the proposed approach is supported 
by the CAA and its legislative history, and by the approach used by the 
GCVTC in its technical assessment work and in its definition of 
reasonable progress. The EPA believes that a rule that requires 
strategies for improving the worst days and allowing no degradation on 
the clean days is consistent with the national visibility goal in 
section 169A of the CAA, which calls for preventing any future 
impairment (protecting clearest days) and remedying any existing 
impairment (improving the already impaired days). This approach is also 
supported by the legislative history of the 1990 CAA and the reasonable 
progress definition. The legislative history provides that, ``At a 
minimum, progress and improvement must require that visibility be 
perceptibly improved compared to periods of impairment, and that it not 
be degraded or impaired during conditions that historically contribute 
to relatively unimpaired visibility.'' 86 The GCVTC 
interpreted ``reasonable progress'' to be ``achieving continuous 
emissions reductions necessary to reduce existing impairment and attain 
a steady improvement in visibility in mandatory Class I areas, and 
managing emissions growth so as to prevent perceptible degradation of 
clear air days.'' 87 In today's final rule, EPA is similarly 
providing for ``attaining a steady improvement in visibility'' and 
``preventing degradation of clean air days'' through the requirement to 
improve the haziest days and prevent degradation of the clearest days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ 136 Cong. Rec. S2878 (daily ed. March 21, 1990) (statement 
of Sen. Adams).
    \87\ GCVTC Report, p. x.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tracking progress based on 5-year averages. To determine whether 
reasonable progress in improving visibility is being achieved, States 
will need to collect and analyze air quality data each year and review 
progress at 5-year intervals. Because the regional haze program 
represents a long-term effort to improve visibility in Class I areas, 
EPA believes that monitoring and assessments of progress should not be 
unduly influenced by short-term events or unusual meteorological 
conditions, but should reflect trends in air quality which are robust 
and insensitive to minor fluctuations. For this reason, the final rule 
calls for measuring progress by tracking changes in 5-year average 
deciview values for the haziest and clearest days, and comparing these 
current conditions against baseline conditions as well as impairment 
levels at the time of the last SIP revision. (See unit III.E above for 
further discussion about establishing baseline and current conditions 
based on 5-year averages.)

G. Long-Term Strategy

    Proposed rule. Under Section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA, EPA's 
visibility regulations must require States to include in their SIPs 
``such emission limitations schedules of compliance and other measures 
as may be necessary to make reasonable progress toward meeting the 
national goal specified in * * * [section 169A(a)] * * *'' In section 
169A(b)(2)(B), the CAA requires that these SIPs must include a ``long-
term (ten to fifteen years) strategy for making reasonable progress 
toward meeting the national goal.'' The EPA interprets the term ``long-
term strategy'' as the control measures that are needed to ensure 
reasonable progress, together with a demonstration that those measures 
will provide for reasonable progress during the 10 to 15 year period. 
The proposed rule required the State to develop a long-term strategy 
for regional haze with the initial regional haze SIP, and to provide 
for regular updates. (Issues regarding updates of the long-term 
strategy are discussed below in unit III.J).
    The proposal also required States to consider a specific list of 
factors when they developed their long-term strategies for regional 
haze. Under the proposal, in developing long-term strategies for 
regional haze, States would be required to consider the six items 
listed in section 51.306(e) of the 1980 rule, and the five items listed 
in section 51.306(g) of the 1980 rule. We proposed to add a seventh 
item to section 51.306(e), ``the anticipated effect on visibility due 
to projected changes in point, area and mobile source emissions over 
the next 10 years.''
    Comments received. Public commenters on the long-term strategy 
requirement expressed concerns that the proposed rule had over-
emphasized stationary source contributions, and had under-emphasized 
contributions from minor sources, area sources, mobile sources and 
prescribed fires. Other commenters expressed concerns that control 
strategies would be ineffective in cases where contributions from 
international sources were causing visibility impairment. Commenters 
also emphasized that States be able to take credit in their long-term 
strategies for the effects of existing CAA programs. We did not receive 
any comments on the specific list of factors to consider in developing 
long-term strategies.
    Final rule. As discussed further below in unit III.J of today's 
notice, the final rule requires control strategies to cover an initial 
implementation period extending to the year 2018, with a reassessment 
and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every 10 years. The 
final rule, in section 51.308(d)(3), includes a requirement for 
regional haze SIPs to include a long-term strategy. The long-term 
strategy must include specific enforceable measures that are sufficient 
to meet the ``reasonable progress goals'' for all Class

[[Page 35735]]

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

[[Page 35736]]

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

[[Page 35737]]

includes six factors in the July 1997 proposal that are derived from 
section 51.306(e) of the existing rule, and the additional item, ``the 
anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in point, 
area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by the 
long-term strategy'' that was specifically added by the July 1997 
proposal. We have decided not to include the five proposed items that 
are derived from section 51.306(g), because four of these items are 
included on the list of ``reasonable progress'' factors in section 
51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) of the final rule, and because we believe that the 
fifth factor ``effect of new sources'' is part of ``projected changes 
in point source emissions.''
    In their regional haze SIP submissions, States must describe how 
each of these seven factors is taken into account in developing long-
term strategies. We believe it is useful to clarify several of these 
factors, and EPA's expectations on how SIPs can address them.
    Item (A): Emissions due to ongoing air pollution control programs, 
including measures to address reasonably attributable visibility 
impairment.
    It is expected that for some areas of the country, such as parts of 
the eastern United States, emissions achieved for the acid rain program 
and for meeting the PM2.5 NAAQS, will lead to substantial 
improvements in visibility as well. Item (A) makes clear that States 
must take these other emissions into account in developing their long-
term strategies for regional haze. We expect that some States may be 
able to demonstrate reasonable progress based on these emissions alone, 
particularly for the first 10-year period.
    Item (B): Measures to mitigate the impacts of construction 
activities.
    Item (B) requires that in developing long-term strategies, States 
must consider the impacts of construction activities. States, for 
example, should include these activities in emission inventories used 
for long-term strategy development.
    Item (C): Additional measures and limitations and schedules for 
compliance to achieve the reasonable progress goal.
    Where emissions from ongoing requirements, addressed by item (A), 
are not sufficient to achieve the reasonable progress goal, States must 
identify additional measures that will ensure that the goal will be 
met. Schedules for compliance for these additional measures must be 
included in the SIP, and measures considered for inclusion must be 
identified in the SIP submission.
    Item (D): Source retirement and replacement schedules.
    Item (D) requires the consideration of source retirement and 
replacement schedules in developing the long-term strategies, 
particularly, where these schedules would have a significant impact on 
regional emission loadings and on a State's ability to achieve 
reasonable progress.
    Item (E): Smoke management techniques for agricultural and forestry 
management purposes including plans as they currently exist within the 
State for these purposes.
    Item (E) highlights the widely recognized importance of prescribed 
burning programs on regional haze. Issues related to fire and forestry 
management practices are discussed above.
    Item (F): Enforceability of emissions limitations and control 
measures.
    States must ensure that control measures are written in a way that 
EPA and citizens may enforce as a practical matter. Guidance on 
practical enforceability issues is readily available in EPA policy 
guidance memoranda, for example Guidance on Limiting Potential to Emit 
in New Source Permitting, June 13, 1989.
    Item (G): The anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected 
changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the next 10 
years.
    Item (G) requires that States must address the anticipated net 
effect on visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and 
mobile source emissions over the next 10 years when developing 
emissions strategies that will meet the reasonable progress 
requirements. In some areas, these changes in emissions would be 
expected primarily from population growth, while in others, emissions 
changes may result from potential new industrial, energy, natural 
resource development, or land management activities. These changes in 
emissions would also include the changes due to measures developed 
specifically for the regional haze program.
    Relationship to long-term strategies under the existing rule. The 
final rule provides for coordination of the long-term strategies to 
address regional haze impairment with any existing long-term strategies 
under the 1980 visibility rule. Some long-term strategies are already 
in place to address reasonably attributable visibility impairment under 
the existing 1980 regulation. Coordination of the two programs is 
addressed in section 51.306(c) of the final rule. This section 
clarifies two points. First, that the provisions of existing long-term 
strategies will continue to apply until regional haze strategies are in 
place. Second, once the first regional haze strategy is in place, the 
final rule, in section 51.306(c) requires the State to develop a 
coordinated long-term strategy which address both reasonably 
attributable impairment and regional haze.

H. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

    Background. One of the principal elements of the visibility 
protection provisions of the CAA is the provision in section 169A 
addressing the installation of BART for certain existing sources. The 
conference committee report accompanying the 1977 CAA amendments 
indicates that a major concern motivating the adoption of the 
visibility provisions was ``the need to remedy existing pollution in 
the Federal mandatory class I areas from existing sources.'' 
88 The BART provision in section 169A(b)(2)(A) demonstrates 
Congress' intention to focus attention directly on the problem of 
pollution from a specific set of existing sources. This provision 
provides that EPA's regulations to protect visibility must require 
States to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be 
necessary to make reasonable progress toward the national visibility 
goal, including a requirement that certain existing stationary sources 
procure, install, and operate the ``best available retrofit 
technology.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ H.R. Rep. No. 564, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. at 155 (1977) 
(emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CAA defines the sources potentially subject to BART as major 
stationary sources, including reconstructed sources, from one of 26 
identified source categories which have the potential to emit 250 tons 
per year or more of any air pollutant, and which were placed into 
operation between August 1962 and August 1977.89 This set of 
sources potentially subject to BART was defined in the 1977 CAA and 
will not be modified by rule. The 26 source categories are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ See CAA sections 169A (b)(2)(A) & (g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Fossil-fuel fired steam electric plants of more than 250 
million British thermal units per hour heat input,
    (2) Coal cleaning plants (thermal dryers),
    (3) Kraft pulp mills,
    (4) Portland cement plants,
    (5) Primary zinc smelters,
    (6) Iron and steel mill plants,
    (7) Primary aluminum ore reduction plants,
    (8) Primary copper smelters,
    (9) Municipal incinerators capable of charging more than 250 tons 
of refuse per day,

[[Page 35738]]

    (10) Hydrofluoric, sulfuric, and nitric acid plants,
    (11) Petroleum refineries,
    (12) Lime plants,
    (13) Phosphate rock processing plants,
    (14) Coke oven batteries,
    (15) Sulfur recovery plants,
    (16) Carbon black plants (furnace process),
    (17) Primary lead smelters,
    (18) Fuel conversion plants,
    (19) Sintering plants,
    (20) Secondary metal production facilities,
    (21) Chemical process plants,
    (22) Fossil-fuel boilers of more than 250 million British thermal 
units per hour heat input,
    (23) Petroleum storage and transfer facilities with a capacity 
exceeding 300,000 barrels,
    (24) Taconite ore processing facilities,
    (25) Glass fiber processing plants, and
    (26) Charcoal production facilities.

In section 51.301(e) of the 1980 visibility regulations, a source 
meeting the above criteria was defined as an ``existing stationary 
facility.'' In today's regional haze rule, EPA has added the definition 
of a ``BART-eligible source'' in section 51.301(hh) that is identical 
to the definition of ``existing stationary facility.'' This new 
definition is used throughout the regional haze rule and preamble in 
order to avoid the potential misinterpretation of the ``existing 
stationary facility'' definition as representing a collection of 
sources broader than the subset of sources potentially subject to BART.
    The regulations issued in 1980 define BART as ``an emission 
limitation based on the degree of reduction achievable through the 
application of the best system of continuous emission reduction for 
each pollutant which is emitted'' by a BART eligible 
facility.90 The BART emission limitation must be 
established, on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the 
following factors:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ Section 51.301(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The technology available,
     The costs of compliance,
     The energy and nonair environmental impacts of compliance,
     Any pollution control equipment in use at the source,
     The remaining useful life of the source, and
     The degree of improvement in visibility which may 
reasonably be anticipated from the use of such technology.91
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EPA published guidelines in 1980 which outline the general 
procedures for States to follow in analyzing sources and establishing 
BART emission limits.92 These guidelines apply to situations 
in which visibility impairment in the Class I area is determined to be 
``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or a small group of 
sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ See EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 
Guidelines for Determining Best Available Retrofit Technology for 
Coal-Fired Power Plants and Other Existing Stationary Facilities, 
EPA-450/3-80-009b, November 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed rule. The proposed regional haze rule discussed a process 
for addressing BART in the context of regional haze and requested 
comment on how the requirement should be implemented. The first step in 
this process was a requirement that the State identify all sources 
potentially subject to BART early in the planning process. The second 
step required the State to submit a plan and schedule for evaluating 
BART and the corresponding potential emissions for those existing 
sources which may reasonably be anticipated to contribute to regional 
haze visibility impairment. The notice proposed to provide 3 years for 
completing this evaluation so that the results could be taken into 
consideration by States as they develop coordinated strategies for 
attaining the PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS.
    In setting out the proposed approach to the BART requirement, EPA 
proposed that the test for determining whether a BART-eligible source 
``may reasonably be anticipated to contribute'' to regional haze should 
be evaluated in the context of the overall emissions reduction 
strategy. The EPA also noted that it believed that a similar approach 
should be taken in addressing ``the degree of improvement in visibility 
which may reasonably be anticipated'' from the imposition of BART 
controls. The EPA proposed a cumulative approach because of the nature 
of the regional haze problem (i.e., the cumulative product of emissions 
from many sources over a broad area) and because of the time and 
expense necessary to try to determine, one source at a time, the 
percentage contribution of each BART-eligible source to regional haze. 
In addition, EPA noted the substantial technical difficulties 
associated with estimating the degree of visibility improvement 
resulting from a single source. The EPA broadly requested comments on 
effective approaches for States and sources to meet the BART 
requirement under the regional haze program in the most appropriate 
manner, and in particular how BART, once determined, should be 
implemented.
    Comments received. Commenters identified a number of issues 
concerning how EPA should address the BART requirement under the 
regional haze program. Some commenters asserted that the BART 
requirement simply should not apply under the regional haze program. 
These commenters argued that the procurement, installation, and 
operation of BART is not explicitly required under section 169B, and 
that section 169B is the primary statutory authority for the regional 
haze program. Other opponents of the BART requirement contended that 
the proposal placed too much emphasis on stationary sources, and on 
BART sources in particular, as opposed to other sources of visibility-
impairing pollutant emissions, such as mobile and area sources. The 
commenters contended that BART should not be the principal control 
strategy employed under the regional haze program.
    Another group of commenters supported EPA's proposed approach for 
addressing the BART requirement. Some pointed out that while existing 
stationary sources are not the only contributors to regional haze, 
controlling these sources is an essential element of a national 
regional haze program. These commenters also supported the approach of 
evaluating BART-eligible sources collectively to determine their 
overall contribution to visibility impairment within a given airshed. 
Several commenters recommended that BART be equivalent to, or more 
stringent than, new source performance standards (NSPS) for sulfur 
dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Some commenters suggested allowing an 
emissions cap-and-trade program to meet the BART requirement. One 
commenter described a process whereby States would conduct an 
assessment of the availability of retrofit controls for all BART-
eligible sources in a region, calculate the cumulative emissions 
possible from application of BART to eligible sources, establish a cap 
for each visibility-reducing pollutant, and implement a 10-year program 
to achieve emissions equivalent to the emissions cap.
    Response to comments. The EPA disagrees with the commenters who 
argued that the BART requirements should not apply to the regional haze 
program. The statutory authority for developing a regional haze program 
emanates from section 169A of the CAA, and any SIPs that are to be 
developed under a regional haze program must include provisions that 
meet the requirements of this section, including the requirement that 
certain sources procure, install, and operate BART.

[[Page 35739]]

    Since 1977, section 169A of the CAA has authorized EPA to address 
regional haze. Section 169A(a)(1) of the CAA establishes as the 
national visibility protection goal ``the prevention of any future, and 
the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in Class I 
areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' Visibility 
impairment is defined broadly in the CAA and includes that caused by 
regional haze.93 This language does not distinguish between 
reasonably attributable impairment and regional haze, but provides for 
visibility protection generally. This reading of the statute is 
consistent with the legislative history; in adopting section 169A, 
Congress evinced its intent to address impairment caused by ``hazes'' 
and the potential corresponding need to control a ``variety of 
sources'' and ``regionally distributed sources.'' 94 While 
EPA deferred addressing regional haze in 1980 when it promulgated the 
first phase of visibility regulations, it did so because of technical 
obstacles, not because of a limitation on its legal 
authority.95 Indeed, in the 1980 rule, EPA expressed its 
intent to address regional haze in a future rulemaking under section 
169A. Thus, EPA's decision to address visibility impairment in separate 
phases does not change the fact that the BART requirement is an 
integral part of the statutory scheme in section 169A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ See CAA section 169A(g)(6); see also Maine v. Thomas, 874 
F.2d.883, 885 (1st Cir. 1989) (``EPA's mandate to control the vexing 
problem of regional haze emanates directly'' from CAA section 169A).
    \94\ H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 204 (1977).
    \95\ 45 FR 80084 (Dec. 2, 1980).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The provisions in section 169B of the CAA, adopted in 1990, do not 
override EPA's statutory authority to require State plans to remedy 
regional haze. These provisions grew out of Congress' frustration that 
EPA had not more expeditiously addressed regional haze under its 
section 169A delegated rulemaking authority. Thus, section 169B(e) 
explicitly requires EPA to carry out its ``regulatory responsibilities 
under section [169A]'' within a set time period. The legislative 
history confirms that Congress did not intend section 169B to impinge 
upon EPA's long-standing authority to address regional haze visibility 
impairment,96 including the authority to require BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ See 136 Cong. Rec. S2878 (daily ed. March 21, 1990) 
(statement of Sen. Adams) (``[t]he authority to establish visibility 
transport regions and commissions is a supplement to the 
administrators [sic] obligation under current law. * * * The 
Administrator may not delay requirements under section 169A because 
of the appointment of a commission for a region under section 
169B'') (daily ed. Oct. 26, 1990) (statement of Rep. Wyden) 
(``[n]either the original House language nor the Senate language 
adopted in conference repealed or lessened EPA's obligations under 
the 1977 law'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA believes that commenters asserting that EPA overemphasized 
the control of stationary sources and, in particular, the role of BART 
in the regional haze program misinterpreted the proposal. The EPA did 
not intend to emphasize controls on BART-eligible sources over, or to 
the exclusion of, other sources. While the BART requirement is limited 
to a specified population of major stationary sources, States will need 
to consider measures addressing a wide range of sources and activities, 
including mobile sources, area sources, activities involving fire, and 
other major and non-major stationary point sources in their long-term 
strategies. The unit on long-term strategies includes further 
discussion of this point.
    Final Rule. The final rule requires each implementation plan to be 
revised to contain two basic elements related to BART. The first is the 
requirement that the States submit a list of the ``BART-eligible 
sources'' in the State. Second, the State must determine and include in 
the plan the ``best available retrofit technology,'' taking into 
account certain factors identified in section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA, 
for each BART-eligible source in the State reasonably anticipated to 
cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility.
    In recognition of the control and cost efficiencies that can be 
achieved through trading programs and other alternative measures, EPA 
is providing States with the opportunity to adopt alternative measures 
in lieu of BART where such measures would achieve even greater 
reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal. The 
overarching requirement of the visibility protection provisions of 
section 169A is to make reasonable progress toward the national goal of 
eliminating visibility impairment. If greater reasonable progress can 
be made through an approach that does not require source specific 
application of BART, EPA believes that approach would comport with this 
statutory goal. The EPA reached this conclusion in determining the 
appropriate measures to address visibility impairment in the Grand 
Canyon National Park resulting from the Navajo Generating 
Station.97 In that case, EPA ultimately chose not to adopt 
the emission control limits indicated by its BART 
analysis.98 Instead, as explained by the Ninth Circuit in 
upholding EPA's final decision, EPA acted within its discretion in 
adopting an alternative emission control standard ``that would produce 
greater visibility improvement at a lower cost. Congress's use of the 
term `including' in [section 169A(b)(2)] prior to its listing BART as a 
method of attaining `reasonable progress' supports EPA's position that 
it has the discretion to allow States to adopt implementation plan 
provisions other than those provided by source-specific BART analyses 
in situations where the agency reasonably concludes that more 
`reasonable progress' will thereby be attained.'' 99 Under 
today's final rule, States may elect to adopt an emissions trading 
program or other alternative measures in lieu of BART so long as 
greater reasonable progress is made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ See Central Arizona Water Conservation District v. EPA, 990 
F.2d 1531, 1543 (1993).
    \98\ See 56 FR at 50178.
    \99\ Central Arizona Water Conservation District v. EPA, 990 
F.2d 1531, 1543 (1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    List of BART-eligible sources. To ensure adequate time for 
developing long-term strategies to ensure reasonable progress, we 
recommend that States begin identifying and evaluating the list of 
potential BART sources as soon as possible after promulgation of the 
final rule. Identifying the BART-eligible sources will require States 
to collect information as to the dates that emission units at 
stationary sources were placed into operation, the pollutants emitted, 
and the potential to emit of these units. We suggest that, at the same 
time that they begin refining their emissions inventories for 
PM2.5 and its precursors, States request that stationary 
sources provide them with these dates. While such information is 
generally available for electric utilities through data bases 
maintained by the Energy Information Administration, this information 
is not normally maintained in national data bases for the other 25 
source categories subject to BART. However, EPA believes that much of 
this information is likely to be available in States permitting data 
bases or other inventories. To assist the States in this task, we will 
continue efforts to identify other helpful sources of information.
    Determination of sources subject to BART. After the State has 
identified the BART-eligible sources, the next step is determining 
whether these sources emit any air pollutant ``which may reasonably be 
anticipated to cause or contribute'' to any visibility impairment in a 
Federal Class I area. As noted in the proposal, EPA believes that this 
determination should not require extremely costly or lengthy studies of 
the contribution of specific sources to regional haze. Unlike the 1980 
regulatory program, which addresses the

[[Page 35740]]

visibility impairment that is reasonably attributable to a specific 
source or small group of sources, today's final rule addresses the 
problem of visibility impairment resulting from emissions from a 
multitude of sources located across a wide geographic area. As the 
regional haze rule is not limited to addressing visibility impairment 
that can be attributed to a specific source or small group of sources, 
EPA believes it would be inappropriate to focus on the contribution of 
one source or a small group of sources. First, the States will not face 
the same need to define the precise contribution from one particular 
source to the visibility problem. Second, establishing the contribution 
from one particular source to the problem of regional haze would 
require lengthy and expensive studies and pose substantial technical 
difficulties. The EPA has thus concluded that a detailed source-
receptor analysis would not be appropriate in determining whether a 
source ``may reasonably be anticipated to contribute'' to regional haze 
in a Class I area.
    In implementing today's final rule, a State should find that a 
BART-eligible source is ``reasonably anticipated to cause or 
contribute'' to regional haze if it can be shown that the source emits 
pollutants within a geographic area from which pollutants can be 
emitted and transported downwind to a Class I area. The EPA believes 
that this test is an appropriate one for determining whether a source 
can reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to the problem of 
regional haze. As the Ninth Circuit stated in considering this 
language:

    Congress mandated an extremely low triggering threshold, 
requiring the installment of stringent emission controls when an 
individual source ``emits any air pollutant which may reasonably be 
anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility'' 
in a Class I Federal area. 42 U.S.C. sec. 7491(b)(2)(A). The NAS 
correctly noted that Congress has not required ironclad scientific 
certainty in establishing the precise relationship between a 
source's emission and resulting visibility impairment.* * * 
100

    \100\ Central Arizona Water Conservaiton District v. EPA, 990 
F.2d 1531, 1541 (9th Cir. 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The approach taken here is consistent with that taken in the 
programs for acid rain and ozone, programs which also address regional 
air quality problems caused by transported pollutants. These programs 
do not require a specific demonstration of each source's contribution 
to the overall problem, but instead focus efforts on developing cost-
effective solutions to reducing emissions over a broad area that is 
regional or national in scope. For example, in the recent 
NOX SIP call addressing the regional transport of 
NOX emissions (an ozone precursor) in the Eastern United 
States, EPA adopted a ``collective contribution'' approach to 
determining whether sources ``contribute'' to ozone nonattainment in 
downwind areas. In this rulemaking, EPA concluded that because ozone 
nonattainment results from the collective contribution of many entities 
over a broad geographic area, even relatively small (in an absolute 
sense) contributions from upwind entities should be considered to be 
``significant.'' 101
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ 63 FR 57356, 57376 (Oct. 27, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA has concluded that a similar approach in the regional haze 
program is appropriate. Where emissions from a region are considered to 
contribute to regional haze in a Class I area, any emissions from BART-
eligible sources in that region should also be considered to cause or 
contribute to the regional haze problem. The EPA will issue and update 
guidance, including EPA modeling guidelines,102 to assist 
the States in analyzing whether sources contribute to regional haze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ See 40 CFR part 51, appendix W for information on EPA's 
modeling guideline for conducting regional-scale modeling for 
particulate matter and visibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Establishing source-specific BART emission limits. The second 
element of the BART requirement is for the States to establish emission 
limitations for those BART-eligible sources which may reasonably be 
anticipated to cause or contribute to regional haze. To meet this 
requirement, the State must develop source-specific emission limits 
which reflect the application of the best system of continuous emission 
reduction for each pollutant which is emitted by a source subject to 
BART.103 As stated above, the State can also choose to 
develop an emissions trading program, or other alternative measure, 
that achieve greater reasonable progress rather than require source 
specific BART emission limits on each source subject to BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ See section 51.301(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In developing source specific emission limits for BART, the State 
must take into consideration the technology available and a number of 
specific factors set forth in the statute. These factors are the costs 
of compliance, the energy and nonair environmental impacts of 
compliance, any existing pollution control technology in use at the 
source, the remaining useful life of the source, and the degree of 
improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated from the 
use of such technology. Taking these factors into account, the State 
may conclude that BART is the best level of emissions reduction that 
can be achieved by available retrofit technology or some other level of 
control. In some cases, the State may determine that a source has 
already installed sufficiently stringent emission controls for 
compliance with other programs (e.g., the acid rain program), such that 
no additional controls would be needed for compliance with the BART 
requirement. In establishing BART for a particular facility, the State 
must make available during public review of the SIP at the State level 
the materials supporting its BART determination. The State must also 
include this documentation in the technical support materials 
accompanying the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ See CAA section 169A(g)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In establishing source specific BART emission limits, the State 
should identify the maximum level of emission reduction that has been 
achieved in other recent retrofits at existing sources in the source 
category. As noted above, the visibility regulations define BART as 
``an emission limitation based on the degree of reduction achievable 
through the application of the best system of continuous emission 
reduction.'' Recent retrofits at existing sources provide a good 
indication of the current ``best system'' for controlling emissions. 
Thus, for example, recent retrofits for large utility sources (e.g., 
sources under the acid rain program and the Navajo Generating Station) 
have commonly achieved a 90 percent or better rate of SO2 
emissions (at an average cost of $265 per ton of SO2 
removed).105 For source categories with recently promulgated 
NSPS, that standard may also provide a good indication of the current 
``best system'' for controlling emissions. In addition, current 
information concerning control technology performance for many source 
categories is available from EPA's Clean Air Technology Center, http://
www.epa.gov/ttn/catc. EPA plans to issue revised BART guidance to 
provide updated guidance to the States on how to calculate BART for 
purposes of regional haze within a year of promulgation of this rule. 
The EPA will be developing this guidance through a national stakeholder 
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ Ellerman A. Danny et al., Emissions Trading Under the U.S. 
Acid Rain Program: Evaluation of Compliance Costs and Allowance 
Market Performance, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center 
for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once the State has identified the retrofit technology that provides 
the maximum degree of continuous

[[Page 35741]]

emission reduction, it should take into consideration the costs of 
compliance, the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of 
compliance, any existing pollution control equipment in use at the 
source, and the remaining useful life of the source. Taking these 
factors into account allows the State to arrive at an estimate of the 
``best system'' of retrofit control technology for a particular source 
and a corresponding estimate of the likely emissions which would be 
achieved by the imposition of BART. These factors should be taken into 
account for each source subject to BART in order to compare tradeoffs 
between the control efficiencies and costs associated with various 
control alternatives.
    The remaining factor which the States must take into account in 
determining BART is ``the degree of improvement in visibility which may 
reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology.'' 
In applying this factor in the context of the regional haze program, a 
State should use the degree of improvement in visibility that would be 
expected at each Class I area as a result of imposing BART, as 
determined through the application of the factors discussed above, on 
all sources subject to BART. For the same reasons that the 
determination of whether a BART-eligible source may be reasonably 
anticipated to cause or contribute to a visibility problem should be 
made on a cumulative basis, EPA believes that a regional analysis is 
appropriate for determining the degree of visibility improvement that 
can be achieved through application of BART. Moreover, the statute 
requires the States to consider ``the degree of improvement in 
visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use 
of such technology.'' \106\ EPA interprets the language ``from the use 
of such technology'' to refer to the application of BART level controls 
to all sources subject to BART. As a result, EPA believes that it is 
reasonable to interpret this provision as requiring the State to 
consider, as part of its source-specific analysis, the cumulative 
impact of applying retrofit controls to all sources subject to BART to 
estimate the degree of visibility improvement which may reasonably be 
anticipated to result from the use of BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     CAA section 169A(g)(2) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA also believes that such a regional analysis provides 
important information to the State and to the public about the 
magnitude of potential emissions from sources subject to BART. This 
information could be used to help inform the public debate in 
developing reasonable progress goals, in setting a regional emissions 
target for a trading program, and in developing the overall long-term 
strategies for making reasonable progress.
    To calculate the degree of improvement in visibility that would be 
expected at each Class I area as a result of imposing BART on all 
sources subject to BART, the State should estimate the possible 
emissions reductions resulting from the application of BART at all 
subject sources located within the region that contributes to 
visibility impairment in the Class I area. The State should work on its 
own or in conjunction with other States, such as in a regional planning 
body, to determine the geographic scope of the region that contributes 
to each Class I area. The States should consult with one another to 
determine the emission reductions achievable from sources subject to 
BART in other States.
    The estimate of possible emission reductions from sources subject 
to BART should be based on the application of the technology, cost, 
time for compliance, energy and nonair environmental impacts, and 
remaining useful life factors discussed above. Using this estimate, the 
State will then need to calculate the resulting degree of visibility 
improvement that would be achieved at Class I areas. The EPA expects 
that this exercise will be in the form of a regional modeling analysis. 
The State should use this estimated degree of visibility improvement in 
determining the appropriate BART emission limitations for specific 
sources.
    Unless a State commits to regional planning, a State must include 
its source-specific BART determinations in its initial SIP revision for 
the area in which the source is located.\107\ Where the State commits 
to regional planning, a State may defer submitting its source-specific 
BART determinations consistent with the timing requirements described 
in unit III.B. However, the State must submit its list of BART-eligible 
sources at the same time it submits its committal SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ For areas designated attainment or unclassifiable for 
PM2.5, this SIP will be due 12 months after the areas are 
designated. For areas designated as nonattainment, this SIP will be 
due no later than 3 years after the area is designated 
nonattainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SIP revision must include the emission limitations determined 
to be BART for sources subject to BART and a compliance schedule for 
each source. Each source subject to the BART requirement will have to 
meet the BART emission limitation within 5 years of SIP approval, as 
required under the CAA. As noted above, within a year, EPA will be 
issuing revised BART guidance to provide States with assistance in 
determining BART for regional haze.
    Alternative Measures in Lieu of BART. In today's final rule, States 
may elect to adopt alternative measures, such as a regional emissions 
trading program, in lieu of BART so long as the alternative measures 
achieve more reasonable progress than would application of source-
specific BART. The EPA believes that a regional emissions trading 
program would be the most efficient means of achieving BART-level 
emission reductions and the emission reductions needed to meet the 
States' reasonable progress goals as implemented through the States' 
long-term strategies.
    The EPA believes that this approach is consistent with the Ninth 
Circuit's decision in Central Arizona Water Conservation District v. 
EPA.\108\ In this case, the court upheld EPA's exercise of discretion 
to adopt an alternative emission standard that achieved greater 
reasonable progress than would have been achieved through the 
imposition of BART. Allowing States to adopt alternative measures such 
as an emissions trading program rather than to require BART will 
provide the States with the flexibility to achieve greater reasonable 
progress towards the national goal at a lower cost, while still 
addressing the Congressional concern that existing sources contributing 
to visibility impairment be required to control emissions 
appropriately. The EPA believes that this best fulfills the overarching 
statutory requirement in section 169A(b) that States make reasonable 
progress toward the national visibility goal, but also ensures that, at 
a minimum, the degree of visibility impairment attributable to BART 
sources is addressed by the States during the first long-term strategy. 
Moreover, while an appropriately designed alternative might result in 
differing levels of control at particular sources than a source-by-
source BART requirement, the environment will benefit through the 
achievement of greater reasonable progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ 990 F.2d 1531, 1543 (1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, to take advantage of the flexibility offered by 
this provision, the State must demonstrate that the alternative 
measures adopted in lieu of meeting the BART requirements achieve 
greater reasonable progress than would result from the installation of 
source-specific BART. One way of making this showing is for a State to 
show in its SIP demonstration that the alternative

[[Page 35742]]

measures will achieve greater emission reductions and visibility 
improvement than would result from meeting the BART requirements.
    In making this showing, States may rely on the assessments and 
analyses developed by regional planning groups that are formed to 
address regional haze. To compare the emissions reductions and 
visibility improvement that would result from application of source 
specific BART to that resulting from implementation of alternative 
measures, such as a regional emissions trading program, the State must 
estimate the emissions reductions that would result from the use of 
BART-level controls. To do this, the State could undertake a source-
specific review of the sources in the State subject to BART, or it 
could use a modified approach that simplifies the analysis.
    To simplify the process of arriving at an estimate of emissions, 
EPA believes that one approach that would be acceptable in place of a 
source by source BART analysis would be to consider some of the BART 
factors on a category-wide basis. For example, the average cost per ton 
of complying with alternate control technologies and associated energy 
and nonair environmental impacts could be considered on a category-wide 
basis. It may be more appropriate to consider other factors on a 
source-by-source basis. For example, the State could identify the 
current control technology in operation at each source and calculate 
the emissions that would be achieved at each source with a given 
retrofit control technology or determine and consider the remaining 
useful life of individual sources.
    Alternatively, EPA believes it may be appropriate for the State to 
combine a category-wide BART assessment with a source-specific 
assessment for certain sources. For example, if a State can verify that 
a source will be retired within a short period of time, it could take 
this into account in determining BART-level emissions reductions for 
that facility while assessing the remaining sources subject to BART on 
a category-wide basis.
    The States accordingly have flexibility in developing a method to 
determine the emission reductions that could be achieved through the 
application of BART. Whatever methodology is chosen by the State to 
evaluate possible emissions reductions from BART, the estimate must 
reflect at least the minimum level of emissions reductions that can be 
expected. This estimate becomes the point of comparison for determining 
whether an alternative measure, such as an emission trading program, 
achieves greater reasonable progress toward visibility improvement. 
Once the State has arrived at an estimate of the emissions that would 
result from application of source-specific BART, it should then compare 
the degree of visibility improvement expected to be achieved in Class I 
areas through the application of BART to the degree of visibility 
improvement projected to be achieved by the alternative measures 
proposed by the State.\109\ It is not necessary to go through an 
additional analysis of the BART factors in considering the effects of 
alternative measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ The State should be able to compare the degree of 
visibility improvement through modeling. For example, for an 
emissions trading program, the State may undertake a regional 
modeling analysis that simulates least-cost market trades to predict 
the geographic distribution of the emission reductions that could be 
achieved through a market trading program and the resultant 
improvement in visibility at different Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA believes that the most likely alternative measures adopted 
by the States will be an emissions trading program. There are several 
advantages associated with a regional trading approach in lieu of 
meeting a source-specific BART requirement. First, it provides 
flexibility to participating sources in deciding whether to purchase 
credits or to implement on-site emission reduction strategies, while 
being designed to achieve an equivalent level of emissions. Many 
commenters felt the proposal did not provide this type of flexibility. 
Second, trading allows sources to assess the costs of control 
technology, alternative fuels, and process changes across a broad array 
of sources and source categories. Thus, a trading program typically 
will result in lower cost per ton of pollutant reduced than a program 
which mandates plant-specific technological control. For example, EPA's 
experiences in the acid rain program have shown that sulfur dioxide 
reductions achieved through market-based programs within the electric 
utility sector continue to be quite cost effective, in the $170--320 
per ton range.\110\ A program which allows broader trading among 
sources in other industrial categories as well would likely lead to 
even greater cost effectiveness for individual sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 
Administration, ``The Effects of Title IV of the Clean AIr Act 
Amendments of 1990 on Electric Utilities: An Update,'' DOE/EIA-
0582(97), March 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In designing emissions trading programs that will achieve the 
requisite improvement in visibility, States must ensure that such 
programs meet several criteria. First, as noted above, the legislative 
history demonstrates Congress' recognition of the need to control 
emissions from a specific set of existing sources. Because of the 
Congressional focus on control of these sources, any emissions trading 
program must include, at a minimum, the sources within the trading 
region subject to BART. The one exception to this is where a source has 
already installed BART-level pollution control technology and the 
emission limit is a federally-enforceable requirement. In that case, 
States may elect to allow a source the option of not participating in 
the trading program.
    Second, a trading program adopted in lieu of BART must be fully 
implemented within the period of the first long-term strategy. To 
ensure this, States must provide schedules for implementing emissions 
trading programs with their SIP submittal. While EPA is allowing States 
to fully implement a trading program within the period addressed by the 
State's first long-term strategy, under section 169A, BART emission 
limits are to be implemented within 5 years. To provide States with the 
additional flexibility they may need to implement a trading program, 
EPA has concluded that it is appropriate for States to have the full 
period of the long-term strategy to achieve the full measure of 
necessary emissions. The basis for allowing this longer implementation 
period is the provision that the trading program achieve greater 
reasonable progress than would be achieved by source-specific 
application of BART within 5 years of plan submittal. The EPA will 
consider the estimated period of time to implement the program in 
determining whether the alternative measures ``achieve more reasonable 
progress.'' In any event, a trading program adopted in lieu of BART 
must be implemented during the period of the first long-term strategy.
    Third, the reductions in emissions required of BART sources must be 
surplus to other Federal requirements as of the baseline date of the 
SIP, that is, the date of the emissions inventories on which the SIP 
relies. In addition, sources must be required to monitor their 
emissions in a way that allows States and EPA to assure that the 
reductions are being achieved. The basic concept of an emission trading 
program is to allow for alternative, cost-effective ways of achieving 
equal or greater overall emissions. To ensure that the trading program 
does achieve a greater overall emission reduction, it is important that 
the emission credits are created by genuine reductions in emissions. We 
will be issuing further guidance to assist States in designing

[[Page 35743]]

their trading programs to ensure that programs provide such 
accountability.
    Fourth, the regional trading program may include sources not 
subject to BART. Inclusion of such sources provides for a more 
economically efficient and robust trading program. The EPA believes the 
program can include diverse sources, including mobile and area sources, 
so long as the reductions from these sources can be accurately 
calculated and tracked.
    Fifth, EPA encourages States wishing to develop such programs to 
consider the emission reduction requirements of other air quality 
programs. To implement reductions in a fully integrated fashion, the 
State should consider the extent to which some sources should be 
limited in their ability to trade. Examples of such factors include the 
significant contribution to a local nonattainment situation and the 
extent to which trading may assist or undermine the achievement of 
greater progress toward attainment of the NAAQS or the national 
visibility goal.
    A related issue is the connection between determinations of BART 
under the reasonably attributable regulations and a trading program 
adopted in lieu of BART. The EPA has adopted a provision in the final 
rule that allows States to include a geographic enhancement in such a 
trading program to accommodate reasonably attributable BART. The 
purpose for including this provision is to address concerns regarding 
``hot spots''--the concern that some part of visibility impairment in a 
specific Class I area is attributable or uniquely attributable to a 
single source or small group of sources because of the nature and 
location of the pollution from the source(s). Should action be taken by 
a State (or EPA) to address reasonably attributable impairment, these 
provisions would allow the State to incorporate methods, procedures, or 
processes in a market-based strategy to accommodate such action.
    Sixth, interpollutant trading should not be allowed until the 
technical difficulties associated with ensuring equivalence in the 
overall environmental effect are resolved. Some other emissions trading 
programs (e.g., trading under the acid rain program) prohibit emission 
trades between pollutants. An emissions trading program for regional 
haze might also need to restrict trades to common pollutants. Each of 
the five pollutants which cause or contribute to visibility impairment 
has a different impact on light extinction for a given particle mass, 
making it therefore extremely difficult to judge the equivalence of 
interpollutant trades in a manner that would be technically credible, 
yet convenient to implement in the timeframe needed for transactions to 
be efficient. This analysis is further complicated by the fact that the 
visibility impact that each pollutant can have varies with humidity, so 
that control of different pollutants can have markedly different 
effects on visibility in different geographic areas and at different 
times of the year. Despite the technical difficulties associated with 
interpollutant trading today, EPA would be willing to consider such 
trading programs in the future that demonstrate an acceptable technical 
approach.
    Application for Exemption from BART. Even where a source may 
reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility 
impairment, section 169A(c) allows for the exemption of any source from 
the BART requirements if it can be demonstrated that the source, by 
itself or in combination with other sources, is not reasonably 
anticipated to cause or contribute to significant visibility 
impairment. In addition, as specified in section 169A(c)(2) of the CAA, 
any fossil-fuel fired power plant with a total generating capacity of 
750 megawatts or more may receive an exemption only if the owner 
demonstrates that the power plant is located at such distance from all 
Class I areas that it does not, or will not, in combination with other 
sources, emit any pollutant which may be reasonably anticipated to 
contribute to significant visibility impairment.
    As with the question of whether a source can be reasonably 
anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment, EPA 
believes that the question of whether a source causes or contributes to 
significant visibility impairment requires an analysis of the 
cumulative effects of emission sources on a region. Regional modeling 
will be one appropriate method to determine whether a source could 
qualify for the exemption from the BART requirements. If a significant 
cumulative impact is demonstrated from the sources across the relevant 
regional modeling domain, then any BART-eligible source in the region 
would most likely be found to be reasonably anticipated to cause or 
contribute to significant visibility impairment.
    The proposed regional haze rule was structured such that the BART 
exemption provisions in section 51.303 of the existing visibility 
regulations would also apply to sources subject to BART under the 
regional haze regulation. In the final rule, EPA has taken the same 
approach. Consistent with section 51.303, a source may apply to EPA for 
an exemption from the BART requirement. The EPA will grant or deny an 
application after providing notice and opportunity for a public 
hearing. Any exemption granted by EPA must have the concurrence from 
all affected Federal land managers.
    Timing for Submittal of BART Elements. Because TEA-21 changed the 
schedule for submittal of visibility SIPs, EPA is not requiring States 
to submit a list of BART-eligible sources to EPA within 12 months, as 
proposed. Under the final rule, the emission limits or other measures 
to address BART under the regional haze program must be included in the 
State's initial SIP submittal(s), as discussed further in unit III.B of 
this notice, except where the State commits to regional planning. In 
the case where a State opts to work with other States to develop a 
coordinated approach to regional haze by participating in a regional 
planning process, SIP revisions containing the BART emission limits or 
alternative measures in lieu of BART will be due generally at the time 
PM2.5 nonattainment SIPs are submitted, but in no case later 
than December 31, 2008. As discussed in unit III.B, States that submit 
a commitment to participate in regional planning are required to submit 
the list of BART-eligible sources as part of that submittal.

I. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

Monitoring Strategy
    Proposed rule. In the proposed rule, we included a requirement for 
States to develop a monitoring strategy. We believe that actual 
monitoring data are a critical component of any air quality management 
approach to visibility impairment. Data on individual components of PM 
(nitrates, sulfates, elemental carbon, organic carbon, crustal 
material) are crucial to understanding the causes of visibility 
impairment at a given location, and accordingly are necessary for long-
term strategy development. Reviewing these data with time, and 
additional data provided by monitoring sites, are necessary to 
understand whether the long-term strategies are effective.
    Under the proposed rule, an initial monitoring strategy was due 12 
months after promulgation, with periodic updates every 3 years 
thereafter. Requirements for visibility monitoring are authorized under 
section 110(a)(2)(B), requiring SIPs to provide for the monitoring of 
ambient air quality, and under section 169A(b)(2), which authorizes EPA 
to establish regulations requiring SIPs to address ``other measures as 
may be necessary.''

[[Page 35744]]

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

[[Page 35745]]

fully implement the regional haze rule. Where States do choose to fund 
additional sites, however, EPA believes it is important for the States 
to make data from these sites available to EPA and other agencies.
    For monitoring sites in the IMPROVE network, the IMPROVE Steering 
Committee oversees network contractors who quality assure and 
consolidate data from chemical composition analysis of filter samples. 
Such data are made available to all interested parties through various 
electronic formats and online websites. Assuming this practice 
continues with the IMPROVE Steering Committee, States will experience 
little or no burden in meeting this requirement for reporting to EPA.
    Annual consolidation of these data will serve several purposes. 
First, a central data base will allow the States and other interested 
parties to track progress over time in relation to reasonable progress 
goals. It will also assist the States in understanding current 
visibility conditions as well as past trends. Consolidation of the data 
will assist EPA, the State, other agencies, and the public in reviewing 
the effectiveness of the State's long-term strategy for regional haze. 
Additionally, consolidation of the data will enable EPA to better 
characterize national and regional visibility trends in its annual air 
quality trends report. Finally, a centralized data base will provide 
for the integration of monitoring data from the new PM2.5 
monitoring network and the visibility monitoring network, both of which 
will include PM2.5 and PM10 mass, as well as 
compositional analysis by aerosol species. Class I area particle mass 
and chemical composition data can fill important data gaps in defining 
regional concentrations for air quality modeling analyses.
    Requirements Under Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. Visibility SIP 
submittals must document certain program infrastructure capabilities 
consistent with the requirements of section 169B(e)(2) and section 
110(a)(2) of the CAA. Section 169(B)(e)(2) requires States to revise 
their section 110 SIPs to ``contain such emission limits, schedules of 
compliance, and other measures as may be necessary'' to carry out 
regulations promulgated pursuant to this section. The EPA believes that 
this language authorizes EPA to ensure that States review their 
existing program infrastructures to ensure that the types of elements 
required by section 110(a)(2) for programs addressing the NAAQS are 
also sufficient for adoption and implementation of SIP measures for 
regional haze. The final rule does not include specific provisions 
addressing all elements of section 110(a)(2). However, section 
51.308(d)(4)(iv) of the final rule requires the State to maintain and 
update periodically a statewide inventory of emissions of pollutants 
that contribute to visibility impairment.
    Where a State is also revising its SIP to incorporate changes to 
address the PM2.5 NAAQS, many of these revisions may be 
sufficient to address both PM2.5 and regional haze. The EPA 
encourages States to consider the needs of both programs when updating 
the provisions required by section 110 of the CAA to minimize any 
administrative burdens.

J. Periodic SIP Revisions and 5-year Progress Reports

    Proposed Rule. The proposed rule required States to periodically 
review and revise their SIPs every 3 years. The preamble to the 
proposal stated that ``[t]he EPA believes that a requirement for 
regular SIP revisions will result in a more effective program over time 
and provide a focus for demonstrating ongoing progress and making mid-
course corrections in emission strategies.'' 111 Each SIP 
revision would include a comprehensive review of the long-term 
strategy, and a review of emissions reductions estimates relied on in 
the previous plan if the State does not achieve any reasonable progress 
target.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ 62 FR 41151.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal also requested comment on whether SIP revisions should 
instead be required every 5 years. Regarding this option, EPA also took 
comment on whether it should revise the existing requirement in the 
``reasonably attributable'' regulations for long-term strategy reviews 
from every 3 years to every 5 years, such that SIP revision schedules 
for both regional haze and reasonably attributable impairment would be 
coordinated.
    Public Comments. Some commenters stated that the CAA does not allow 
EPA to require periodic SIP revisions. Several commenters felt that a 
requirement to submit comprehensive SIP revisions every 3 years would 
be overly burdensome, and would not provide enough time to properly 
evaluate changes in air quality and emissions resulting from 
implementation of strategies to meet reasonable progress targets. For 
this reason, a number of commenters supported a 5-year period between 
SIP revisions. Several participants in the GCVTC supported a 5-year 
review of progress that meets the procedural requirements of a SIP 
revision, but that also allows for the State to make a negative 
declaration if current strategies are deemed adequate for making 
reasonable progress at that time.
    Other commenters supported SIP revisions every 3 years, citing 
EPA's preamble language, which noted that implementing mid-course 
corrections after the 5-year mark may in fact be too late to correct 
situations where impairment is steadily increasing. Some of these 
commenters also supported the 3-year cycle for regional haze SIPs since 
it would be consistent with the requirement for 3-year reviews of long-
term strategies in the existing 1980 visibility rules.
    Authority for Periodic Updates. The EPA does not agree with 
commenters that it lacks the authority to require periodic SIP 
revisions. Section 110(a)(2)(F) of the CAA provides that SIPs are to 
require ``periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions and 
emissions-related data'' and ``correlation of such reports * * * with 
any emission limitations or standards established pursuant to this 
chapter.'' Moreover, section 110(a)(2)(H) requires SIPs to provide for 
revision when found to be substantially inadequate to ``comply with any 
additional requirements established under * * * [the CAA].'' Both of 
these provisions provide EPA with the authority to require periodic SIP 
revisions.
    The CAA calls for regulations to protect visual air quality in the 
Class I areas in a way that assures prevention of future impairment in 
addition to remedying existing impairment. A one-time review of 
impairment and development of strategies to address that impairment 
cannot provide such continuing assurance and, at best, can only focus 
on remedying currently known manmade visibility impairment within the 
limits of resources and technology. A program that did not anticipate 
and provide for the need for future periodic review and revisions, 
would not be responsive to the national goal of preventing any future 
manmade visibility impairment.
    The requirement for periodic review of SIP measures also directly 
responds to the CAA goal for States to develop strategies to ensure 
reasonable progress toward the national goal of no human-caused 
impairment. Given that the statutory factors which States must consider 
in determining a reasonable progress goal include costs of control and 
availability of controls, among others, and given that technology 
changes can affect costs and availability of controls over time, EPA 
believes that the requirement for a periodic SIP revision is 
appropriate. The periodic revisions will assure that the statutory 
requirement for reasonable progress will

[[Page 35746]]

continue to be met. The EPA believes that the need for periodic updates 
is also clear from the NAS conclusion that ``achieving the national 
visibility goal will require a substantial long-term (emphasis added) 
program.'' 112
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ National Research Council, NAS Committee on Haze in 
National Parks and Wilderness Areas, Protecting Visibility in 
National Parks and Wilderness Areas, National Academy Press, 1993, 
page 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Three-year versus 5-year period. In considering the public 
comments, EPA also took into account the body of evidence indicating a 
need for multistate regional planning efforts under the regional haze 
program. Past experience with regional air quality planning efforts, 
such as the GCVTC or the Ozone Tranport Assessment Group (OTAG), has 
shown that regional air quality planning efforts often take 2 or more 
years to complete, with additional time needed for State adoption of 
measures and for review and approval by EPA.
    After consideration of the comments described above, and the 
timeframes needed for regional planning, EPA concluded that a 5-year 
progress review and SIP revision cycle is more appropriate than a 3-
year cycle. The EPA determined that the States will be better able to 
assess the effectiveness of emission management strategies by 
considering 5 years of data rather than 3 years since a 5-year period 
provides for more stable trend lines for emissions and air quality 
changes than a 3-year period. The EPA also concluded that a 5-year 
period should result in significantly less administrative burden on the 
States than a 3-year period.
    Final rule requirements for comprehensive plan revisions and 
progress reports. The EPA has included in the final rule, two main 
requirements for comprehensive periodic plan revisions (section 
51.308(f)) and progress reviews (section 51.308(g)). Section 51.308(f) 
requires the States to submit a comprehensive SIP revision in 2018 and 
every 10 years thereafter. It must meet all of the core requirements of 
section 51.308(d). The BART provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted 
above, apply only to the first implementation period. Section 51.308(g) 
requires progress reports for each Class I area in the State in the 
form of SIP revisions every 5 years.
    Requirements for comprehensive periodic plan revisions. 
Comprehensive SIP revisions under section 51.308(f) must include all of 
the implementation plan elements found in section 51.308(d) of the 
final rule. These elements include, but are not limited to, the 
following: (1) reasonable progress goals for the next 10-year 
implementation period, (2) determination of current conditions and 
review of estimates for natural conditions, (3) a revised long-term 
strategy, as necessary to achieve the reasonable progress goal for the 
next 10-year implementation period, and (4) revised emission 
inventories, technical analyses and monitoring strategies. The EPA 
wishes to clarify the following points with respect to the basic core 
provisions of section 51.308(d) for the purpose of periodic 
comprehensive plan updates.
    Reasonable progress goals. For purposes of the periodic plan 
revisions, the State must select a reasonable progress goal based upon 
the statutory factors discussed above in unit III.F. In determining the 
goal for the next implementation cycle, the State must include an 
analysis of the rate of improvement needed to reach natural conditions 
by the year 2064 as an analytical framework for the plan revision. To 
conduct this required analysis, the State must follow the same four 
steps discussed in unit II.F for the initial plan revision, that is (1) 
identification of the difference between baseline conditions and 
natural conditions (noting any updates to the estimate of natural 
conditions based upon technical refinements), (2) identification of the 
uniform rate of progress over the 60-year period that would be needed 
to attain natural conditions by the year 2064, (3) identification of 
the amount of progress that would result if this uniform rate of 
progress were achieved during the period of the regional haze 
implementation plan,113 and (4) identification of reasonable 
progress goals in light of the statutory factors, taking the 60-year 
analysis into account. The State must also calculate the number of 
years it would take to attain natural conditions if visibility 
improvement continues at the rate of progress selected by the State as 
required in section 51.308(d)(1)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ Referring to the example in unit III.F, if the second 
implementation plan covers a 10-year period from 2019 through 2028, 
then the State would identify a 3 deciview rate of improvement, and 
the amount of visibility improvement that must be analyzed for the 
year 2028 would be the 3 deciview improvement for the years 2019 
through 2028, plus the 4.2 deciviews of improvement for the years 
2004 through 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reporting of Baseline and natural visibility conditions. In the SIP 
submission for the comprehensive periodic plan updates, the State must 
identify (1) the visibility change from baseline conditions, (2) the 
visibility change since the last SIP revision 10 years ago, and (3) the 
difference between current and natural conditions.
    Visibility Change from Baseline Conditions. Section 51.308(f) calls 
for States to consider, at the time of any future SIP revision after 
the initial implementation plan, the amount of visibility improvement 
achieved from baseline visibility conditions (established over the 
period 2000-2004) in developing future reasonable progress goals and 
associated strategies. The final rule requires the State to do this by 
comparing ``current conditions'' for the 5 years of most recent 
visibility data with baseline conditions. (See discussion in unit III.E 
on definition of ``current.'') Any lack of progress in improvement of 
visibility from baseline conditions will need to be explained in the 
SIP revision and considered by the State in the establishment and/or 
revision of new reasonable progress goals and/or emission management 
strategies. Similarly, greater than expected improvements should be 
considered by the State in setting new visibility goals and emission 
management strategies.
    If little or no perceptible visibility improvement has occurred in 
comparison to baseline conditions, or if conditions have actually 
degraded, then the State will need to explain the reason for this 
degradation in the SIP, and should seriously consider establishing more 
ambitious goals and additional enforceable measures to achieve these 
goals. The EPA will take into account the amount of progress achieved 
to date from the baseline period in determining whether any future 
strategy would ensure ``reasonable progress.'' If significant 
visibility improvement has occurred from baseline conditions, then EPA 
can also take this into account in reviewing future reasonable progress 
goals and strategies.
    Visibility Change Since Last SIP Revision. Section 51.308(f) also 
calls for States, in developing reasonable progress goals for the next 
10 years, to take into account how visibility conditions have actually 
changed since establishment of the previous reasonable progress goal. 
(This provision would apply beginning in the second SIP revision cycle 
under the regional haze program.) If conditions degraded or failed to 
meet reasonable progress goals, the State would be required to analyze 
the cause of the shortfall, and address it as appropriate in future 
strategies. If the State has failed to achieve its reasonable progress 
goal for the prior implementation period, the State would be required 
to include in its revision a comparison of the visibility improvement 
the State

[[Page 35747]]

expected to achieve to the visibility improvement the State actually 
achieved.
    Difference between current and natural conditions. Section 
51.308(f) of the final rule requires the State, at the time of any 
comprehensive SIP revision, to calculate the difference between current 
conditions and natural conditions for the most impaired and least 
impaired days. ``Current conditions'' means the conditions for the most 
recent 5-year period preceding the required date of the implementation 
plan submittal. This calculation is needed to determine the total 
amount of improvement that States will ultimately need to address in 
their long-term strategies.
    Long-term strategies. As for the first implementation plan, 
subsequent comprehensive updates must identify the enforceable 
emissions reductions that will provide for meeting the reasonable 
progress goal for Class I areas within the State and for Class I areas 
outside the State which may be affected by emissions from the State. 
Unit III.G provides additional detail on the requirements of the long-
term strategies.
    Update of monitoring strategies and other requirements. The 
comprehensive updates are also required to meet the requirements of 
section 51.308(d)(4) for updated monitoring strategies, updated 
emission inventories, and other required technical analyses.
    Requirements for 5-year progress reports. Section 51.308(g) 
describes the required elements for progress reports due every 5 years. 
For States that participate in regional planning and submit initial 
SIPs in 2008, the first progress report will be due in 2013. If a State 
submits its initial SIP in the 2004-2008 timeframe, its first progress 
report would be due before 2013. These progress reports must follow the 
same procedural requirements required for implementation plan 
revisions, and the State must provide the opportunity for public review 
and comment. However, the rule also allows the State to submit this 
progress report in the form of a negative declaration if the State 
finds that emission management measures in the SIP are being 
implemented on schedule, and visibility improvement appears to be 
consistent with existing reasonable progress goals. The EPA intends for 
progress reports to involve significantly less effort than a 
comprehensive SIP revision.
    Each 5-year progress report must contain the following elements as 
specified in section 51.308(g):
     The status of implementation, and summary of the emissions 
reductions achieved, for all emission management measures implemented 
within the State in order to achieve reasonable progress goals for 
Class I areas within and outside the State.
     For each Class I area located in the State, the report 
must include calculations of the following parameters:

--Current visibility conditions for the most impaired and least 
impaired days.
--The difference between current conditions and baseline conditions for 
the most impaired and least impaired days.
--The change in visibility for the most impaired and least impaired 
days over the past 5 years.

     An emissions tracking report that analyzes the change over 
the past 5 years in emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility 
impairment, disaggregated by source category and emissions activity, 
for significant categories of sources or activities.
     An assessment of whether current implementation plan 
strategies are sufficient for the State or affected States to meet 
their reasonable progress goals.
    Based on the required calculations and assessments in the progress 
report, the State must take one of four actions as specified in section 
51.308(h). If the State finds that an additional substantive SIP 
revision is not required, then it may submit a ``negative declaration'' 
to EPA after opportunity for public review and comment. The EPA 
anticipates that if the State is implementing a reasonable set of 
strategies according to the schedule as developed in the previous 
comprehensive SIP revision, and that visibility trends show that 
reasonable progress goals should be achieved over the 10-year long-term 
strategy period, then the State should be able to certify, through a 
negative declaration, that no additional control measures are needed at 
the time of this mid-course review.
    If the State finds that over the past 5 years there has been a 
substantial increase in emissions by intrastate sources, or there has 
been a deficiency in plan implementation, the final rule requires the 
State to revise the SIP within 1 year, rather than waiting for the next 
10-year comprehensive review. Such a mid-course correction would be 
designed to achieve the existing reasonable progress goal for the 
relevant Class I area. The EPA believes that it is appropriate for the 
State to take prompt action to address intrastate problems since they 
would not need to participate in further regional planning.
    If the State finds that there is a substantial increase in 
emissions or a deficiency in plan implementation resulting primarily 
from interstate emissions, section 51.308(h)(2) calls for the State to 
re-initiate the regional planning process with other States so that the 
deficiency can be addressed in the next comprehensive SIP revision due 
in 5 years. If the State finds that international emissions sources are 
responsible for a substantial increase in emissions affecting 
visibility conditions in any Class I area or causing a deficiency in 
plan implementation, the State must submit a technical demonstration to 
EPA in support of its finding. If EPA agrees with the State's finding, 
EPA will take appropriate action to address the international emissions 
through available mechanisms. Appropriate mechanisms for addressing 
visibility-impairing emissions from international sources are further 
discussed in unit III.G on the long-term strategy.
    If EPA finds that the State has not been implementing certain 
measures adopted into its SIP, or that the State has submitted a SIP 
that is not approvable, or that the State has failed to submit any 
required progress report or SIP revision at all, the State could be 
subject to sanctions in accordance with sections 179(b) and 110(m) of 
the CAA. If the State does not resolve the situation expeditiously, EPA 
may be obligated to take further appropriate action to resolve the 
situation, including promulgation of a FIP within 2 years in accordance 
with section 110(c) of the CAA. The EPA believes that in this 
regionally-oriented program, it will be important for States to 
implement measures designed to improve visibility for Class I areas 
outside of their State, as well as to improve visibility within the 
State. The EPA will exercise its FIP authority as appropriate and 
necessary to ensure that States fulfill their obligations such that 
Class I areas make reasonable progress toward the national visibility 
goal.

K. Coordination With Federal Land Managers

    Section 51.308(i) of the final rule requires that States consult 
with FLMs before adopting and submitting their regional haze SIPs. This 
requirement is consistent with the proposed regional haze rule and the 
1980 regulation for ``reasonably attributable'' visibility impairment. 
A number of commenters expressed a concern that this provision was not 
equitable, in that States are required to consult with FLMs, but the 
rule does not require FLMs to consult with States before they take 
action, even when actions such as prescribed burning could have a 
significant impact

[[Page 35748]]

on a State's visibility program. These commenters recommended that the 
proposed rule be amended to mandate a two-way communication.
    The EPA agrees that it is important and necessary for FLMs to 
consult with States on visibility-related issues. Land-use activities 
on Federal lands can have impacts on nearby areas of a State, and there 
have been significant air quality issues related to these activities. 
In recent years, FLMs have undertaken activities to improve 
communications with States. There are a number of examples of these 
efforts. The IMPROVE steering committee, the group that oversees FLM 
efforts to monitor visibility in Class I areas, includes representation 
from State agencies. Recently, State representation on this committee 
was expanded by adding two more State members. Another example are the 
memoranda of understanding that FLMs have entered into with States to 
coordinate prescribed burning activities. The EPA believes that the FLM 
agencies generally recognize the importance of involving States in the 
development and implementation of land use policies and other actions 
that affect States' abilities to make air quality improvements.
    The EPA believes that it is unnecessary to impose an administrative 
requirement on another agency of the sort requested by commenters in a 
Federal rule, because Federal agencies are already subject to 
compliance with SIP requirements in the same manner, and to the same 
extent as any nongovernmental entity through section 118, as discussed 
below. The EPA will, however, be working with FLMs and States to assist 
in their communications over air quality issues.
    Commenters also expressed concerns that emissions from Federal 
agencies are beyond their jurisdiction. These commenters felt that if 
States were not able to regulate such emissions, then other sources 
within the State would be treated inequitably under the final rule. The 
EPA does not agree that Federal sources are beyond a State's 
jurisdiction. As required by section 118 of the CAA, if a State air 
quality regulation affects a given type of source within its 
jurisdiction, Federal facilities having that type of source must comply 
with the State regulations in the same manner, and to the same extent 
as any nongovernmental entity. Thus, FLMs having emission sources of 
the type that are covered by State air quality regulations are subject 
to the same extent as private sector entities.

IV. Treatment of the GCVTC Recommendations

A. Background

    The EPA established the GCVTC on November 13, 1991.\114\ The 
purpose of the GCVTC was to assess information about the adverse 
impacts on visibility in and around 16 Class I areas on the Colorado 
Plateau region and to provide policy recommendations to EPA to address 
such impacts. Section 169B of the CAA called for the GCVTC to evaluate 
visibility research as well as other available information ``pertaining 
to adverse impacts on visibility from potential or projected growth in 
emissions from sources located in the region.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ See 56 FR 57522, Nov. 12, 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The GCVTC was required to issue a report to EPA recommending what 
measures, if any, should be taken to protect visibility.\115\ The CAA 
required that, at a minimum, this report was to consider: (1) The 
establishment of clean air corridors,\116\ (2) the need to impose 
additional new source review requirements in any clean air corridors, 
and (3) additional restrictions on increases in emissions which may be 
appropriate to protect visibility in affected Class I areas. The GCVTC 
was also required to address the promulgation of regulations addressing 
long-range strategies to address regional haze in the region. In June 
1996, the GCVTC issued its recommendations to EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ CAA Section 169B(d).
    \116\ A Clean air corridor is defined as a region that generally 
brings clear air to a receptor region, such as the Class I areas of 
the Golden Circle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The GCVTC recommendations covered a wide range of control strategy 
approaches, planning and tracking activities, and technical findings. 
The primary recommendations of the GCVTC covered nine categories of 
activities: \117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ See GCVTC Report, pp. i-iii.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Air pollution prevention and reduction of per capita 
pollution as a high priority, including non-binding targets on 
production of electricity from renewable energy sources;
     Tracking the effect of new sources of emissions on clean 
air corridors;
     Closely monitoring stationary source emissions, 
establishment of regional targets for sulfur dioxide emissions for the 
year 2000 and the year 2040 with interim targets to be established in 
the future, exploration of a similar tracking system for other 
pollutants, and the development of market-based regulatory programs if 
emissions targets are not met;
     Emissions reductions in and near Class I areas;
     Capping of mobile source emissions for areas contributing 
to visibility impairment, and State support for national measures aimed 
at further reducing tailpipe emissions;
     Further assessment of the contribution of road dust to 
visibility impairment;
     Future binational collaboration to resolve technical and 
policy concerns about contributions to visibility impairment on the 
Colorado Plateau resulting from emissions from pollution sources in 
Mexico;
     Implementation of smoke management programs to minimize 
effects of all fire activities on visibility; and
     The need for a future regional coordinating entity to 
follow through on implementing the recommendations.
    Proposed rule. In the July 31, 1997 proposal of the regional haze 
rule, EPA included an extensive review of the recommendations of the 
GCVTC.\118\ The preamble discussed how several concepts from the 
GCVTC's recommendations were incorporated into the proposed framework 
for the national regional haze program. For example, EPA proposed an 
approach for tracking reasonable progress, based on improving 
conditions on the worst visibility days and not allowing conditions on 
the best days to degrade, that was consistent with both the GCVTC's 
definition of ``reasonable progress'' and with the CAA national 
visibility goal of remedying any existing impairment and preventing any 
future impairment. The proposal also called for tracking of continuous 
emissions to inform State control strategy decisions on a periodic 
basis.\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ 62 FR 41141.
    \119\ 62 FR 41146.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, in its proposal, EPA chose not to incorporate the GCVTC's 
specific emission management strategies as direct requirements for 
SIPs. The EPA followed this approach because the proposed rule was 
designed to establish a national framework for development of SIPs to 
remedy regional haze visibility impairment in all Class I areas 
nationwide. In addition, it was not clear how the various elements of 
the GCVTC's report were to be translated into SIP requirements. The EPA 
noted in the proposal that the ``Commission's recommendations have 
components that contemplate implementation through a combination of 
actions by EPA, other Federal agencies, States and Tribes in the 
region, and voluntary measures on the part of the public and private

[[Page 35749]]

entities throughout the region.'' \120\ The EPA indicated that such a 
mixture of activities made it difficult for EPA to directly require 
States to implement all of these measures in their SIPs. Instead, the 
EPA specifically sought public comment on the manner in which the 
national regional haze program framework, as proposed, would allow for 
implementation of the GCVTC's recommendations.\121\ The EPA also 
solicited comment on whether to adopt the GCVTC's stationary source 
strategies with or without modification.\122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ 62 FR 41142.
    \121\ 62 FR 41143.
    \122\ 62 FR 41143.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA also reiterated its position in testimony before the United 
States Congress, stating that ``we specifically designed the regional 
haze rule to allow for implementation of the GCVTC's recommendations to 
address the environmental goal of improving visibility.'' \123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ Written Testimony of John S. Seitz, Director, Office of 
AIr Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, before the Subcommittee on Forest and Public Land Management 
of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States 
Senate, October 28, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In public meetings and written comments following the proposal, 
interested parties expressed concern that the proposed rule did not 
specifically endorse or incorporate the GCVTC's recommendations. Some 
commentors asserted that the rule ``ignored'' the recommendations. The 
EPA also received numerous comments that supported adoption of the 
GCVTC recommendations as part of the national regional haze rule. In 
particular, several commentors who believed that EPA's proposed rule 
did not adequately support the GCVTC's recommendations asserted that 
EPA's participation in the GCVTC implied that strategies developed to 
address visibility in Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau would be 
taken into account within the structure of the rule. Commentors also 
noted that EPA's proposal of a visibility target and requirements to 
address BART left a high degree of uncertainty as to whether the GCVTC 
recommendations could form the basis for SIPs.
    On June 29, 1998, after the close of the public comment period on 
the proposed regulations, the WGA sent to EPA additional comments on 
the proposed regional haze rules. These comments contained specific new 
language for addressing the recommendations of the GCVTC. The comments 
offered provisions to be included in the national regional haze rule to 
allow certain western States to submit SIPs to assure reasonable 
progress in addressing regional haze impacts on the Colorado Plateau 
based upon the technical work and policy recommendations of the 
GCVTC.\124\ The transmittal letter signed by Michael O. Leavitt, 
Governor of the State of Utah, reemphasized the commitment of Western 
governors to the GCVTC recommendations, and requested that EPA take 
public comment on their suggested preamble and rule language as part of 
the EPA process in reaching decisions on a final regional haze rule. In 
response to this submittal, on September 3, 1998, EPA published a 
notice of availability in the Federal Register.\125\ The notice 
solicited public comment on the contents of the WGA letter and EPA's 
translation of the letter's requirements for SIPs into draft regulatory 
language. The comment period for the notice of availability closed on 
October 5, 1998 and EPA received approximately 125 comments. In 
summary, most of the commentors supported the adoption of provisions to 
directly address the GCVTC recommendations in the national rule, 
although many requested changes to the draft regulatory language. Some 
commentors expressed concern over how these provisions would relate to 
the national rule, in particular to the national provisions for BART. 
Other commentors addressed the way in which the WGA letter and EPA's 
draft regulatory language translated the GCVTC's recommendations. In 
addition, some commentors expressed concern over the timing of the SIP 
submittals both over the linkage to timing of SIP submittals for ozone 
and PM2.5 SIPs and the requirements of TEA-21. Commentors 
also requested EPA to commit to consider the national transportation 
measures noted by the GCVTC as part of EPA's responsibility toward 
helping the States make reasonable progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ Docket A-95-38, Item # VIII-G-76.
    \125\ 63 FR 46952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the final rule, EPA is establishing specific SIP requirements 
which may be used by the States and tribes that participated in the 
GCVTC to satisfy the national regional haze rule. These SIP 
requirements will form a basis for these States to meet the CAA 
requirements for reasonable progress in the 16 Class I areas addressed 
by the GCVTC Report. These SIP requirements acknowledge and give effect 
to the substantial body of work already completed by the States and 
tribes participating in the GCVTC. The Agency, therefore, and for 
reasons explained in more detail below, provides these SIP requirements 
as an optional way for these States and tribes to implement the 
national rule based on the merits of the work of the GCVTC completed 
before establishment of the national framework. The EPA finds that the 
GCVTC actions to date address, or provide a mechanism to address, the 
statutory factors for assessing reasonable progress required by the 
CAA. The EPA is satisfied that the GCVTC's strategies as set forth in 
section 51.309, when supplemented by the annex process discussed below, 
will provide for ``reasonable progress'' toward the national visibility 
goal for the 16 parks and wilderness areas addressed by the GCVTC. 
Consequently, if a State submits a plan that addresses the requirements 
of section 51.309, including the requirements related to the annex, as 
described below, that plan will be considered to comply with the 
national rule's requirement for reasonable progress for the period from 
plan approval to 2018.
    Today's final rulemaking, including section 51.309, is directly 
responsive to the western States' and tribes' comments calling for 
recognition of the policy development efforts of the GCVTC. At the same 
time, the rule allows for future cooperative efforts among the GCVTC 
States, so that the national requirements for ensuring reasonable 
progress are fully addressed. This action exemplifies how the regional 
haze protection provisions can be flexible and allow for a broad range 
of emissions control strategies tailored to a specific region. This 
action fully recognizes the GCVTC and its follow-up body, the WRAP, as 
a valid regional planning process to address, at a minimum, the 16 
Class I areas that were the focus of the GCVTC. Section 51.309 provides 
for continued work of the GCVTC, which may be accomplished through the 
WRAP, to establish a complete framework which can be adopted in the 
SIPs for addressing all sources of visibility impairment in the 16 
Class I areas. The section also sets forth provisions for addressing 
additional Class I areas that were not directly addressed in the GCVTC 
report.
    Section 51.309 does not preclude States from developing and 
adopting their own control strategies. Rather, it provides an expedited 
process whereby a State choosing to follow the GCVTC's recommendations 
in its SIP can rely fully on the technical analyses, policy 
recommendations, and agreements reached by the GCVTC members, thereby 
significantly reducing the effort required to establish federally 
approvable SIPs. A State remains free to develop and submit a SIP to 
EPA which does not rely on the GCVTC's work or

[[Page 35750]]

section 51.309. Such a State will be fully subject to the requirements 
and schedules set forth in section 51.308, in the same manner and to 
the same extent as the States and tribes throughout the United States 
that did not participate in the GCVTC process.

B. General Requirements of Section 51.309

    Section 51.309 requires specific emissions control strategies for a 
broad region of the Western United States and includes measures which 
address different types of emissions sources, including stationary, 
area and mobile sources. Some of these strategies are already in place 
while others, such as mobile source provisions and the structure of a 
market trading system to assure compliance with stationary source 
emissions goals, will require development of additional regulatory 
measures. A review of each element of section 51.309 is found in unit 
IV.C below.
    The GCVTC recommended emission reduction targets from stationary 
sources of SO2 for the years 2000 and 2040. The GCVTC did 
not recommend quantitative interim targets between the years 2000 and 
2040. Therefore, in addition to provisions for specific emissions 
strategies, section 51.309 allows for an annex to the GCVTC report 
which will be considered in establishing specific targets for 
SO2 emissions from stationary sources in the region between 
2003 and 2018. This annex process and EPA's approval of acceptable 
interim emissions targets for SO2 will be key in completing 
a series of strategies that can be deemed by EPA as meeting reasonable 
progress for the Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau.
    The provisions for adoption of strategies consistent with the GCVTC 
recommendations do not preclude the States and tribes from developing 
additional control strategies for achieving reasonable progress in 
other Class I areas. Nor do they preclude States and tribes which did 
not participate in the GCVTC, but which may benefit from its strategies 
due to the geographic proximity of their Class I areas to the State 
where strategies will be implemented and regional transport throughout 
the west, from building on these strategies to address reasonable 
progress for their Class I areas. However, for all Class I areas not on 
the Colorado Plateau, the States and tribes would need to demonstrate, 
through the required analyses, that implementation of these strategies 
would contribute to meeting the requirements of section 51.308. By 
focusing first on implementation strategies for the 16 Class I areas 
based on the recommendations of the GCVTC, all western States may 
reduce the technical and administrative costs of addressing the 
remaining Class I areas by building on the outcome of existing programs 
rather than requiring the development of two programs in parallel.
    In the national rule, EPA is requiring States to analyze the rate 
of progress in visibility improvement that would be needed to reach 
natural conditions within 60 years. The analyses must assess what 
strategies are available to meet that rate for the period of the long-
term strategy. The GCVTC reviewed the period from 1990 to 2040 to 
assess what strategies were reasonable to achieve visibility 
improvement in the 16 Class I areas. The GCVTC's Alternatives 
Assessment Committee developed a modeling system linking emissions 
control strategies, the costs of such strategies and the degree of 
visibility improvement that would result from those strategies. While 
not specifically attempting to reach natural conditions within 60 
years, a key emissions control scenario assessed in the GCVTC process 
was a ``maximum management alternative.'' The GCVTC looked at many 
source types and their impacts on visibility. This specific assessment 
applied all known and anticipated control strategies over the time 
period as an indicator of the maximum amount of improvement in 
visibility possible in the region. The results of this analysis did not 
show sufficient emissions to reach natural conditions in any mandatory 
Class I area by 2040. The analysis of this scenario did, however, 
demonstrate that the ``maximum management alternative'' is not likely 
to be achievable based on technological, economic and policy choices 
made by the Alternates Assessment Committee due to costs, degree of 
visibility improvement and other factors. Consequently, EPA finds this 
analysis, plus the management alternatives chosen (i.e., market-based 
emissions reductions, specific source-sector reductions, etc.) to be an 
acceptable basis for approvable SIP strategies for the 16 Class I areas 
for the first long-term strategy period since, in effect, reaching 
natural conditions by 2040 was shown not to be reasonable in this 
transport region at this time. In making this finding, EPA concludes 
that the GCVTC analyses and process provide for an assessment 
comparable to that called for by section 51.308.
    In promulgating section 51.309, EPA is establishing specific SIP 
requirements for the time period 2003 through 2018 based on 
demonstrations by the GCVTC. The EPA finds the GCVTC demonstrations 
satisfy requirements for review of the statutory factors as provided 
for under subsection 51.308(d).
    While the GCVTC's assessment included projections to the 2040, EPA 
feels that the strategies incorporated in section 51.309 must be re-
evaluated in 2018 to assure that they will continue to achieve 
reasonable progress after a thorough review of the CAA factors. As 
discussed elsewhere in today's notice, this periodic review and 
revision of regional haze SIPs is needed because of technological 
changes and economic factors which are likely to significantly alter 
both the rate of emissions growth within a region, and the degree to 
which new technologies can more effectively reduce emissions, both of 
which can affect the rate of visibility improvement. In addition, the 
requirement for periodic revisions is consistent with the statutory 
provisions governing long-term strategies.
    The EPA agrees with commentors who noted certain benefits to 
following the pathway provided through section 51.309 for addressing 
regional haze impairment. First, there is the benefit that the mixture 
of required strategies for the 16 Class 1 areas has already been 
through public comment as part of the GCVTC deliberations and subject 
to review by many stakeholders. This previous public debate should help 
ensure broader public support for the State's plans as they are adopted 
and implemented. As pointed out by commentors, one of the benefits of 
the GCVTC recommended strategies is that they are aimed at developing 
cost-effective control strategies and ensuring compliance flexibility 
for affected sources. For example, the strategy to address emissions 
from stationary sources uses a milestone and backstop emissions trading 
program mechanism. This rewards voluntary emissions reductions since a 
regional emissions trading program would only become effective if 
regional milestones are exceeded. Given that the provisions for the 
milestone and backstop emissions trading system may be approvable in 
lieu of BART, depending on the milestones developed in the annex, full 
compliance with BART emissions limitations would not be required within 
5 years of plan submittal, as would be required of States which submit 
plans under section 51.308 requiring source-specific BART. In addition, 
the economies of scale offered by the work of the WRAP in conducting 
coordinated assessment activities, such as economic and air quality 
modeling, could be substantial in aiding States in meeting their 
planning obligations.

[[Page 35751]]

    Finally, EPA's provisional view that SIPs which meet section 51.309 
would satisfy the requirement for reasonable progress minimizes the 
analyses required of States which adhere to the requirements of section 
51.309, compared to States making an independent submittal under 
section 51.308.

C. Elements of the GCVTC-Based State and Tribal Implementation Plans

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

[[Page 35752]]

source emissions of SO2 in order to assess compliance with 
these milestones during the period 2003 to 2018. The SIP must contain 
criteria and procedures for implementing a market trading program or 
other program documented in the SIP, consistent with section 
51.309(f)(1)(i), if triggered by emissions exceeding the emissions 
reduction milestones. In particular, the SIPs must provide for 
implementation of the market-based program or other emissions control 
strategy as called for by an assessment of SO2 emissions for 
the years 2003, 2008, 2013, and 2018. States must fully activate the 
market system or other program within 1 year after an assessment 
showing the excessive emissions. In addition, the implementation plan 
must provide for all affected sources to comply with the market system 
or other programs allocating emissions within 5 years after the date 
the program is triggered. The rule also requires States to report on 
actual emissions reductions and compare them to the established 
milestones. If a market trading program or other program is triggered, 
the rule requires States to report whether all sources covered by the 
market trading or other programs are in compliance with applicable 
requirements.
    In addition to requirements for control of emissions of 
SO2, the rule requires the State to explore emission 
management options for stationary source emissions of PM and 
NOX. The States are required to report by 2003 on their 
consideration of the need for emissions targets for these pollutants to 
prevent growth in emissions of these pollutants in the region as a 
whole. The EPA believes that the States should base their decisions on 
the need for, and levels of, emissions targets for these pollutants on 
the degree to which such pollutants contribute to regional haze 
impairment in the Class I areas addressed by their SIPs. The States 
must report to EPA by 2003 on their decisions whether to develop 
targets and additional control strategies for PM and NOX 
emissions from stationary sources. If the States determine that such 
targets and controls are needed, they must submit a plan revision to 
EPA not later than December 31, 2008 containing any necessary long-term 
strategies and BART or other requirements for stationary sources of PM 
and NOX.
    In adopting the requirements for stationary source emission 
reduction milestones in this manner, EPA is indicating that the State's 
adoption of approvable SO2 milestones and a backstop market 
trading program as set forth in section 51.309(f) in addition to the 
other requirements in section 51.309 would provide for reasonable 
progress for the 16 Class I areas for the implementation period from 
2003 to 2018. The emissions reductions provided for by the milestones 
and trading program must address the BART provisions in section 
51.308(e). For the reasons discussed in the portion of this preamble 
concerning BART requirements, EPA believes that the GCVTC's adoption of 
a market based alternative to source-by-source BART will permit the 
GCVTC States to meet the provisions of the national rule which allow 
the use of alternative measures in lieu of BART. Implementation of the 
framework established by subsections 51.309 (d)(4) and (f) will thus 
satisfy the provisions for an alternative measure in lieu of BART for 
regional haze impairment set forth in section 51.308(e)(2), provided 
the interim milestones called for in the annex assure greater 
reasonable progress than would be achieved by application of BART. The 
EPA will supplement its actions on the stationary source strategy with 
future rulemaking on the States' submission of interim milestones for 
SO2 emissions as part of the annex. In reviewing the interim 
milestones, EPA will be informed by the annex to the GCVTC report 
provided for in section 51.309(f) to be discussed later.
5. Mobile Sources
    Section 51.309(d)(5) requires implementation plans to address the 
contribution to regional haze by emissions from mobile sources. This 
mobile source provision is based on the finding in the GCVTC Report 
that reducing total mobile source emissions is an essential part of any 
long-term strategy for management of visibility on the Colorado 
Plateau.126 The GCVTC found that some urban areas will 
already be developing mobile source emissions budgets and programs to 
meet other CAA requirements. To the extent that mobile source emissions 
in these or other areas are found to contribute significantly to 
visibility impairment in the Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau, the 
GCVTC recommended that an emissions budget be established for any area 
with a significant contribution to the regional mobile source emissions 
total. The GCVTC called for the budgets to be established beginning in 
the approximate year in which emissions from mobile sources are 
projected to be at their lowest point during the planning period of 
2003 to 2018, which is expected to be in 2005. The emissions budget 
should serve both as a planning objective and a performance indicator 
for that area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ GCVTC Report, pp. 38-46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, today's final rule requires all plans to provide for 
an inventory of current and projected emissions (VOC, NOX, 
SO2, elemental carbon, organic carbon, and direct fine 
particles) from mobile sources for the 2003 to 2018 period. Because, as 
noted in the GCVTC Report, the inventory for the year 2005 is expected 
to represent the expected lowest total emissions from mobile sources in 
the planning period, that inventory must be included in the SIP. Once 
State inventories have been compiled and evaluated, the States with 
urban areas found to contribute significantly to visibility impairment 
in the 16 Class I areas must establish and document their mobile source 
emissions budgets for any such area. In addition, the States must 
establish SIP components which limit VOC, SO2, 
NOX, elemental and organic carbon and direct fine 
particulate mobile source emissions to their projected lowest levels 
for the period 2003 to 2018. The State plans must also provide for the 
implementation of measures to achieve the mobile emissions budget, and 
for demonstrations of compliance with any such budget. The 
demonstrations must include a tracking system to evaluate and 
demonstrate the State is meeting its share of the regional mobile 
source emissions budget.
    The GCVTC report also noted that the Federal government has a role 
in addressing mobile source emissions. The GCVTC report identified 
several national mobile source-related emissions reduction strategies 
under consideration by EPA that are important to visibility conditions 
in the Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. The GCVTC agreed to 
promote these initiatives on a national level. With regard to ongoing 
development of policies and regulations on emissions from mobile 
sources, the June 29 letter from the WGA requests that EPA ``make a 
binding commitment in its final regional haze rule to fully consider 
the GCVTC's recommendations' on several national mobile source 
emissions control strategies. Comment on the regional haze rule 
specifically requested that EPA commit to consider development of a 
list of very specific national mobile source emissions control 
strategies.
    The EPA agrees with the GCVTC's conclusion that emissions from 
mobile sources can be significant contributors to regional haze 
visibility impairment. The EPA is currently working on a number of the 
strategies the GCVTC requested us to ``fully consider'' and the

[[Page 35753]]

summary below indicates the status of activities under way.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Status of EPA efforts to
        No.                  Measure               fully consider the
                                                        measure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................  Adoption of the 49-State   Combined Tier II/gasoline
                     LEV standard in 2001 and   sulfur NPRM is being
                     Tier II vehicle emission   drafted, with
                     standards in year 2004     publication expected in
                     (if determined to be       early to mid-1999.
                     more effective).
2.................  Support of EPA's current   Finalized 2004 standards
                     proposal for new on-       for on-road heavy-duty
                     road, heavy-duty           in 10/97 [62 FR 54693];
                     vehicles emission          reductions in NOx
                     standards that reduce      emissions and secondary
                     NOx emissions by at        PM.
                     least 50 percent over
                     the 1998 requirements in
                     the CAA, while
                     maintaining current
                     stringent PM emission
                     limits.
3.................  Pursue additional PM       Potential actions being
                     reductions from on-road    evaluated.
                     vehicles.
4.................  Pursue additional engine   Finalized standards in 8/
                     emission standards for     98 [63 FR 56967]. Also
                     new off-road vehicles      planning a technology
                     (heavy-duty,               review by December 2001
                     construction-type) that    to evaluate feasibility
                     provide reasonably         standards and additional
                     achievable reductions.     reductions.
5.................  Explore broader            Gasoline sulfur control-
                     application of and         rulemaking underway.
                     additional reductions in  Considering regulation of
                     the sulfur content of      diesel fuel sulfur.
                     both gasoline and diesel
                     fuel.
6.................  Promotion of cleaner-      In first year of
                     burning fuels.             implementing clean-fuel
                                                fleets program. The
                                                Office of Mobile Sources
                                                presented a series of
                                                fleet manager workshops
                                                during May, June and
                                                July of '98. Clean Fuel
                                                Fleet Program
                                                Implementation Guidance
                                                was issued in August
                                                '98.
                                               We have a team within OMS
                                                working on promoting
                                                clean fuels efforts.
7.................  Pursue fuel standards and  Study of these issues is
                     control strategies for     ongoing, but no specific
                     diesel locomotives,        actions have been
                     marine vessels/pleasure    scheduled.
                     craft, airplanes, and
                     Federal vehicles as
                     described in the GCVTC's
                     Report.
8.................  Support requirements for   On-board re-fueling
                     effective refueling        standards for cars and
                     vapor recovery systems     trucks finalized October
                     that capture evaporative   1996.
                     emissions.                We may consider refueling
                                                systems for on-road,
                                                heavy-duty gasoline in
                                                future.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA will continue to work with States and regional planning 
entities to help them assess how national mobile source emissions 
strategies will affect other strategies needed to ensure reasonable 
progress toward the national visibility goal during the implementation 
of the regulations promulgated today. The EPA will also grant States 
full credit for implementation of future national mobile source 
programs in emissions strategies needed to attain reasonable progress 
goals.
6. Emissions Related to Fire
    Section 51.309(d)(6) requires documentation that all prescribed 
fire programs within the State consider and address the effects of 
smoke on visibility when planning and issuing permits for prescribed 
fires. The GCVTC Report stated that ``fire has played a major role in 
the development of and maintenance of most ecosystems in the West.'' 
127 In addition, the report notes ``emissions from fire 
(wildfire and prescribed fire) are an important episodic contributor to 
visibility-impairing aerosols, including organic carbon, and 
particulate matter (PM2.5)''. Agricultural burning emissions 
and their effects have been identified as a concern by the GCVTC but 
have not been quantified due to lack of data. The GCVTC concluded that 
all types of fire (prescribed fire, wildfire, and agricultural burning) 
must be addressed equitably as part of a visibility protection 
strategy.128
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ GCVTC Report, p. 47.
    \128\ See Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA agrees with the GCVTC's conclusions and is including in 
this section of the rule a requirement for the States to address all 
types of fire in fulfilling the requirements of this section and in 
submitting SIPs for approval by EPA. Section 51.309(d)(6) requires each 
State to establish an emissions inventory and tracking system (spatial 
and temporal) for VOC, NOX, elemental carbon and organic 
carbon, and direct fine particulate emissions from prescribed fire, 
wildfire, and agricultural burning. The EPA believes that such 
information could be developed on a regional basis and could be 
accomplished through mechanisms such as recording acres experiencing 
fire and calculating emissions based on vegetation type and soil 
moisture. Most importantly, the rule requires the establishment of 
enhanced smoke management programs for fire that consider visibility 
effects, in addition to health and nuisance objectives, and calls for 
programs to be based on the criteria of efficiency, economics, law, 
emissions reduction opportunities, land management objectives, and 
reduction of visibility impacts. The comprehensive approach envisioned 
by the rule will allow States to plan a smoke management program that 
minimizes visibility impacts but also fully recognizes the ecological 
role of fire.
    The smoke management plans must address all sources of fire used 
for land management purposes. The provisions of this section also 
provide for establishment of annual emissions goals for fire (excluding 
wildfire) that will minimize increases in emissions to the maximum 
extent feasible. These goals are to be established cooperatively by 
States, tribes, State and Federal land management agencies, and their 
private sector counterparts, considering factors similar to those 
identified for enhanced smoke management plans.
7. Dust From Roads
    Section 51.309(d)(7) requires States to assess the impact of dust 
emissions on regional haze visibility in the 16 Class I areas. If such 
dust emissions are determined to be a significant contributor to 
visibility impairment, the State must implement emissions management 
strategies to address their impact. In the technical work of the GCVTC, 
road dust was not shown to be a major contributor to regional haze 
impairment based on current monitoring data. However, work on future 
emissions projections of road dust emissions was directly tied to 
growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The large increase projected 
for the west in VMT over the planning period of the GCVTC report 
resulted in initial

[[Page 35754]]

predictions of a very large contribution of road dust to regional 
haze.129 This technical result was addressed in the GCVTC 
report and the GCVTC discounted the predictions of the future impacts 
from road dust. However, the GCVTC recommended that its policy 
conclusion that distant road dust is not likely to play an important 
role in regional haze should be confirmed through further tracking of 
road dust emissions. The GCVTC also emphasized that road dust control 
should be considered in locations ``in and near'' Class I 
areas.130 The EPA agrees with this approach and has included 
the assessment of road dust as a requirement of the SIP. In addition, 
today's action requires appropriate SIP measures over time based on the 
contribution of road dust to regional haze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ GCVTC Report, p. 46.
    \130\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Pollution Prevention
    This section addresses the GCVTC's recommendations on pollution 
prevention and renewable energy. The GCVTC goal recommended that 
renewable energy comprise 10 percent of the regional power needs by 
2005 and 20 percent by 2015. The Administration has recently offered 
legislation proposing a national mandate of 7.5 percent by 2010. The 
Commission's goal represents the outcome of its consensus process and 
is a more aggressive goal than what the Administration has proposed as 
a national mandate. As with other GCVTC recommendations, the EPA has 
included this provision in this rule in recognition of the overall body 
of the GCVTC's work and believes it is consistent with the provisions 
of the national rule. Section 51.309(d)(8) requires the State to 
summarize all pollution prevention plans currently in place, inventory 
the current and expected energy generation capacity through 2002, the 
total energy generation capacity and production for the State, the 
State's percentage of total energy generation and capacity that comes 
from renewable energy sources, and the State's anticipated contribution 
toward the GCVTC's goal that renewable energy comprise 10 percent of 
the regional power needs by 2005, and 20 percent by 2015.
    The GCVTC found that to prevent further degradation of vistas in 
the west, it would be necessary to combine cost-effective pollution 
control strategies with a greater emphasis on pollution prevention, 
including low or zero emission technologies and energy conservation. It 
further found that there was a high potential for renewable energy 
production, especially electrical energy, and that the relative cost of 
renewable energy production is declining over time. The GCVTC cited 
forecasts of renewable energy production by the Western Systems 
Coordinating Council and by the Land and Water Fund of the Rockies in 
support of its adoption of the goal that 10 percent of regional power 
needs be served by renewable energy sources by the year 2005 and 20 
percent by the year 2015.131
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \131\ GCVTC Report, p. 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In establishing assessment and reporting requirements for the 
States, EPA is supporting the GCVTC Report's promotion of renewable 
power production. Such production will likely be based on emerging 
renewable energy technologies such as wind, solar, biomass, and 
geothermal. The EPA also supports tracking annual goals for increases 
in renewable power generation in the transport region.132 
The GCVTC identified strategies which the States could rely on to help 
achieve this regional renewable energy goal, including, but not limited 
to, focusing research funding for renewables, financial incentives, and 
requiring new power generation projects to include a portion of the 
generation from renewable energy sources. The EPA notes that the WRAP 
is committed to following through on the GCVTC's recommendations and 
can assist the States in developing strategies they can rely on to 
achieve regional renewable energy goals contained in the GCVTC Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \132\ GCVTC Report, p. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the GCVTC's recommendations on pollution prevention, 
section 51.309(d)(8) calls for each SIP to provide for incentives to 
reward efforts that go beyond compliance and/or achieve early 
compliance with air pollution related requirements. The plan also must 
identify specific areas where renewable energy has the potential to 
supply power where it is not now provided by current service systems 
and where renewable energy systems are most cost effective. The plan 
must contain projections of the short-term and long-term emissions 
reductions, visibility improvements, costs savings, and secondary 
benefits associated with renewable energy goals, energy efficiency and 
pollution prevention activities. The plan must also contain a 
description of the programs being relied on to achieve the State's 
contribution toward the GCVTC's renewable energy goals.
    The State must provide a demonstration of its progress toward 
achieving the renewable energy goals in 2003, 2008, 2013 and 2018. The 
demonstration must include documentation describing the potential for 
renewable energy resources, the percentage of renewable energy 
associated with new power generation projects implemented or planned, 
and the renewable energy generation capacity and production in use or 
planned within the State. Where a State cannot feasibly meet its 
planned contribution to the regional renewable energy goals, the State 
must identify the measures implemented to achieve its contribution and 
explain why meeting the State's contribution was not feasible.
    Commentors on EPA's September 3, 1998 notice of availability stated 
that incorporation of language from the WGA letter on renewable energy 
restricts State and local energy planning since a SIP is federally 
enforceable under the CAA. Commentors also expressed the opinion that 
the requirements for SIPs to address renewable energy goals may 
overstep EPA's legal authorities which are limited to emissions 
limitation and pollution performance standards.
    The EPA disagrees that the provisions of section 51.309(d)(8) 
impermissibly restrict State and local energy planning or that these 
provisions exceed EPA's authority under the CAA. As stated previously, 
the requirements of section 51.309 are provided to GCVTC States as an 
alternative to the general provisions of section 51.308 as a means of 
giving effect to the policy and technical work of the GCVTC. The goals 
themselves are not enforceable and States are not required to meet the 
renewable energy goals. However, as the WGA letter and the GCVTC 
provide, these provisions are not severable. States which wish to take 
advantage of the GCVTC's efforts and EPA's acceptance thereof are 
obligated to meet all of the requirements of section 51.309.
    Rather, EPA is setting enforceable requirements for the States to 
assess progress toward goals established by the GCVTC with respect to 
renewable energy production as a means for reducing dependence on more 
polluting forms of energy production. States participating in the GCVTC 
strategy are responsible for explaining why they cannot meet the GCVTC 
goals. The required reporting by the States will inform the public of 
air quality improvements that would result from that goal had it been 
realized. It is the relationship between renewable energy production 
and associated environmental effects (direct and

[[Page 35755]]

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

[[Page 35756]]

located beyond the State's borders, as well as the effect of upwind 
emissions from other States on the Class I areas within its borders.
    The regional haze SIP for a State choosing not to implement the 
requirements of section 51.309, including the SIP submittal deadlines, 
would be governed by the national rules provided in section 51.308. Any 
State choosing not to adopt a SIP in accordance with the GCVTC strategy 
and optional approach in section 51.309, but wishing to use the WRAP 
mechanism for regional cooperation in developing its SIP requirements, 
would need to comply with all of the requirements outlined in the 
national rule in section 51.308.
13. Tribal Implementation Plans
    The WGA called for EPA's final rule to permit tribes within the 
GCVTC Transport Region to implement visibility programs, or reasonably 
severable elements, in the same manner as States, regardless of whether 
such tribes have participated as members of a visibility transport 
GCVTC. The EPA has not included the WGA's recommended rule provision in 
today's action because the necessary authority for tribal organizations 
has already been provided in a previous EPA rulemaking.133 
The EPA does, however, agree with the position expressed in the WGA 
recommendation. The EPA wishes to clarify that tribes may directly 
implement the requirements of this section of the regional haze rule in 
the same manner as States. The Tribal Authority Rule provides for this, 
as discussed further in unit V of today's notice. The independence of 
tribes means that a tribal visibility program is not dependent on 
strategies selected by the State or States in which the tribe is 
located. If tribes within the Transport Region decline to implement 
visibility programs and EPA finds that emissions management strategies 
are needed to assure reasonable progress, EPA will work with the 
appropriate tribes directly to provide for Federal implementation of 
appropriate emissions reduction strategies. This is based on the 
government to government principles of Federal-Tribal relations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ See 63 FR 7254 (Feb. 12, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Requirements for States Electing Not To Follow All Provisions of the 
Section 51.309(e)

    The EPA notes that the provisions for allowing the Transport Region 
States to adopt SIPs based on the GCVTC recommendations requires that 
States endorse the range of strategies recognized by the GCVTC. A State 
electing not to implement the GCVTC recommendations as set forth in 
section 51.309(d) must address all of its Class I areas and any Class I 
area to which its sources' emissions may contribute to impairment under 
the provisions of section 51.308. In addition, any Transport Region 
State must advise other States electing to comply with section 51.309 
of the nature and effect of their program on visibility impairing 
emissions so that other States can use this information in developing 
programs under section 51.309. This provision assures that all 
components needed to address reasonable progress are part of SIPs 
either under the provisions of section 51.309 or section 51.308.

E. Annex to the GCVTC Report

1. Interim Milestones
    Section 51.309(f) calls for an annex to the GCVTC Report for the 
purpose of completing the program requirements to meet reasonable 
progress under the CAA, including submission of a complete long-term 
strategy and addressing the BART requirement for the 16 Class I areas 
on the Colorado Plateau. The purpose of the annex is to develop interim 
emissions milestones for stationary source SO2 interim 
targets between the year 2000 target and the target for the year 2040. 
Under section 51.309(f)(1)(i), the States must consider four specific 
factors in setting the interim emission milestones. The first factor 
affecting the selection of interim milestones is the GCVTC's definition 
of reasonable progress. The GCVTC notes in its report that the term 
``reasonable progress'' refers to ``progress in reducing human-caused 
haze in Class I areas under the national visibility goal.'' \134\ It 
goes on to note that ``the CAA indicates that `reasonable' should 
consider the cost of reducing air pollution emissions, the time 
necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental 
impacts of reducing emissions, and the remaining useful life of any 
existing air pollution source considered for these reductions.'' The 
discussion also includes the GCVTC's Public Advisory Committee 
definition that ``progress towards the national visibility goal is 
achieving continuous emissions reductions necessary to reduce existing 
impairment and attain steady improvement in visibility in mandatory 
Class I areas, and managing emissions growth so as to prevent 
perceptible degradation of clean air days.'' Together, these provisions 
call for the achievement of continuous emissions reductions and 
tracking the reductions to ensure visibility improvement in hazy days 
and visibility maintenance on clear days. To be consistent with and 
responsive to the guiding principles, recommendations and strategies 
adopted by the GCVTC, EPA expects any interim targets to demonstrate a 
significant continuous downward trend in emissions and not postpone 
significant progress to periods covered by future long-term strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ GCVTC Report, p. x-xi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second factor is the quantifiable target for 2040 to which 
interim targets must contribute. This target is a 50 to 70 percent 
reduction by 2040 in emissions from stationary source SO2 
emissions, based on the projection of the GCVTC's baseline forecast 
scenario from actual 1990 emission levels. Interim targets should 
reflect assessment of reasonable measures which reduce regional 
loadings of SO2. Such assessments may include examination of 
interim targets based on costs per ton of reducing SO2 in 
line with recently adopted control measures.
    The third factor is the applicable requirements of the CAA for 
making reasonable progress and implementing BART. As noted previously 
in this preamble, the CAA requires a long-term strategy to ensure 
reasonable progress and the application of BART to certain large 
sources that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to 
regional haze. The rule requires the annex to address the BART 
provisions of the national rule. As noted in the earlier discussion of 
BART, EPA will accept alternative measures, such as regional emissions 
trading programs, which achieve greater reasonable progress in lieu of 
meeting the source-specific BART requirement. As noted elsewhere in the 
preamble, EPA plans to issue revised BART guidance within a year. 
During the next year and a half, EPA also plans to issue new or revised 
guidance related to the design of emission trading programs, including 
guidance on the structure of economic incentive programs. Given this 
schedule, EPA intends to work closely with the WRAP as it develops the 
annex, its approach to meeting the rule's BART requirements and its 
backstop market-trading program. The EPA believes that its 
participation in the WRAP will help to ensure that the way in which the 
annex addresses BART and the market trading program will be compatible 
with EPA's revised BART guidance and any new or revised guidance EPA 
issues related to emissions trading programs.
    In the event EPA finds that the annex does not meet the rule's BART 
provisions because it is inconsistent

[[Page 35757]]

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

[[Page 35758]]

and EPA believes that it fully addresses the commentor's concern. 
Senator Baucus stated that ``[TEA-21] clarifies that it does not affect 
EPA's authority to provide for State implementation of the agreements 
and recommendations set forth in the June 1996 GCVTC Report on a 
schedule consistent with the GCVTC's Report. * * * The conferees added 
specific language so as not to preclude the Administrator from 
providing for earlier State implementation of the GCVTC's agreements 
and recommendations * * *.'' 135 That language states that:

    \135\ 144 Cong Rec. SS407 (daily ed. May 22, 1998).

    The preceding provisions of this paragraph shall not preclude 
the implementation of the agreements and recommendations set forth 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
in the GCVTC Report dated June 1996.

    TEA-21 section 4102(c)(2).

F. Additional Class I Areas

    Section 51.309(g) calls for Transport Region States to identify in 
their 2003 plan submissions whether they elect to meet the provisions 
of section 51.308 or 51.309 in establishing their long-term strategy 
and BART requirements for additional Class I areas not covered by the 
original GCVTC effort. By no later than December 31, 2008 the States 
electing to use section 51.309 to address additional Class I areas must 
submit plan revisions which include a modeling demonstration 
establishing expected visibility conditions on the most-impaired and 
least-impaired days at the Class I areas for which they seek to 
demonstrate reasonable progress. These demonstrations may be conducted 
by the State or based on refined studies conducted by regional 
entities. The plan must include the analyses required in section 
51.308(d)(1). The plan can build upon and take full credit for the 
strategies adopted for the 16 Class I areas. It must also contain any 
additional measures beyond those strategies that may be needed to 
demonstrate reasonable progress in those areas, in accordance with the 
provisions of section 51.308(d)(1) through (4). As provided for in 
section 51.309(g)(2), a Transport Region State may have until no later 
than December 31, 2008, to submit a plan for additional Class I areas, 
which is the date for submission that additional Class I areas under 
section 51.308. Transport Region States may well benefit by addressing 
the additional Class I areas under section 51.309, since using the same 
rule provision for both sets of Class I areas could facilitate 
coordination of the requirements for the areas as well as enabling 
consolidation of plans after 2008.
    Furthermore, if the State can develop the necessary demonstration 
for other Class I areas before 2003, a Transport Region State could 
submit one implementation plan in 2003 covering both the 16 Class I 
areas and other Class I areas for which it must assure reasonable 
progress.

V. Implementation of the Regional Haze Program in Indian Country

    This section discusses how the requirements of the regional haze 
rule relate to emissions released from Indian country.

A. Background on Tribal Air Quality Programs

    Before discussing how the regional haze rule affects tribes, we 
believe it is useful to briefly describe EPA's overall policy and 
rulemaking efforts on tribal air quality programs.
    On November 8, 1984, the EPA released a policy statement entitled 
``EPA Policy for the Administration of Environmental Programs on Indian 
Reservations.'' This policy statement, available on the Internet at 
http://www.epa.gov/indian/1984.htm, stresses a number of themes. In 
particular, this policy stresses that EPA, consistent with overall 
Federal government policy, will pursue the principle of Indian ``self-
government,'' and that it will work with tribal governments on a 
``government-to-government'' basis. The policy statement also 
emphasizes EPA's desire to work with interested tribal governments in 
developing programs and in preparing to assume regulatory and 
environmental program management responsibility for Indian country. The 
EPA will retain responsibility for protecting tribal air quality until 
such time as tribes administer their own air quality protection 
programs.
    The CAA, as amended in 1990, added a new section 301(d) which 
authorizes EPA to ``treat tribes as States'' for the purposes of 
administering CAA programs. Section 301(d) required that EPA promulgate 
regulations listing specific CAA provisions for which it would be 
appropriate to treat tribes as States and establishing the criteria 
that tribes must meet in order to be eligible for such treatment under 
the CAA. The EPA proposed these regulations on August 25, 1994 (59 FR 
43956), and finalized the rule on February 12, 1998 (63 FR 7254). Much 
of the regulatory language in this rule is codified in the Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) as a new 40 CFR part 49. This rule is 
generally referred to as the Tribal Authority Rule or TAR.
    The TAR includes general eligibility requirements for tribes 
interested in assuming program responsibilities that are codified in 
section 49.6 of the rule. These eligibility requirements are designed 
in part to ensure that such tribes have the infrastructure needed to 
successfully implement a tribal air quality program. Tribes may request 
a formal eligibility determination using administrative procedures 
contained in 49.7. Tribes may also use the administrative procedures in 
49.7 to seek approval to implement CAA programs. The TAR authorizes EPA 
to review requests for eligibility determinations and program approvals 
simultaneously. As noted in 49.7(c), tribes that are interested in 
seeking EPA approval to implement air quality programs under the CAA 
may request approval to implement only partial elements of a CAA 
program, so long as the elements of the partial program are 
``reasonably severable.''
    Section 301(d)(4) of the CAA confers discretionary authority on EPA 
to provide, through regulation, alternative means to ensure air quality 
protection in cases where it determines that treating tribes as 
``identical'' to States would be inappropriate. Accordingly, in 
promulgating the TAR, EPA provided flexibility to tribes seeking to 
implement the CAA. Some flexibility is established by virtue of EPA's 
decision, under 49.4 of the final rule, not to treat tribes as States 
for specified provisions of the CAA. The rationale for this approach is 
discussed on pages 7264 and 7265 of the preamble to the final rule, and 
in unit III.B of the preamble to the proposed rule. For example, unlike 
States, tribes are not required by the TAR to adopt and implement CAA 
plans or programs, thus tribes are not subject to mandatory deadlines 
for submittal of implementation plans. As discussed in the preamble 
sections identified above, EPA believes that it generally would not be 
reasonable to impose the same types of deadlines on tribes as on 
States. Among the CAA provisions for which EPA has determined it will 
not treat tribes as States is section 110(c)(1) of the CAA, which 
requires EPA to intervene and ensure air quality protection within 2 
years after a State either fails to adopt a SIP or does not win EPA 
approval for a SIP that was determined to be deficient. The EPA did not 
apply this provision to tribes because the section 110(c) obligation on 
EPA to promulgate a FIP is based on failures with respect to required 
submittals, and, as noted above, tribal submissions under the TAR are 
voluntary, not mandatory.

[[Page 35759]]

Instead, pursuant to its section 301(d)(4) discretionary authority, EPA 
has provided in the TAR that, where necessary and appropriate, it will 
promulgate FIPs within reasonable timeframes to protect air quality in 
Indian country. See 40 CFR 49.11(a).

B. Issues Related to the Regional Haze Program in Indian Country

    Today's final rule imposes requirements for revisions to SIPs. The 
rule requires States to develop SIP revisions to address regional haze, 
to update the SIP every 10 years, and to continue to evaluate progress 
toward the national visibility goal. The requirements of today's final 
rule are among those air quality programs for which tribes may be 
determined eligible and receive authorization to implement under the 
TAR. Tribes wishing to assume these regional haze program requirements 
and be ``treated as States'' may seek approval under 40 CFR 49, but are 
not required to do so. Where tribes do not take on this responsibility, 
EPA will ensure air quality protection in Indian country consistent 
with the provisions of 40 CFR 49.11(a).
    We encourage tribes to participate in regional planning efforts for 
regional haze. A good example of tribal participation in regional haze 
planning is the efforts of tribal representatives on the GCVTC. These 
efforts are continuing with tribal participation on the WRAP. The EPA 
expects, as noted above, that additional regional planning groups will 
be formed in reaction to today's final rule. A number of tribes have 
indicated interest in participating in regional planning efforts, and 
we believe this is beneficial in many respects. Tribal participation 
can help provide emissions inventory information that can serve to 
better understand the importance of sources in Indian country to 
regional visibility impairment. Conversely, such participation can also 
help provide a forum for tribal participants to alert regional planning 
organizations as to concerns on how regional emissions are affecting 
air quality in Indian country.
    As noted in the preamble to the TAR, we intend to work with tribes 
to identify air quality priorities and needs, to build communication 
and outreach to tribes on air quality issues, and to provide training 
to build tribes' technical capacity for implementing air quality 
programs. We recognize, however, that not all tribes will have the 
resources nor the expertise to participate in regional planning efforts 
for regional haze. An important EPA role in regional planning efforts 
will be to ensure that the overall objectives of the regional haze 
program are met where tribes are unable to participate.
    In order to encourage tribes to develop self-sufficient programs, 
the TAR provides tribes with the flexibility of submitting programs as 
they are developed, rather than in accordance with statutory deadlines. 
This means that tribes that choose to develop programs, where necessary 
may take additional time to submit implementation plans for regional 
haze over and above the deadlines in the TEA-21 legislation as codified 
in today's final rule. (See unit III.B for a discussion of these 
deadlines.) The TEA-21 legislation changed the deadlines for State 
submission of SIP revisions to address regional haze, which were 
originally set out in section 169B(e)(2) of the CAA. Section 49.4(f) of 
the TAR provides that deadlines related to SIP submittals under section 
169(B)(e)(2) do not apply to tribes. We encourage tribes choosing to 
develop implementation plans to make every effort to submit by the 
deadlines to ensure that the plans are integrated with and coordinated 
with regional planning efforts. In the interim, EPA will work with the 
States and tribes to ensure that achievement of reasonable progress is 
not delayed.
    As noted previously in unit II of this notice, sections 169A and 
169B of the CAA contain requirements for visibility protection in Class 
I areas, and do not require that States or tribes develop plans and 
control strategies for visibility protection for additional locations. 
These provisions of the CAA do not require implementation plans to 
address regional haze in other Class I areas, such as those designated 
as Class I by tribes or States under section 164 of the CAA. One 
commenter from a tribe expressed concerns that the scenic beauty and 
value of tribal areas should not be viewed by EPA as less important 
than the national parks and wilderness areas that have ``mandatory 
Class I'' status. While EPA believes that these tribal areas are not 
afforded the same legal protection under the CAA as Class I areas, it 
is important for tribes to understand that the regional haze control 
program for the Federal areas will help to protect scenic locations of 
interest to tribes. For example, EPA believes that modeling analyses 
aimed at addressing Class I areas can readily add receptor locations to 
analyze the visibility improvements at selected tribal locations. The 
EPA will work with regional planning bodies to ensure that tribal 
interests are represented and to foster communication between States 
and tribes, and we will encourage the consideration of impacts on 
visibility in tribal locations in regional planning efforts.

VI. Miscellaneous Technical Amendments to the Existing Rule

    The rule includes the following changes to coordinate the 
requirements of today's regional haze rule with the 1980 visibility 
regulations for ``reasonably attributable'' visibility impairment:

Section 51.300. Purpose and Applicability

    We have amended this section to clarify that subpart P includes 
provisions for regional haze as well as reasonably attributable 
visibility impairment.

Section 51.301. Definitions

    We have added the following terms: reasonably attributable 
visibility impairment, regional haze, deciview, State, most-impaired 
days, least-impaired days, implementation plan, tribe, BART-eligible 
source, and geographic enhancement. The other definitions in this 
section apply to the program for reasonably attributable impairment as 
well as the new regional haze program, except where it is noted that 
they only apply to the program for reasonably attributable impairment.

Section 51.302. Implementation Control Strategies

    We have changed references in section 51.302(a) to the 
administrative process requirements for public hearings and SIP 
submissions, which are now located in section 51.102 and 51.103. We 
have also amended this section to clarify that the implementation 
control strategies addressed in the section apply to reasonably 
attributable visibility impairment.

Section 51.305. Monitoring

    We have amended this section to clarify that the monitoring 
requirements in this section apply to reasonably attributable 
visibility impairment.

VII. Administrative Requirements

    In preparing any final rule, EPA must meet the administrative 
requirements contained in a number of statutes and executive orders. In 
this section of the preamble, we discuss how the final regional haze 
rule addresses these administrative requirements.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) (Executive Order 12866)

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993,) the 
Agency

[[Page 35760]]

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

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a 
regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. The 
EPA has also determined that this rule will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities because the rule does 
not establish requirements applicable to small entities.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Secs. 601 et seq.) (RFA), 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(Pub. L.

[[Page 35761]]

No.104-121) ( SBREFA), provides that whenever an agency is required to 
publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking, it must prepare and 
make available an initial regulatory flexibility analysis, unless it 
certifies that the proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have ``a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.'' 5 U.S.C. Sec. 605(b). Courts have interpreted the RFA to 
require a regulatory flexibility analysis only when small entities will 
be subject to the requirements of the rule. See Motor and Equip. Mfrs. 
Ass'n v. Nichols, 142 F.3d 449 (D.C. Cir. 1998); United Distribution 
Cos. v. FERC, 88 F.3d 1105, 1170 (D.C. Cir. 1996); Mid-Tex Elec. Co-op, 
Inc. v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327, 342 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (agency's 
certification need only consider the rule's impact on entities subject 
to the rule).
    As stated in the proposal, the regional haze rule will not 
establish requirements applicable to small entities. The rule applies 
to States, not to small entities. The rule requires States to develop, 
adopt, and submit SIP revisions that will ensure reasonable progress 
toward the national visibility goal, and would generally leave to the 
States the task of determining how to obtain those reductions, 
including which entities to regulate. In developing emission control 
measures, section 169A of the CAA requires States to address BART for a 
select list of major stationary sources defined by section 169A(g)(7) 
of the CAA. As noted in the proposal, however, the State's 
determination of BART for regional haze involves some State discretion 
in considering a number of factors set forth in section 169A(g)(2), 
including the costs of compliance. Further, the final rule allows 
States to adopt alternative measures in lieu of requiring the 
installation and operation of BART at these major stationary sources. 
As a result, the potential consequences of today's final rule at 
specific sources are speculative. Any requirements for emission control 
measures, including any requirements for BART, will be established by 
State rulemakings. The States will accordingly exercise substantial 
intervening discretion in implementing the final rule.
    For the final rule, EPA is confirming its initial certification 
that the rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. The EPA notes, however, that the Agency did 
conduct a more general analysis of the potential impact on small 
entities of possible State implementation strategies. This analysis is 
documented in the RIA. In addition, as noted in the proposal, EPA 
undertook small-entity outreach activities on a voluntary basis. The 
EPA also has issued guidance, entitled ``Guidance on Mitigation of 
Impact to Small Business While Implementing Air Quality Standards and 
Regulations,'' which can be found on the internet at: http://
ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov/implement/actions.htmOther. This guidance 
outlines potential implementation strategies that would mitigate 
impacts on small sources and encourages States to make use of these 
strategies wherever possible and appropriate. The EPA did receive 
comments regarding the impact on the regional haze rule on small 
entities. These comments are addressed in the Response to Comments 
document.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act--Impact on Reporting Requirements

    The information collection requirements in this rule relating to 
State requirements for the protection of visibility in Class I national 
parks and wilderness areas were submitted to OMB for review and 
approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. An 
Information Collection Request document was prepared by EPA (ICR No. 
1813.02) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, by mail at OPPE 
Regulatory Information Division, U.S. EPA (2137) 401 M Street, S.W.; 
Washington, DC 20460, by email at [email protected], or by 
calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may also be downloaded off the internet 
at http://www.epa.gov/icr. The information requirements are not 
effective until OMB approves them.
    This collection of information has an estimated reporting burden, 
for the fifty States and District of Columbia, of approximately 22,000 
to 47,000 hours for a 3-year period between mid-1999 and mid-2002. The 
Agency expects the Federal burden will be approximately 1900 to 4000 
hours for the 3-year period. The Agency anticipates States costs of 
about $980,000 to $2,064,000 for the 3-year period. The Agency 
estimates the annual Federal costs to be approximately $83,000 to 
$175,000 for the 3-year period. These estimates include time for 
reviewing requirements and instructions, evaluating data sources, 
gathering and maintaining data, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) (UMRA), establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 2 
U.S.C. 1532, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including 
a cost-benefit analysis, for any proposed or final rule that ``includes 
any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, 
and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of 
$100,000,000 or more * * * in any one year.'' A ``Federal mandate'' is 
defined under section 421(6), 2 U.S.C. 658(6), to include a ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' and a ``Federal private sector mandate.'' A 
``Federal intergovernmental mandate,'' in turn, is defined to include a 
regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, 
or tribal governments,'' section 421(5)(A)(i), 2 U.S.C. 658(5)(A)(i), 
except for, among other things, a duty that is ``a condition of Federal 
assistance,'' section 421(5)(A)(i)(I). A ``Federal private sector 
mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty 
upon the private sector,'' with certain exceptions, section 421(7)(A), 
2 U.S.C. 658(7)(A).
    Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is 
needed under section 202 of the UMRA, section 205, 2 U.S.C. 1535, of 
the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable 
number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost 
effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives 
of the rule.
    The RIA prepared by EPA and placed in the docket for this 
rulemaking is consistent with the requirements of

[[Page 35762]]

section 202 of the UMRA. Furthermore, EPA is not directly establishing 
any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments, including tribal governments. Thus, EPA is not 
obligated to develop under section 203 of the UMRA a small government 
agency plan. Further, as described in the proposal, EPA carried out 
consultations with the governmental entities affected by this rule in a 
manner consistent with the intergovernmental consultation provisions of 
section 204 of the UMRA.
    The EPA also believes that because the rule provides States with 
substantial flexibility, the proposed rule meets the UMRA requirement 
in section 205 to select the least costly and burdensome alternative in 
light of the statutory mandate to issue regulations that make 
reasonable progress toward the national visibility protection goal. The 
rule provides States with the flexibility to establish reasonable 
progress goals and BART based on certain criteria, one of which is the 
costs of compliance. The rule also provides States with the flexibility 
to adopt alternatives, such as an emissions trading program, in lieu of 
requiring BART. Finally, the rule provides the States with the 
flexibility to develop long-term strategies. The regional haze rule, 
therefore, inherently provides for adoption of the least costly, most 
cost effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the 
objective of the rule.
    The EPA is not reaching a final conclusion as to the applicability 
of the requirements of UMRA to this rulemaking action. It is 
questionable whether a requirement to submit a SIP revision constitutes 
a Federal mandate. The obligation for a state to revise its SIP that 
arises out of sections 110(a), 169A and 169B of the CAA is not legally 
enforceable by a court of law and, at most, is a condition for 
continued receipt of highway funds. Therefore, it is possible to view 
an action requiring such a submittal as not creating any enforceable 
duty within the meaning of section 421(5)(A)(i) of UMRA (2 U.S.C. 
658(5)(A)(i)). Even if it did, the duty could be viewed as falling 
within the exception for a condition of Federal assistance under 
section 421(5)(A)(i)(I) of UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(5)(A)(i)(I)). As noted 
earlier, however, notwithstanding these issues, the discussion in 
section 2 and the analysis in Chapter 8 of the RIA constitutes the UMRA 
statement that would be required by UMRA if its statutory provisions 
applied, and EPA has consulted with governmental entities as would be 
required by UMRA. Consequently, it is not necessary for EPA to reach a 
conclusion as to the applicability of the UMRA requirements.

E. Environmental Justice--Executive Order 12898

    Executive Order 12898 requires that each Federal agency make 
achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and 
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human 
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and 
activities on minorities and low-income populations. The requirements 
of Executive Order 12898 have been addressed to the extent practicable 
in the RIA cited above, particularly in chapters 2 and 9 of the RIA.

F. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
U.S. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the U.S. prior to 
publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A ``major rule'' 
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
section 804(2). This rule will be effective August 30, 1999.

G. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks--Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies 
to any rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' 
as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health 
or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. The EPA 
interprets E.O. 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that 
are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required 
under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to influence the 
regulation. The regional haze rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because 
it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate 
health or safety risks.

H. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership--Executive Order 12875

    Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local 
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by 
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the OMB a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected State, local and tribal governments, the 
nature of their concerns, copies of any written communications from the 
governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of State, local and tribal governments ``to provide 
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals 
containing significant unfunded mandates.''
    Today's final rule does not create a mandate on State, local or 
tribal governments. As explained in the discussion of UMRA (unit 
VII.D), this rule does not impose an enforceable duty on these 
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive 
Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.
    The EPA notes, however that considerable consultation has taken 
place with State, local and tribal government representatives in 
developing the final regional haze rule. In September 1995, EPA formed 
a subcommittee under the authority of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act to advise the Agency on various issues related to implementation of 
the revised ozone and particulate matter NAAQS and the regional haze 
program. This group met a total of 13 times between September 1995 and 
completion of its duties in December 1997. Several State and local 
governmental representatives were on this subcommittee. The EPA 
received and reviewed comments from over 40 States and 1 tribal 
government on the July 1997 proposal. Tribes in the west have been 
active in discussion on regional haze, both as members of the GCVTC, 
and in the follow-on body, the WRAP. In addition, EPA has held

[[Page 35763]]

numerous meetings with State and local representatives.

I. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of 
the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a 
summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected 
officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to 
provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory 
policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their 
communities.''
    Because the rule does not establish a visibility progress goal or 
emission management strategy, the rule does not impose control or other 
direct compliance requirements. Hence, the rule does not create a 
mandate on tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of 3(b) of 
Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Pub. L. No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA 
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides 
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA 
did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 
matter, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: April 22, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

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

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

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

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

Subpart P--Protection of Visibility

    2. Section 51.300 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(1) 
introductory text, and (b)(2), and by adding paragraph (b)(3) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 51.300  Purpose and applicability.

    (a) Purpose. The primary purposes of this subpart are to require 
States to develop programs to assure reasonable progress toward meeting 
the national goal of preventing any future, and remedying any existing, 
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which 
impairment results from manmade air pollution; and to establish 
necessary additional procedures for new source permit applicants, 
States and Federal Land Managers to use in conducting the visibility 
impact analysis required for new sources under Sec. 51.166. This 
subpart sets forth requirements addressing visibility impairment in its 
two principal forms: ``reasonably attributable'' impairment (i.e., 
impairment attributable to a single source/small group of sources) and 
regional haze (i.e., widespread haze from a multitude of sources which 
impairs visibility in every direction over a large area).
    (b) Applicability. (1) General Applicability. The provisions of 
this subpart pertaining to implementation plan requirements for 
assuring reasonable progress in preventing any future and remedying any 
existing visibility impairment are applicable to:
* * * * *
    (2) The provisions of this subpart pertaining to implementation 
plans to address reasonably attributable visibility impairment are 
applicable to the following States:

  Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, 
Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, 
Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New 
Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South 
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, 
Virgin Islands, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming.

    (3) The provisions of this subpart pertaining to implementation 
plans to address regional haze visibility impairment are applicable to 
all States as defined in section 302(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 
except Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana 
Islands.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-U

    3. Section 51.301 is amended by removing the paragraph 
designations, placing the defined terms in alphabetical order, revising 
the definitions of Federal Land Manager, Major stationary source, 
Natural conditions, and Visibility impairment, and adding in 
alphabetical order definitions of Reasonably attributable visibility 
impairment, Regional haze, Deciview, State, Most impaired days, Least 
impaired days, Implementation plan, Indian tribe or tribe, BART-
eligible source, and Geographic enhancement for the purpose of 
Sec. 51.308 to read as follows:


Sec. 51.301  Definitions.

* * * * *
    BART-eligible source means an existing stationary facility as 
defined in this section.
* * * * *
    Deciview means a measurement of visibility impairment. A deciview 
is a haze index derived from calculated light extinction, such that 
uniform changes in haziness correspond to uniform incremental changes 
in perception across the entire range of conditions, from pristine to 
highly impaired. The deciview haze index is calculated based on the 
following equation (for the purposes of calculating deciview, the 
atmospheric light extinction coefficient must be calculated from 
aerosol measurements):

Deciview haze index=10 lne (bext/10 
Mm-1).
Where bext=the atmospheric light extinction coefficient, 
expressed in inverse megameters (Mm-1).
* * * * *

[[Page 35764]]

    Federal Land Manager means the Secretary of the department with 
authority over the Federal Class I area (or the Secretary's designee) 
or, with respect to Roosevelt-Campobello International Park, the 
Chairman of the Roosevelt-Campobello International Park Commission.
* * * * *
    Geographic enhancement for the purpose of Sec. 51.308 means a 
method, procedure, or process to allow a broad regional strategy, such 
as an emissions trading program designed to achieve greater reasonable 
progress than BART for regional haze, to accommodate BART for 
reasonably attributable impairment.
    Implementation plan means, for the purposes of this part, any State 
Implementation Plan, Federal Implementation Plan, or Tribal 
Implementation Plan.
* * * * *
    Indian tribe or tribe means any Indian tribe, band, nation, or 
other organized group or community, including any Alaska Native 
village, which is federally recognized as eligible for the special 
programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because 
of their status as Indians.
* * * * *
    Least impaired days means the average visibility impairment 
(measured in deciviews) for the twenty percent of monitored days in a 
calendar year with the lowest amount of visibility impairment.
    Major stationary source and major modification mean major 
stationary source and major modification, respectively, as defined in 
Sec. 51.166.
* * * * *
    Most impaired days means the average visibility impairment 
(measured in deciviews) for the twenty percent of monitored days in a 
calendar year with the highest amount of visibility impairment.
    Natural conditions includes naturally occurring phenomena that 
reduce visibility as measured in terms of light extinction, visual 
range, contrast, or coloration.
* * * * *
    Reasonably attributable visibility impairment means visibility 
impairment that is caused by the emission of air pollutants from one, 
or a small number of sources.
* * * * *
    Regional haze means visibility impairment that is caused by the 
emission of air pollutants from numerous sources located over a wide 
geographic area. Such sources include, but are not limited to, major 
and minor stationary sources, mobile sources, and area sources.
* * * * *
    State means ``State'' as defined in section 302(d) of the CAA.
* * * * *
    Visibility impairment means any humanly perceptible change in 
visibility (light extinction, visual range, contrast, coloration) from 
that which would have existed under natural conditions.
* * * * *

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M

    4. Section 51.302 is amended by revising the section heading, 
paragraphs (a), (c) introductory text, (c)(1), (c)(2) introductory 
text, (c)(4) introductory text, and (c)(4)(iv) to read as follows:


Sec. 51.302  Implementation control strategies for reasonably 
attributable visibility impairment.

    (a) Plan Revision Procedures. (1) Each State identified in 
Sec. 51.300(b)(2) must have submitted, not later than September 2, 
1981, an implementation plan meeting the requirements of this subpart 
pertaining to reasonably attributable visibility impairment.
    (2)(i) The State, prior to adoption of any implementation plan to 
address reasonably attributable visibility impairment required by this 
subpart, must conduct one or more public hearings on such plan in 
accordance with Sec. 51.102.
    (ii) In addition to the requirements in Sec. 51.102, the State must 
provide written notification of such hearings to each affected Federal 
Land Manager, and other affected States, and must state where the 
public can inspect a summary prepared by the Federal Land Managers of 
their conclusions and recommendations, if any, on the proposed plan 
revision.
    (3) Submission of plans as required by this subpart must be 
conducted in accordance with the procedures in Sec. 51.103.
* * * * *
    (c) General plan requirements for reasonably attributable 
visibility impairment. (1) The affected Federal Land Manager may 
certify to the State, at any time, that there exists reasonably 
attributable impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal 
area.
    (2) The plan must contain the following to address reasonably 
attributable impairment:
* * * * *
    (4) For any existing reasonably attributable visibility impairment 
the Federal Land Manager certifies to the State under paragraph (c)(1) 
of this section, at least 6 months prior to plan submission or 
revision:
* * * * *
    (iv) The plan must require that each existing stationary facility 
required to install and operate BART do so as expeditiously as 
practicable but in no case later than five years after plan approval.
* * * * *
    5. Section 51.305 is amended by revising the section heading and 
paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec. 51.305  Monitoring for reasonably attributable visibility 
impairment.

    (a) For the purposes of addressing reasonably attributable 
visibility impairment, each State containing a mandatory Class I 
Federal area must include in the plan a strategy for evaluating 
reasonably attributable visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I 
Federal area by visual observation or other appropriate monitoring 
techniques. Such strategy must take into account current and 
anticipated visibility monitoring research, the availability of 
appropriate monitoring techniques, and such guidance as is provided by 
the Agency.
* * * * *
    6. Section 51.306 is amended by revising the section heading, 
paragraph (a)(1), paragraph (c) introductory text, and paragraph (d) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 51.306  Long-term strategy requirements for reasonably 
attributable visibility impairment.

    (a)(1) For the purposes of addressing reasonably attributable 
visibility impairment, each plan must include a long-term (10-15 years) 
strategy for making reasonable progress toward the national goal 
specified in Sec. 51.300(a). This strategy must cover any existing 
impairment the Federal Land Manager certifies to the State at least 6 
months prior to plan submission, and any integral vista of which the 
Federal Land Manager notifies the State at least 6 months prior to plan 
submission.
* * * * *
    (c) The plan must provide for periodic review and revision, as 
appropriate, of the long-term strategy for addressing reasonably 
attributable visibility impairment. The plan must provide for such 
periodic review and revision not less frequently than every 3 years 
until the date of submission of the State's first plan addressing 
regional haze visibility impairment in accordance with Sec. 51.308(b) 
and (c). On or before this date, the State must revise its plan to 
provide for review and revision of a coordinated long-term strategy for 
addressing reasonably attributable and

[[Page 35765]]

regional haze visibility impairment, and the State must submit the 
first such coordinated long-term strategy. Future coordinated long-term 
strategies must be submitted consistent with the schedule for periodic 
progress reports set forth in Sec. 51.308(g). Until the State revises 
its plan to meet this requirement, the State must continue to comply 
with existing requirements for plan review and revision, and with all 
emission management requirements in the plan to address reasonably 
attributable impairment. This requirement does not affect any 
preexisting deadlines for State submittal of a long-term strategy 
review (or element thereof) between August 30, 1999, and the date 
required for submission of the State's first regional haze plan. In 
addition, the plan must provide for review of the long-term strategy as 
it applies to reasonably attributable impairment, and revision as 
appropriate, within 3 years of State receipt of any certification of 
reasonably attributable impairment from a Federal Land Manager. The 
review process must include consultation with the appropriate Federal 
Land Managers, and the State must provide a report to the public and 
the Administrator on progress toward the national goal. This report 
must include an assessment of:
* * * * *
    (d) The long-term strategy must provide for review of the impacts 
from any new major stationary source or major modifications on 
visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area. This review of major 
stationary sources or major modifications must be in accordance with 
Sec. 51.307, Sec. 51.166, Sec. 51.160, and any other binding guidance 
provided by the Agency insofar as these provisions pertain to 
protection of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal areas.
* * * * *
    7. Section 51.307 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory 
text, (a)(2) and (c) to read as follows:


Sec. 51.307  New source review.

    (a) For purposes of new source review of any new major stationary 
source or major modification that would be constructed in an area that 
is designated attainment or unclassified under section 107(d)(1)(D) or 
(E) of the CAA, the State plan must, in any review under Sec. 51.166 
with respect to visibility protection and analyses, provide for:
* * * * *
    (2) Where the State requires or receives advance notification (e.g. 
early consultation with the source prior to submission of the 
application or notification of intent to monitor under Sec. 51.166) of 
a permit application of a source that may affect visibility the State 
must notify all affected Federal Land Managers within 30 days of such 
advance notification, and
* * * * *
    (c) Review of any major stationary source or major modification 
under paragraph (b) of this section, shall be conducted in accordance 
with paragraph (a) of this section, and Sec. 51.166(o), (p)(1) through 
(2), and (q). In conducting such reviews the State must ensure that the 
source's emissions will be consistent with making reasonable progress 
toward the national visibility goal referred to in Sec. 51.300(a). The 
State may take into account the costs of compliance, the time necessary 
for compliance, the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of 
compliance, and the useful life of the source.
* * * * *
    8. A new Sec. 51.308 is added to subpart P to read as follows:


Sec. 51.308  Regional haze program requirements.

    (a) What is the purpose of this section? This section establishes 
requirements for implementation plans, plan revisions, and periodic 
progress reviews to address regional haze.
    (b) When are the first implementation plans due under the regional 
haze program? Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section and 
Sec. 51.309(c), each State identified in Sec. 51.300(b)(3) must submit 
an implementation plan for regional haze meeting the requirements of 
paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section by the following dates:
    (1) For any area designated as attainment or unclassifiable for the 
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for fine particulate 
matter (PM2.5), the State must submit a regional haze 
implementation plan to EPA within 12 months after the date of 
designation.
    (2) For any area designated as nonattainment for the 
PM2.5 NAAQS, the State must submit a regional haze 
implementation plan to EPA at the same time that the State's plan for 
implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS must be submitted under 
section 172 of the CAA, that is, within 3 years after the area is 
designated as nonattainment, but not later than December 31, 2008.
    (c) Options for regional planning. If at the time the SIP for 
regional haze would otherwise be due, a State is working with other 
States to develop a coordinated approach to regional haze by 
participating in a regional planning process, the State may choose to 
defer addressing the core requirements for regional haze in paragraph 
(d) of this section and the requirements for BART in paragraph (e) of 
this section. If a State opts to do this, it must meet the following 
requirements:
    (1) The State must submit an implementation plan by the earliest 
date by which an implementation plan would be due for any area of the 
State under paragraph (b) of this section. This implementation plan 
must contain the following:
    (i) A demonstration of ongoing participation in a regional planning 
process to address regional haze, and an agreement by the State to 
continue participating with one or more other States in such a process 
for the development of this and future implementation plan revisions;
    (ii) A showing, based on available inventory, monitoring, or 
modeling information, that emissions from within the State contribute 
to visibility impairment in a mandatory Class I Federal Area outside 
the State, or that emissions from another State contribute to 
visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I Federal area within the 
State.
    (iii) A description of the regional planning process, including a 
list of the States which have agreed to work together to address 
regional haze in a region (i.e., the regional planning group), the 
goals, objectives, management, and decisionmaking structure of the 
regional planning group, deadlines for completing significant technical 
analyses and developing emission management strategies, and a schedule 
for State review and adoption of regulations implementing the 
recommendations of the regional group;
    (iv) A commitment by the State to submit an implementation plan 
revision addressing the requirements in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this 
section by the date specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section. In 
addition, the State must commit to develop its plan revision in 
coordination with the other States participating in the regional 
planning process, and to fully address the recommendations of the 
regional planning group.
    (v) A list of all BART-eligible sources within the State.
    (2) The State must submit an implementation plan revision 
addressing the requirements in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section 
by the latest date an area within the planning region would be required 
to submit an implementation plan under paragraph (b) of this section, 
but in any event, no later than December 31, 2008.

[[Page 35766]]

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

[[Page 35767]]

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

[[Page 35768]]

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

[[Page 35769]]

emissions from within the State. The first progress report is due 5 
years from submittal of the initial implementation plan addressing 
paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section. The progress reports must be in 
the form of implementation plan revisions that comply with the 
procedural requirements of Sec. 51.102 and Sec. 51.103. Periodic 
progress reports must contain at a minimum the following elements:
    (1) A description of the status of implementation of all measures 
included in the implementation plan for achieving reasonable progress 
goals for mandatory Class I Federal areas both within and outside the 
State.
    (2) A summary of the emissions reductions achieved throughout the 
State through implementation of the measures described in paragraph 
(g)(1) of this section.
    (3) For each mandatory Class I Federal area within the State, the 
State must assess the following visibility conditions and changes, with 
values for most impaired and least impaired days expressed in terms of 
5-year averages of these annual values.
    (i) The current visibility conditions for the most impaired and 
least impaired days;
    (ii) The difference between current visibility conditions for the 
most impaired and least impaired days and baseline visibility 
conditions;
    (iii) The change in visibility impairment for the most impaired and 
least impaired days over the past 5 years;
    (4) An analysis tracking the change over the past 5 years in 
emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from all 
sources and activities within the State. Emissions changes should be 
identified by type of source or activity. The analysis must be based on 
the most recent updated emissions inventory, with estimates projected 
forward as necessary and appropriate, to account for emissions changes 
during the applicable 5-year period.
    (5) An assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic 
emissions within or outside the State that have occurred over the past 
5 years that have limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant 
emissions and improving visibility.
    (6) An assessment of whether the current implementation plan 
elements and strategies are sufficient to enable the State, or other 
States with mandatory Federal Class I areas affected by emissions from 
the State, to meet all established reasonable progress goals.
    (7) A review of the State's visibility monitoring strategy and any 
modifications to the strategy as necessary.
    (h) Determination of the adequacy of existing implementation plan. 
At the same time the State is required to submit any 5-year progress 
report to EPA in accordance with paragraph (g) of this section, the 
State must also take one of the following actions based upon the 
information presented in the progress report:
    (1) If the State determines that the existing implementation plan 
requires no further substantive revision at this time in order to 
achieve established goals for visibility improvement and emissions 
reductions, the State must provide to the Administrator a negative 
declaration that further revision of the existing implementation plan 
is not needed at this time.
    (2) If the State determines that the implementation plan is or may 
be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from 
sources in another State(s) which participated in a regional planning 
process, the State must provide notification to the Administrator and 
to the other State(s) which participated in the regional planning 
process with the States. The State must also collaborate with the other 
State(s) through the regional planning process for the purpose of 
developing additional strategies to address the plan's deficiencies.
    (3) Where the State determines that the implementation plan is or 
may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from 
sources in another country, the State shall provide notification, along 
with available information, to the Administrator.
    (4) Where the State determines that the implementation plan is or 
may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from 
sources within the State, the State shall revise its implementation 
plan to address the plan's deficiencies within one year.
    (i) What are the requirements for State and Federal Land Manager 
coordination?
    (1) By November 29, 1999, the State must identify in writing to the 
Federal Land Managers the title of the official to which the Federal 
Land Manager of any mandatory Class I Federal area can submit any 
recommendations on the implementation of this subpart including, but 
not limited to:
    (i) Identification of impairment of visibility in any mandatory 
Class I Federal area(s); and
    (ii) Identification of elements for inclusion in the visibility 
monitoring strategy required by Sec. 51.305 and this section.
    (2) The State must provide the Federal Land Manager with an 
opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior to 
holding any public hearing on an implementation plan (or plan revision) 
for regional haze required by this subpart. This consultation must 
include the opportunity for the affected Federal Land Managers to 
discuss their:
    (i) Assessment of impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I 
Federal area; and
    (ii) Recommendations on the development of the reasonable progress 
goal and on the development and implementation of strategies to address 
visibility impairment.
    (3) In developing any implementation plan (or plan revision), the 
State must include a description of how it addressed any comments 
provided by the Federal Land Managers.
    (4) The plan (or plan revision) must provide procedures for 
continuing consultation between the State and Federal Land Manager on 
the implementation of the visibility protection program required by 
this subpart, including development and review of implementation plan 
revisions and 5-year progress reports, and on the implementation of 
other programs having the potential to contribute to impairment of 
visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas.
    9. A new Sec. 51.309 is added to subpart P to read as follows:


Sec. 51.309  Requirements related to the Grand Canyon Visibility 
Transport Commission.

    (a) What is the purpose of this section? This section establishes 
the requirements for the first regional haze implementation plan to 
address regional haze visibility impairment in the 16 Class I areas 
covered by the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission Report. For 
the years 2003 to 2018, certain States (defined in paragraph (b) of 
this section as Transport Region States) may choose to implement the 
Commission's recommendations within the framework of the national 
regional haze program and applicable requirements of the Act by 
complying with the provisions of this section, as supplemented by an 
approvable Annex to the Commission Report as required by paragraph (f) 
of this section. If a transport region State submits an implementation 
plan which is approved by EPA as meeting the requirements of this 
section, it will be deemed to comply with the requirements for 
reasonable progress for the period from approval of the plan to 2018.

[[Page 35770]]

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

[[Page 35771]]

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

[[Page 35772]]

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

[[Page 35773]]

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

[[Page 35774]]



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

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