Regional Haze Regulations
Federal RegisterJul 31, 1997
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 51
[Docket No A-95-38; FRL-5862-7]
RIN 2060-AF34
Regional Haze Regulations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On July 18, 1997 EPA published revisions to the national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone and particulate matter
(PM). In the final action revising the PM NAAQS, EPA recognized that
visibility impairment is an important effect of PM on public welfare
and concluded that the most appropriate approach for addressing
visibility impairment is to establish secondary standards for PM
identical to the suite of primary standards in conjunction with a
revised visibility protection program to address regional haze in
mandatory Class I Federal areas (certain large national parks and
wilderness areas). Section 169A of the Clean Air Act (Act) sets forth a
national goal for visibility which is the ``prevention of any future,
and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in
mandatory class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade
air pollution.'' This section calls for regulations to assure
reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal.
Today's proposal sets forth a program to address regional haze
visibility impairment in the nation's most treasured national parks and
wilderness areas. Because much of the pollution affecting haze in these
generally rural areas is transported long distances, measures to
protect these areas should also reduce air pollution and improve
visibility outside of these areas as well.
DATES: Written comments on this proposal must be received by October
20, 1997. The EPA will hold a public hearing on the proposed rules on
September 18, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments should be submitted (in duplicate if
possible) to the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, 401 M
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket Number A-95-38.
Comments and data may also be submitted electronically by following the
instructions under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION of this document. No
Confidential Business Information (CBI) should be submitted through e-
mail.
Public hearing. The regional haze rule is subject to the
requirements of section 307(d)(5) of the Act that the Agency provide
opportunity for public hearing. The EPA will hold a public hearing on
the proposed rules at the Adam's Mark Hotel, 1550 Court Place, Denver,
Colorado beginning at 10:00 AM on the date noted above. The EPA will
hold the public comment period open for 30 days after completion of the
public hearing to provide an opportunity for submission of rebuttal and
supplemental information. Persons wishing to speak at the public
hearing should contact Barbara Miles at (919) 541-5531.
Docket. The public docket for this action is available for public
inspection and copying between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102),
Attention Docket A-95-38, South Conference Center, Room 4, 401 M
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. A reasonable fee for copying may be
charged. The regional haze regulations are subject to the rulemaking
procedures under section 307(d) of the Act. The documents relied on to
develop the proposed regional haze regulations have been placed in the
docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general questions regarding this
action, contact Bruce Polkowsky, U.S. EPA, MD-15, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-5532.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Availability--The official record for this rulemaking,
as well as the public version, has been established under docket number
A-95-38 (including comments and data submitted electronically as
described below). A public version of this record, including printed,
paper versions of electronic comments, which does not include any
information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection from 8 a.m. to
4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The official
rulemaking record is located at the address in ADDRESSES at the
beginning of this document. Electronic comments can be sent directly to
EPA at: A-and-R-D[email protected]. Electronic comments must be
submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and
any form of encryption. Comments and data will also be accepted on
disks in WordPerfect in 5.1 file format or ASCII file format. All
comments and data in electronic form must be identified by the docket
number A-95-38. Electronic comments on this proposal may be filed
online at many Federal Depository Libraries. In addition, the following
communications and outreach mechanisms have been established regarding
implementation of the ozone and PM NAAQS and regional haze programs:
Overview information--World Wide Web (WWW) sites have been
developed for overview information on visibility issues, the NAAQS, and
discussions of implementation issues by the Clean Air Act Advisory
Committee, Subcommittee on Ozone, Particulate Matter, and Regional Haze
Implementation Programs. These web sites can be accessed from Uniform
Resource Locator (URL): http://www.epa.gov/airlinks/.
Detailed and technical information--Information related to
implementation issues under discussion by the above Subcommittee,
established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), is
available on the Ozone, Particulate Matter, and Regional Haze (O3/PM/
RH) Bulletin Board on the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS) Technology Transfer Network (TTN), which is a collection of
electronic bulletin board systems operated by OAQPS containing
information about a wide variety of air pollution topics. The O3/PM/RH
Bulletin Board contains separate areas for each of the five work groups
of the FACA Subcommittee, with information on issue papers currently
under discussion, materials for upcoming meetings, summaries of past
meetings, general information about the process, lists of Subcommittee
and work group members, and so on. The TTN can be accessed by any of
the following three methods:
--By modem; the dial-in number is (919) 541-5742. Communications
software should be set with the following parameters: 8 Data Bits, No
Parity, 1 Stop Bit (8-N-1) 14,400 bps (or less).
--Full Duplex.
--ANSI or VT-100 Terminal Emulation.
The TTN is also available on the WWW site at the following URL: http://
ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov. The TTN can also be accessed on the Internet
using File Transfer Protocol (FTP); the FTP address is
ttnftp.rtpnc.epa.gov. The TTN Helpline is (919) 541-5384.
Table of Contents
I. Regional Haze Program
A. Introduction
B. Background
C. Key Organizations Addressing Regional Haze Issues
1. National Academy of Sciences
2. Clean Air Act Advisory Committee and Its Subcommittee on
Ozone, Particulate Matter, and Regional Haze Implementation Programs
[[Page 41139]]
3. Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC)
a. Reasonable Progress
b. Clean Air Corridors
c. Stationary Sources
d. Mobile Sources
e. Prescribed Fire
f. Air Pollution Prevention, Future Regional Coordinating
Entity, and Areas in Need of Additional Research
g. Conclusions
D. Overview of Proposed Revisions to Visibility Regulations
E. Applicability
F. Definitions
1. Deciview
2. Reasonable Progress Target
a. Protection for Most Impaired and Least Impaired Days
b. Determining Baseline Conditions
c. Protecting Vistas Seen From Within Class I Areas
d. Calculating Changes in Deciviews
G. Implementation Plan Revisions
1. SIPs Due 12 Months After Promulgation
2. Plan Revisions to Address Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART)
3. Plan Revisions for Section 110(a)(2) Requirements
H. Visibility Monitoring
I. Long-term Strategy
II. Regulatory Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Impact on Reporting Requirements
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Environmental Justice
I. Regional Haze Program
A. Introduction
The visibility protection program under sections 110(a)(2)(J),
169A, and 169B of the Act is designed to protect mandatory Federal
Class I areas 1 from impairment due to manmade air
pollution. Congress adopted the visibility provisions in the Clean Air
Act to protect visibility in these ``areas of great scenic
importance.'' 2 The current regulatory program addresses
visibility impairment in these areas that is ``reasonably
attributable'' 3 to a specific source or small group of
sources. In adopting section 169A, the core visibility provisions
adopted in the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments, Congress also expressed
its concern with ``hazes'' and the potential corresponding need to
control a ``variety of sources'' and ``regionally distributed
sources.'' 4 The purpose of today's proposal to revise the
existing visibility regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-51.307 is to integrate
certain fundamental provisions addressing regional haze impairment. The
resulting regulation will reflect a comprehensive visibility protection
program for mandatory Class I Federal areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas are
those national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 areas, and all international
parks which were in existence on August 7, 1977. Visibility has been
identified as an important value in 156 of these areas. See 40 CFR
Part 81, Subpart D. The extent of a mandatory Class I Federal area
includes subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions.
CAA section 162(a).
\2\ H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. at 205 (1977).
\3\ ``Reasonably attributable'' visibility impairment, as
defined in 40 CFR 51.301(s), means ``attributable by visual
observation or any other technique the State deems appropriate.'' It
includes impacts to mandatory Federal Class I areas caused by plumes
or layered hazes from a single source or small group of sources.
\4\ H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at 204 (1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional haze is produced by a multitude of sources located across
a broad geographic area emitting fine particles and their precursors.
Twenty years ago, when initially adopting the visibility protection
provisions of the Act, Congress specifically recognized that the
``visibility problem is caused primarily by emission into the
atmosphere of sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, and particulate
matter, especially fine particulate matter, from inadequate[ly]
controlled sources.'' 5 The fine particulate matter
(PM)(e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic and elemental carbon, and soil
dust) that impair visibility by scattering and absorbing light are
among the same particles related to serious health effects and
mortality in humans, as well as to environmental effects such as acid
deposition. The role of regional transport of fine particles in
contributing to elevated PM levels and regional haze impairment has
been well documented by many researchers 6 and recognized as
a significant issue by many policy makers.7 Data from the
existing visibility monitoring network show that visibility impairment
caused by air pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national
park and wilderness area monitoring stations. Average visual range in
most of the Western U.S. is 100-150 kilometers (km), or about one-half
to two-thirds of the visual range that would exist without manmade air
pollution. In most of the East, the average visual range is less than
30 kilometers, or about one-fifth of the visual range that would exist
under natural conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at 204 (1977).
\6\ See Table 24-6, Long-Term Visibility and Aerosol Data Bases,
in ``Acidic Deposition, State of Science and Technology, Volume III,
Terrestrial, Materials, and Health and Visibility Effects, Report
24, Visibility Existing and Historical Conditions, Causes and
Effects. p. 24-51, 1991, and Chapter 8, ``Effects on Visibility and
Climate'' in ``Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter'', U.S.
EPA, EPA 600/P-95/001bF, April 1996.
\7\ See Clean Air Act Advisory Committee, Subcommittee on Ozone,
Particulate Matter, and Regional Haze Implementation Programs,
Initial Report on Subcommittee Discussions, April 1997. See also
Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission, Recommendations for
Improving Western Vistas, June 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Background
Section 169A of the Act, established in the 1977 Amendments, sets
forth a national visibility goal that calls for ``the prevention of any
future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in
mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade
air pollution.'' The EPA's existing visibility regulations,
8 developed in 1980, address visibility impairment that is
``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small group of
sources. Under these rules, the 35 States and 1 territory (Virgin
Islands) containing mandatory Class I Federal areas are required to:
(1) Revise their SIPs to assure reasonable progress toward the national
visibility goal; (2) determine which existing stationary facilities
should install the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for
controlling pollutants which impair visibility; (3) develop, adopt,
implement, and evaluate long-term strategies for making reasonable
progress toward remedying existing and preventing future impairment in
the mandatory Class I Federal areas; (4) adopt certain measures to
assess potential visibility impacts due to new or modified major
stationary sources, including measures to notify FLMs of proposed new
source permit applications, and to consider visibility analyses
conducted by FLMs in their new source permitting decisions; and (5)
conduct visibility monitoring in mandatory Class I Federal areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See 45 FR 80084 (December 2, 1980) and 40 CFR 51.300-51.307.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1980 rules were designed to be the first phase in EPA's overall
program to protect visibility. The EPA explicitly deferred action
addressing regional haze impairment until some future date ``when
improvement in monitoring techniques provides more data on source-
specific levels of visibility impairment, regional scale models become
refined, and our scientific knowledge about the relationships between
emitted air pollutants and visibility impairment improves.''
9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See 45 FR 80086.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While EPA is addressing visibility protection in phases, the
visibility protection provisions of the Act are broad. The national
visibility goal in section 169A calls for addressing visibility
impairment generally, including regional haze.10 Further,
[[Page 41140]]
Congress added section 169B as part of the 1990 Amendments to the Act
to focus attention on regional haze issues. This section includes
provisions for EPA to conduct visibility research on regional
regulatory tools with the National Park Service and other federal
agencies, to develop an interim findings report on the visibility
research,11 and to provide periodic reports to Congress on
visibility improvements due to implementation of other air pollution
protection programs.12 Section 169B allows the Administrator
to establish visibility transport commissions. Section 169B(f) called
for EPA to establish a visibility transport commission for the region
affecting visibility of the Grand Canyon National Park, the purpose of
which was to assess scientific and technical information pertaining to
adverse impacts on visibility from existing and projected growth in
emissions, and to issue a report to EPA recommending measures to remedy
such impacts. The statute specifically called for the report to address
long-term strategies for addressing regional haze.13 In 1991
EPA established the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission
(GCVTC) and its final report was completed in June 1996.14
Section 169B(e) calls for the Administrator, within 18 months of
receipt of the GCVTC report, to carry out her ``regulatory
responsibilities under section [169A], including criteria for measuring
`reasonable progress' toward the national goal.'' 15 Today's
proposal is the first step toward fulfilling EPA's responsibility,
defined since 1980, to put in place a national regulatory program that
addresses both reasonably attributable and regional haze visibility
impairment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ State of Maine v. Thomas, 874 F. 2d 883, 885 (1st Cir.
1989) (``EPA's mandate to control the vexing problem of regional
haze emanates directly from the Clean Air Act, which `declares as a
national goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any
existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal
areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.''')
(citation omitted).
\11\ See U.S. EPA, ``Interim Findings on the Status of
Visibility Research'', February 1995, (EPA/600/R-95/021); see also
60 FR 8659 notice announcing the report availability and how to
obtain copies (Feb. 15, 1995).
\12\ See U.S. EPA, ``Effects of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments on Visibility in Class I Areas; An EPA Report to
Congress,'' October 1993, (EPA-452/R-93-014)
\13\ CAA Section 169B(e)(1)
\14\ Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC),
``Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas'', Report to the U.S.
EPA, June 10, 1996 (hereafter ``GCVTC Report'').
\15\ CAA Section 169B(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today's proposal also implements the Administrator's decision to
address the general national public welfare concern for visibility
through a combined program of setting a new PM2.5 secondary
national ambient air quality standard equivalent to the primary
standard, promulgated in a recent Federal Register rule published on
July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), and a revised visibility protection
program to address regional haze impairment in mandatory Class I
Federal areas.
The regional haze program is being proposed in a manner that can
facilitate integration to the extent possible with the implementation
programs for new NAAQS for ozone and particulate matter (PM) given the
sources, precursor pollutants, and geographic areas of concern that
these air quality programs have in common. The regional haze program
recognizes the value of multistate coordination for regional haze
program planning and implementation because of the key role of regional
pollutant transport in contributing to haze at mandatory Class I
Federal areas, most of which are in remote locations. At a minimum,
voluntary regional planning activities, such as establishing common
protocols and approaches for emission inventory development, emissions
tracking, progress assessments, and regional model development, can
benefit those States that will need to participate in future
development of emission management strategies for PM standards as well.
EPA plans to address this multistate coordination process in future
guidance. An example of voluntary coordination among States to address
visibility issues is the effort under way by western States and Tribes
to form the Western Regional Air Partnership.
C. Key Organizations Addressing Regional Haze Issues
In developing these proposed revisions, EPA has taken into account
a significant body of knowledge, developed by a wide range of
stakeholders, on regional haze technical and policy issues. Three
important bodies in particular have recently addressed regional haze
issues: the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Haze in National
Parks and Wilderness Areas, the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee
(Subcommittee on Ozone, Particulate Matter, and Regional Haze
Implementation Programs), and the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport
Commission (GCVTC). An overview of these groups follows.
1. National Academy of Sciences
The 1993 report by the National Academy of Sciences, Protecting
Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas, contributed
significantly to the state of the science regarding regional haze
visibility impairment. The National Academy of Sciences formed a
Committee on Haze in National Parks and Wilderness Areas in 1990 to
address a number of regional haze-related issues, including methods for
determining anthropogenic source contributions to haze and methods for
considering alternative source control measures. The Committee issued
several important conclusions in the report, including: (1) Current
scientific knowledge is adequate and control technologies are available
for taking regulatory action to address regional haze; (2) progress
toward the national goal will require regional programs that operate
over large geographic areas and limit emissions of pollutants that can
cause regional haze; (3) a program to address regional haze visibility
impairment that focuses solely on determining the contributions of
individual emission sources to such visibility impairment is likely to
fail, and strategies instead should be adopted to consider the effect
of many sources simultaneously on a regional basis; (4) visibility
impairment can be attributed to emission sources on a regional scale
through the use of several kinds of models; (5) visibility and control
policies might need to be different in the West than the East; (6)
efforts to improve visibility within Class I areas will benefit
visibility outside these areas, and could help alleviate other types of
air quality problems as well; (7) achieving the national visibility
goal will require a substantial, long-term program; and (8) continued
progress toward this goal will require a greater commitment toward
atmospheric research, monitoring, and emissions control research and
development. The EPA has taken these conclusions and recommendations
into account in developing today's action
2. Clean Air Act Advisory Committee and Its Subcommittee on Ozone,
Particulate Matter, and Regional Haze Implementation Programs
The Subcommittee on Ozone, PM and Regional Haze Implementation
Programs, established in September 1995, has also provided important
input on regional haze and NAAQS implementation issues. The
Subcommittee discussed a range of policy and technical issues related
to implementation programs for attaining new and revised NAAQS and
reducing regional haze in Class I areas. The Subcommittee includes
representatives of several important stakeholder groups, including
State, Tribal, and local governments, industry and small
[[Page 41141]]
business, environmental groups, academia, and others. Between September
1995 and July 1997, the Subcommittee has held 10 meetings in various
locations across the U.S. Work groups reporting to the Subcommittee
have developed (and continue to develop) recommendations on a number of
air quality management issues. One paper specifically addressed
regional haze issues. Several other issue papers have been developed on
planning and implementation issues related to all three programs. The
Subcommittee has issued a report to the full Committee summarizing the
Subcommittee's discussions through November 1996. 16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Clean Air Act Advisory Committee, Subcommittee on Ozone,
Particulate Matter, and Regional Haze Implementation Programs,
Initial Report on Subcommittee Discussions, April 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In discussing the various issue papers to date, the Subcommittee
has provided important input to EPA on potential implementation options
and approaches for the three air quality programs under consideration.
The Subcommittee has recognized the significant role of transport of
pollutants contributing to ozone, PM, and regional haze throughout the
country. The Subcommittee has also recognized that in order to properly
address air quality problems resulting from transported emissions, it
is important to identify the broader geographic area contributing
emissions to a particular area of concern (such as an area violating
the NAAQS, or a mandatory Federal Class I area identified for
visibility protection). For air quality problems that do not result
predominantly from local emissions sources, the Subcommittee has
generally supported the concept of initiating, as appropriate,
multistate planning processes for conducting technical assessments
(emission inventories, modeling, source attribution) and developing
regional emission reduction strategy alternatives. A framework for
regional planning efforts is addressed in the Subcommittee's
``Institutional Mechanisms'' paper, which is still under development to
date. The procedures and functions of regional planning efforts such as
the Ozone Transport Assessment Group and the Grand Canyon Visibility
Transport Commission can serve as models for future voluntary regional
planning efforts. The Subcommittee has also recognized the need for
expanded monitoring networks, particularly chemical analysis of
PM2.5 for implementation of both PM NAAQS and regional haze
programs. The Subcommittee has discussed key program elements related
to regional haze, including the definition of ``reasonable progress,''
criteria for measuring progress, and control strategies for achieving
such progress. The discussions covered issues related to how regional
institutions should be involved in determining reasonable progress
objectives and the need for a regional haze program to include a
federal ``backstop'' for such objectives, as well as specific
timeframes for setting objectives and periodically assessing progress.
3. Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC)
As noted, the GCVTC issued a report in June 1996 containing
recommendations for visibility protection. Today's rulemaking addresses
the Commission's recommendations to EPA.
The EPA established the GCVTC on November 13, 1991 (56 FR 57522,
Nov. 12, 1991). Based on EPA's ``broad discretionary authority under
section 169B(c) * * * to establish visibility transport regions and
commissions,'' it expanded the scope of the GCVTC,
to include additional Class I areas in the vicinity of the Grand
Canyon National Park--what is sometimes referred to as the ``Golden
Circle'' of parks and wilderness areas. This includes most of the
national parks and national wilderness areas of the Colorado
Plateau.\17\
\17\ See 56 FR 57523.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The GCVTC was charged with assessing information about visibility
impacts in the region and making policy recommendations to EPA to
address such impacts. The Act called for the Commission to assess
studies conducted under section 169B as well as other available
information ``pertaining to adverse impacts on visibility from
potential or projected growth in emissions for sources located in the *
* * Region,'' and to issue a report to EPA recommending what measures,
if any, should be taken to protect visibility.\18\ The Act specifically
provided for the Commission's report to address the following measures:
(1) The establishment of clean air corridors,\19\ in which additional
restrictions on increases in emissions may be appropriate to protect
visibility in affected Class I areas; (2) the imposition of additional
new source review requirements in clean air corridors; and (3) the
promulgation of regulations addressing regional haze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See CAA Section 169B(d).
\19\ A clean air corridor is defined as a region that generally
brings clear air to a receptor region, such as the Class I areas of
the Golden Circle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In June 1996, the GCVTC issued its recommendations to EPA. The Act
calls for EPA, taking into account the recommendations and other
relevant information, to ``carry out [its] regulatory responsibilities
under section [169A], including criteria for measuring `reasonable
progress' toward the national goal'' within eighteen months of
receiving the recommendations.\20\ Regulations issued under section
169A must provide guidelines to the States on appropriate techniques
and methods for characterizing, modeling and controlling visibility
impairment, and must require applicable SIPs to contain such emission
limits, schedules of compliance and other measures as may be necessary
to make reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal.\21\ The
EPA regulations issued after considering the Commission report must
require affected States to revise their SIPs within 12 months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See section 169B(e)(2).
\21\ See section 169A(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The GCVTC recommendations covered a wide range of control strategy
approaches, planning and tracking activities, and technical findings
which address protection of visibility in the Class I areas of the
Golden Circle. The primary recommendations of the GCVTC include: (1)
Air pollution prevention and reduction of per capita pollution is a
high priority; (2) Emissions growth should be tracked for its effect on
clean air corridors; (3) Stationary source emissions should be closely
monitored and regional targets should be established for sulfur dioxide
emissions in 2000, with triggers for regulatory programs if targets are
not met; (4) Focus should be given to emissions reductions in and near
class I areas; (5) Mobile source emissions should be capped and
national measures aimed at further reducing tailpipe emissions are
supported; (6) Further assessment of the contribution of road dust to
visibility impairment and its potential future impacts should be given
high priority; (7) Further study is needed on emissions from Mexico;
(8) Fire emissions are recognized as significantly impacting
visibility, and programs should be implemented to minimize effects on
visibility; and (9) A future regional coordinating entity is needed to
follow through on the Commission's recommendations. The Commission also
adopted an approach to ``reasonable progress'' that, consistent with
the national visibility goal, is based on remedying existing impairment
and preventing future impairment.
The EPA has taken the Commission's recommendations, as well as the
body of technical information developed by Commission, into account in
developing
[[Page 41142]]
the regional haze rules set forth in this proposal. The Commission's
recommendations have components that contemplate implementation through
a combination of actions by EPA, other Federal agencies, States and
Tribes in the region, and voluntary measures on the part of public and
private entities throughout the region. The Commission's
recommendations also distinguish between recommended actions and policy
or strategy options for consideration. The EPA has considered these
factors in addressing the recommendations, discussed below.
a. Reasonable Progress. The EPA's proposed approach to ``reasonable
progress'' is consistent with the Commission's approach. The
Commission's report provides that ``[t]he overall goal of the
Commission's recommendations is to improve visibility on the worst days
and to preserve existing visibility on the best days, at Class I areas
on the Colorado Plateau.'' Thus, the Commission highlights the
importance of not only remedying existing impairment but preserving and
protecting good visibility. The Commission's report further provides
that ``[r]easonable progress towards the national visibility goal is
achieving continuous emission reductions necessary to reduce existing
impairment and attain steady improvement of visibility in mandatory
Class I areas and managing emissions growth so as to prevent
perceptible degradation of clean air days.'' 22
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ GCVTC Report, p. 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA's proposed criteria for measuring reasonable progress, the
proposed reasonable progress target, has been informed by the
Commission's report in several respects. EPA proposes both to improve
visibility on the most impaired days and to prevent visibility
degradation on the least impaired days.23 Similar to the
Commission's provision for ``steady improvement of visibility,'' EPA
proposes a quantitative visibility target and proposes to require that
progress toward the target be demonstrated and evaluated on an on-going
periodic basis. Finally, EPA proposes to provide that State plans
consider emissions reductions in evaluating whether the quantitative
reasonable progress target has been achieved.24
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See proposed definition of ``reasonable progress target,''
40 CFR 51.301(z).
\24\ See proposed 40 CFR 51.306(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Clean Air Corridors. The Commission concluded that a clean air
corridor does exist for the Golden Circle region and that clean air
corridors are key sources of clear air at Class I areas. At the same
time, the GCVTC found that future growth in this area is not expected
to perceptibly impact visibility in the Class I areas modeled, and that
additional new source review requirements would not be needed in this
area.25 The GCVTC recommended careful tracking of emissions
growth in these areas but did not recommend additional control measures
beyond those required under current laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ GCVTC Report, p. 87.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA generally agrees that no special requirements need to be
proposed for clean air corridors. Nevertheless, these corridors contain
a significant number of mandatory Federal Class I areas, and the
regional emissions control strategies necessary to ensure reasonable
progress toward the national visibility goal will need to address
sources of pollution in these areas.
c. Stationary Sources. The Commission found that continuing
implementation of existing Clean Air Act requirements such as efforts
to address visibility impairment under the current rules would, in the
short-term, result in significant sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions
reductions in the region and corresponding improvements in
visibility.26 The Report specifically encourages States and
Tribes to review the visibility impacts at Class I areas on the
Colorado Plateau from uncontrolled pollution sources and to make
expeditious determinations regarding the need for additional control.
The Commission also provides for the establishment and tracking of
progress toward an initial stationary source SO2 emissions target to be
achieved by the year 2000. A long-term target for the year 2040 and
provisions for interim targets were also recommended. Progress in
complying with emission targets would be assessed periodically.
Exceeding the targets would trigger a regulatory emissions reduction
program (such as an emission cap and incentive-based market trading
program).27 The report indicates that State and Tribal
participants will evaluate development of a regional emissions cap and
trading regulatory program to achieve the emissions reductions.
Finally, the report provides that the participants in the Commission
process intend to design the emissions reduction strategy for EPA's
consideration before it takes final regulatory action on the
Commission's recommendations in order to create economic incentives for
early reductions, and to provide flexibility and certainty to sources
in planning future actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ GCVTC Report, p. ii and 32-37.
\27\ GCVTC Report, p. 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA fully agrees with the importance of addressing existing
visibility impairment in the Golden Circle parks and wilderness areas
that is attributable to single or small groups of stationary sources.
The EPA has retained its existing visibility protection program, and
intends for States to continue making progress in addressing visibility
impairment from such sources. The EPA is committed to working with
States, Tribes, and Federal Land Managers to address such impairment.
Likewise, EPA is fully supportive of long-term efforts by the
States in the region addressing regional haze in the Golden Circle to
address visibility-impairing emissions from stationary sources. Indeed,
a centerpiece of today's proposal is a long-term strategy, to be
adopted by affected States throughout the country. The proposed long-
term strategy requirements are intended to provide a flexible air
quality planning framework to facilitate the interstate coordination
necessary to reduce regional haze visibility impairment in mandatory
Class I Federal areas nationwide.
The long-term strategy proposed herein would be due one year after
issuance of this proposal as a final rule, estimated to be due in 1999.
Implementation would occur in phases, with initial planning for
additional monitoring, emissions tracking and modeling to begin in
1999, and identification of stationary sources and potential emissions
reductions to occur by 2001. Emissions control strategies would be due
in 2003, or 2005 for States preparing PM2.5 nonattainment
control strategy SIP revisions, and revised every three years
thereafter. The planning schedule for the long-term strategy has been
developed to facilitate integration with State planning for the PM and
Ozone NAAQS. Similarly, EPA intends to address specific visibility
emissions control strategies in more detail in conjunction with the PM
and Ozone NAAQS control strategies.
In today's proposal, EPA has not included the Commission's specific
stationary source emissions target and related provisions as regulatory
requirements. However, the proposed rule in no way precludes the States
in the GCVTC transport region from expeditiously adopting, on their own
initiative, these control strategy provisions. These States are well-
situated for achieving earlier reductions in light of the technical and
policy groundwork established during the Commission's deliberations,
and the importance of protecting visibility in the
[[Page 41143]]
premiere natural resources that comprise the Golden Circle. The EPA
requests public comment on whether it should instead adopt, or adopt
with modification, these specific recommendations.
d. Mobile Sources. The Commission determined that mobile source
emissions are projected to decrease through about the year 2005 due to
improved control technologies but was concerned that emissions would
increase thereafter. The Commission recommended a number of national,
regional and local strategies related to mobile sources.28
Recognizing the problems with establishing a national mobile source
control program based strictly on the impact of the Golden Circle, the
Commission report ``promotes'' several national initiatives that may
benefit air quality in the transport region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ GCVTC Report, p. ii and 38-45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA agrees with the central policy embodied in the Commission's
recommendations on mobile sources--that there are certain categories of
pollution sources that especially lend themselves to national control
strategies. The EPA administers and is developing programs under Title
II of the Clean Air Act that address emissions from motor vehicles,
highway and non-road heavy-duty engines, marine engines (including
recreational outboard and personal watercraft), small gasoline engines
and locomotives. The EPA will continue to implement these and other
nationally-applicable programs, such as the new source performance
standards and national emission standards for sources of hazardous
pollutants, that provide important air pollution protection in the
Commission Transport region and other areas of the country.
e. Prescribed Fire. The Commission made a number of recommendations
related to minimizing the emissions and visibility impacts of both
prescribed fire used by Federal land management agencies to maintain
ecosystem balances and agricultural/silvicultural prescribed burning
practices.29 The recommendation directed at EPA suggested
that EPA require all Federal, State, Tribal, and private prescribed
fire programs to incorporate smoke effects in planning and application
by the year 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ GCVTC Report, p. ii-iii and 47-50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has long recognized that prescribed fire can have
significant effects on visibility. The EPA's current visibility
protection regulations require States to consider smoke management
techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes in
developing long-term strategies.30 This requirement would
apply to the long-term strategies for addressing regional haze
visibility impairment proposed in this notice. Further, EPA currently
participates in an interagency forum on prescribed fire to support on-
going efforts to address these issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See 40 CFR 51.306(e)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
f. Air Pollution Prevention, Future Regional Coordinating Entity,
and Areas in Need of Additional Research. The Commission recommended a
number of regional, State, and local policies for air pollution
prevention including energy conservation, increased energy efficiency,
promotion of the use of renewable resources for energy production, and
enhanced public education and outreach.31 The EPA strongly
supports pollution prevention initiatives and has taken numerous steps
to promote pollution prevention under the Pollution Prevention Act of
1990, the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, and other
environmental statutes EPA administers. The EPA has carried out
important voluntary pollution prevention programs, such as the Green
Lights program. Under this program, EPA uses education and outreach to
encourage businesses, public schools, and government agencies to reduce
the amount of electricity used while maintaining lighting quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ GCVTC Report, p. i and 28-31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission determined that there is a need for a group like the
Commission to oversee, promote, and support many of its
recommendations, and urged EPA to provide support for such an
organization. States and Tribes in the Commission's transport region
are currently discussing the formation of an organization to succeed
the Commission. At the request of the States and Tribes, EPA has
participated in and supported these efforts.
The Commission's report identified areas warranting further
research and analysis, including the impact from emissions within and
near the Golden Circle Class I areas, the contribution of road dust,
and emissions from Mexico. EPA especially encourages the States and
Tribes to address the informational deficiencies that would inhibit
development of long-term strategies to address regional haze visibility
impairment.
g. Conclusions. The preceding discussion addresses the key
Commission recommendations to EPA. As discussed here and elsewhere in
today's action, the Commission's recommendations have informed EPA's
proposed rules. The EPA seeks public comment on the manner it has
proposed to address the Commission's recommendations in this
rulemaking, and EPA requests alternative suggestions for addressing the
recommendations.
D. Overview of Proposed Revisions to Visibility Regulations
In developing the proposed revisions to the visibility regulations,
EPA has tried to maintain as much of the existing regulatory language
as possible, where such provisions appropriately apply to both
reasonably attributable and regional haze visibility impairment. This
approach is intended to minimize the level of effort needed for States
to adopt new regulations and revise SIPs in order to address regional
haze requirements, particularly for those States that have already
adopted plans to implement the existing visibility program.
Several new elements of the visibility protection program are
proposed in this notice. These elements are outlined below and
discussed in greater detail in subsequent subsections of this notice.
Expanded applicability of the regional haze program to all
States, the District of Columbia, and certain territories.
Establishment of presumptive reasonable progress targets.
Requirements for periodic SIP revisions, including
periodic demonstrations by States on whether reasonable progress
targets are being achieved for each mandatory Class I Federal area.
Analysis of sources contributing to regional haze
impairment, including sources potentially subject to BART.
Expansion of the current monitoring network as necessary
to be representative of all mandatory Class I Federal areas.
Development of strategies to reduce emissions of
visibility impairing pollutants in conjunction with strategies to meet
the new and revised NAAQS for PM2.5 and ozone.
The current program for addressing reasonably attributable
impairment remains in place, including, for example, requirements for
BART and a long-term strategy to address ``reasonably attributable''
visibility impairment, State consultation with FLMs on SIP revisions,
consideration of integral vistas, and visibility monitoring. Further,
the program requires the review of new source impacts on visibility in
mandatory Class I Federal areas to prevent future visibility
impairment. The existing regulations have been in place for nearly
seventeen years and EPA is not
[[Page 41144]]
reopening those regulations for public comment in this rulemaking.
However, EPA seeks public comment on the regulatory changes proposed in
this action related to integrating the new regional haze provisions
with the existing visibility regulations. For example, EPA seeks
comment on its proposed revisions to 40 CFR 51.306(c) to integrate
periodic long-term strategy revisions for regional haze with the
periodic long-term strategy assessments for reasonably attributable
visibility impairment. The EPA is also seeking comment on a revision to
40 CFR 51.306(a)(1) which requires the State to address any
certification of reasonably attributable impairment that occurs 6
months before a long-term strategy is due in the next long-term
strategy revision. This revision clarifies that the State has the same
grace period in considering certifications of impairment as when the
original visibility SIP was developed. Beyond specific revisions
proposed today, comments on the existing regulations are generally
outside of the scope of this proposal.
The EPA is proposing to make technical corrections to cross-
references to other rules within the existing rule language to reflect
changes in the numbering of Part 51. In addition, EPA is proposing to
add ``light extinction'' to the list of indices (visual range,
contrast, and coloration) currently used to define ``visibility
impairment'' in 40 CFR 51.301(x) and referenced throughout the rule.
Light extinction is the underlying physical property of the atmosphere
that determines visual range. EPA is also proposing to coordinate the
Federal Land Manager notification, consultation, and timing
requirements for regional haze plan development and revision with those
of the current program addressing reasonably attributable impairment.
This approach will allow for efficient coordination between the State
and Federal land managers on comprehensive visibility SIP submittals
and revisions.
The proposed revisions establish a new framework for States to
follow in revising their visibility SIPs. The key milestones of the
proposed visibility program are contained in the table below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Activity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 1997......................... Promulgation of revised ozone and PM
NAAQS and proposal of revised
visibility regulations.
February 1998..................... Promulgation of revised visibility
regulations.
March 1998........................ Commence regional planning
activities as necessary.
February 1999..................... States submit new/revised visibility
SIPs, including monitoring plan,
identification of potential BART
sources, and schedule for assessing
BART and associated emission
reductions by February 2001, long-
term strategy provisions (including
procedures for future plan
requirements), revisions as
necessary to address section
110(a)(2) requirements relevant to
regional haze, and provisions /
procedures for State coordination
with FLM.
February 2000..................... New monitoring sites online.
February 2001..................... State assessment of BART sources to
be completed and available for use
in regional modeling and control
strategy development.
July 2003......................... SIPs due for emission reduction
strategies for regional haze. First
demonstration of progress in
relation to reasonable progress
targets due. One year monitoring
reporting begins. (July 2005 for
States preparing PM2.5
nonattainment control strategy
SIPs.)
July 2006 (and every 3 years Visibility SIP revision to
thereafter). demonstrate progress in relation to
reasonable progress targets, and to
adjust emission reduction
strategies as necessary. (July 2008
for States noted above)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following sections focus on proposed new elements of the
visibility protection program.
E. Applicability
Section 51.300(b) of the existing visibility regulations addresses
``reasonably attributable'' impairment from relatively nearby sources
and requires the 36 States containing mandatory Class I Federal areas
to submit SIP revisions to assure reasonable progress toward the
national visibility goal. A proposed 40 CFR 51.300(b)(3) would expand
the applicability of the program to all States (excluding certain
territories) for the purpose of addressing regional haze visibility
impairment. This provision would require the following additional
States to participate in the program: Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa,
Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Mississippi, New York,
Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maryland and
Washington, DC. The territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa,
and the Northern Mariana Islands would not be subject to the program
because of their great distance from any mandatory Class I Federal
area. However, Hawaii, Alaska, and the Virgin Islands would be subject
to the regional haze provisions because of the potential for emissions
from sources within their borders to contribute to regional haze
impairment in mandatory Class I Federal areas also located within these
States. These States would not need to participate in regional planning
activities, but would be expected to implement programs to develop
emission reduction strategies to achieve the reasonable progress
targets established by these revised regulations.
Section 169A(b)(2) requires States containing mandatory Class I
Federal areas or having emissions which ``may reasonably be anticipated
to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any such
area'' to revise their visibility SIPs in order to make reasonable
progress toward the national visibility goal. Many scientific studies
and technical assessments, including the 1990 report from the National
Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, the 1993 NAS report, and the
1996 GCVTC report ``Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas,''
have shown that regional haze is frequently caused by fine particles
that are transported significant distances, even hundreds or thousands
of kilometers 32. Modeling analyses have been conducted for
EPA that use county-to-Class I area transfer coefficients for PM-fine
to identify counties which may reasonably be anticipated to contribute
transported PM-fine to mandatory Class I Federal areas. These studies
by Latimer and Associates 33 and Environ International
Corporation 34 suggest that, to varying degrees, emissions
from each of the
[[Page 41145]]
contiguous 48 States contribute to PM-fine loadings and associated
visibility impairment in at least one mandatory Class I Federal area.
Other analyses using the Regional Acid Deposition Model (RADM) have
estimated that sulfate and nitrate deposition receptors are influenced
by sources located up to 600-800 kilometers away. 35 These
analyses, combined with the geographic distribution of large emission
sources and mandatory Class I Federal areas, provide the basis for the
expanded applicability of the visibility program to all States for the
purposes of protecting against visibility impairment due to regional
haze. In addition, the 1993 NAS report observed that the section 169A
requirement for a State to revise its implementation plan if it ``may
reasonably be anticipated'' to cause or contribute to impairment in any
mandatory Class I Federal area 36 indicates that Congress
intended that ``the philosophy of precautionary action should apply to
visibility protection as it applies to other areas [such as the
NAAQS].''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ National Research Council, Protecting Visibility in
National Parks and Wilderness Areas, 1993.
\33\ Latimer and Associates, Particulate Matter Source-Receptor
Relationships Between All Point and Area Sources in the United
States and PSD Class I Area Receptors, Report prepared for EPA
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, September 1996.
\34\ ENVIRON International Corporation, Development of Revised
Federal Class I Area Groups in Support of Regional Haze Regulations,
Report prepared for EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, September 1996.
\35\ Dennis, Robin L. ``Using the Regional Acid Deposition
Model to Determine the Nitrogen Deposition Airshed of the Chesapeake
Bay Watershed,'' in Atmospheric Deposition to the Great Lakes and
Coastal Waters, edited by Joel Baker, 1996.
\36\ Clean Air Act, section 169A(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, this expanded applicability should not be interpreted by
the States to mean that they will necessarily have to adopt control
strategies for regional haze immediately. Instead, it means that a
State subject to the program first should participate in a regional air
quality planning group to further establish and refine the relative
contributions of various States to regional haze conditions in
mandatory Class I Federal areas. Thus, it will be important for all
States having emissions which may be reasonably anticipated to
contribute to regional haze in mandatory Class I Federal areas to
participate in the planning process employed to develop regional
recommendations on State apportionment of emission reduction and
control measure responsibilities. The States subject to the program
will need to establish or identify existing SIP authorities enabling
the State to take actions to address its contribution to visibility
problems in other States and to carry out other proposed planning
requirements. The EPA seeks public comment on the proposed
applicability of the regional haze visibility protection program.
Regarding applicability for the purpose of addressing reasonably
attributable impairment, the existing regulations continue to apply to
the 36 States and territories in which at least one mandatory Class I
Federal area is located. It should be recognized, the existing
requirement in 40 CFR 51.300(b)(1), along with sections 110(k)(5) and
169A of the Act, provide EPA with general authority to request a SIP
revision from any State (including those not having a mandatory Class I
Federal area) in the event that information exists demonstrating that
emissions from sources in the State are reasonably anticipated to
contribute to ``reasonably attributable'' visibility impairment in a
mandatory Class I Federal area located in another State.
F. Definitions
1. Deciview
The proposed reasonable progress targets are expressed in terms of
the ``deciview'' metric, the definition of which is proposed in section
301(bb). The deciview is an atmospheric haze index that expresses
uniform changes in haziness in terms of common increments across the
entire range of conditions, from pristine to extremely impaired
environments.37 A one deciview change in haziness is a small
but noticeable change in haziness under most circumstances when viewing
scenes in mandatory Class I Federal areas. The deciview is a means of
expressing atmospheric light extinction, just as visual range is an
expression of atmospheric light extinction. All three of these
visibility metrics are mathematically related. Just as in the case of
atmospheric light extinction or visual range, deciview levels can also
be calculated from ambient PM2.5 and PM10 data
using certain assumptions for average light extinction efficiency
attributed to specific components of PM (such as sulfates, nitrates,
elemental carbon, and so on). One can use these same assumptions to
evaluate whether potential emission reduction strategies will lead to
perceptible visibility changes in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See Pitchford, M. and Malm, W. ``Development and
Applications of a Standard Visual Index,'' Atmospheric Environment,
v.28, no. 5, March 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An advantage to using the deciview is that it can be used to
express changes in visibility impairment linearly with human
perception. The scales for light extinction coefficient and visual
range do not express perception linearly. For example, a 5-mile change
in visual range can in some cases be very significant, such as a change
from 5 to 10 miles in an impaired environment, whereas it may be barely
perceptible on a clearer day (such as from 95 to 100 miles). The EPA
recognized the deciview as an appropriate metric for regulatory
purposes in chapter 8 of the Staff Paper for the Particulate Matter
NAAQS review.38 The EPA proposes use of the deciview metric
in the proposed definition of the reasonable progress target, at 40 CFR
301(z) of the proposed regulations, because of the importance that
progress for visibility be measured in terms of ``perceptible'' changes
in visibility, and due to the simplicity of its useful scale. In
contrast, the sole use of a metric such as emission reductions or
ambient particle mass would not directly relate to the visibility
conditions since the composition of the ambient particle mass is key to
its effect on visibility. Additionally, the atmospheric processes and
transport that affect the way in which pollutant loadings translate
into visibility impairment varies by location. The EPA requests comment
on its proposed use of the deciview metric in EPA's visibility
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Criteria
for Particulate Matter. Research Triangle Park, NC: National Center
for Environmental Assessment. Office of Research and Development.
July 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA is also proposing, as noted in the discussion below, to use
the tracking of pollutant emissions to supplement the periodic
evaluation of deciview changes in implementing the regional haze
reasonable progress requirement. When calculating the ability of a SIP
or Tribal plan 39 to demonstrate reasonable progress, the
States or Tribes can consider other emissions reduction requirements
(e.g., emission reductions meeting RFP for the NAAQS) toward meeting
the reasonable progress target. However, given that other air quality
progress measures rely on tracking emissions reductions of key
pollutants, the EPA requests comments regarding appropriate methods for
translating other program metrics into visibility changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ EPA has referenced Tribal plans because section 301(d) of
the Act calls for EPA to issue regulations specifying those
provisions of the Act for which it is appropriate to treat Indian
Tribes in the same manner as States. On August 25, 1994, EPA
published its proposed rules. See 59 FR 43956. EPA has not yet
issued final rules. However, the proposed rules would allow eligible
Tribes that seek to be treated in the same manner as States to
administer visibility implementation plans. See 59 FR 43966 and
43980. If the final rules addressing Tribal authority under the
Clean Air Act are issued and similarly allow eligible Indian Tribes
to administer visibility implementation plans, EPA may make
conforming changes in the final visibility rules proposed here (in
this action) to reflect such potential Tribal plans without
providing additional opportunity for public comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Reasonable Progress Target
a. Protection for Most Impaired and Least Impaired Days. The
proposed
[[Page 41146]]
definition in 40 CFR 51.301(z) for ``reasonable progress target'' sets
forth presumptive quantitative objectives to be met in each mandatory
Class I Federal area nationally. The proposed targets provide for
progress toward the national visibility goal of reducing any existing
and preventing any future impairment by perceptibly improving the days
that are most impaired (i.e., the average of the 20 percent most
impaired days over an entire year) and allowing no degradation in the
``cleanest'' or least impaired days (i.e., the average of the 20
percent least impaired days over an entire year). In deciding upon an
appropriate characterization of the ``most'' and ``least'' impaired
days, EPA considered the typical frequency of visibility monitoring in
the IMPROVE network 40 (twice a week), and the number of
samples that would be available for analysis annually (104 possible
samples per year). The EPA determined that basing these targets on any
fewer than 20 data points annually would allow an average value to be
unduly influenced by a single anomalous data point. EPA's basis is
consistent with the approach used by the GCVTC in its technical
assessment work. The GCVTC also characterized the most and least
impaired days as the average of the best and worst 20% days in a given
year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ The IMPROVE network is described in Unit I.H. of this
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The approach of improving the most impaired days and preventing
degradation of the least impaired days is also supported by the
legislative history of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the
reasonable progress definition used by the GCVTC. The legislative
history provides that, ``At a minimum, progress and improvement must
require that visibility be perceptibly improved compared to periods of
impairment, and that it not be degraded or impaired during conditions
that historically contribute to relatively unimpaired visibility.''
41 The approach taken by the GCVTC, also emphasized
improving the impaired days and protecting the clean days. The GCVTC
interpreted the requirement for reasonable progress to be met by
``achieving continuous emissions reductions necessary to reduce
existing impairment and attain a steady improvement in visibility in
mandatory Class I areas, and managing emissions growth so as to prevent
perceptible degradation of clear air days.'' 42 In
establishing this definition, the GCVTC in effect set forth continuous
emission reductions as a basic strategy for meeting the goals of
improving the most impaired days and maintaining the least impaired
days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ 136 Cong. Rec. S2878 (daily ed. March 21, 1990) (statement
of Sen. Adams).
\42\ GCVTC Report, p. x.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In today's rulemaking, EPA is similarly providing for ``attaining a
steady improvement in visibility'' and ``preventing perceptible
degradation of clean air days'' through its proposed definition of a
reasonable progress target. Under the proposed rules, States meeting
the reasonable progress target requirements would satisfy the
reasonable progress requirements of section 169A for the purpose of
addressing regional haze impairment. The EPA is setting forth proposed
requirements for periodic reasonable progress demonstrations to be
developed for all mandatory Class I Federal areas beginning as early as
July 2003 and every 3 years thereafter.43 These
demonstrations should incorporate control strategies developed by each
State, in conjunction with strategies developed for the NAAQS and other
programs. Recognizing that many factors will determine if a State can
develop and implement control measures to meet a specific increment of
visibility change, EPA is also proposing in 40 CFR 51.306(d)(5) that
States, in consultation with the Federal Land Managers and approval
from EPA, may develop alternate reasonable progress targets. At the
same time, the alternate target must be explained based on relevant
statutory factors and may not allow for visibility
degradation.44 The relevant statutory factors are listed in
section 169A(g)(1) and include the costs of compliance, the time
necessary for compliance, and the energy and nonair quality
environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of
any existing source subject to such requirements. Inclusion of the
alternative reasonable progress provision is intended to recognize that
the qualitative factors listed in the Act may influence what is
considered ``reasonable progress'' in individual mandatory class I
Federal area. In such cases consideration of these factors might lead a
State to adopt an alternative target for a given mandatory Class I
Federal area which might differ from targets of other mandatory Class I
Federal areas within a larger planning region. Further discussion of
the alternate progress target is included in Unit I.I. of this preamble
below. The EPA requests public comment on the presumptive ``reasonable
progress target'' proposed in this action as well as the proposal to
allow alternative targets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See proposed 40 CFR 51.306
\44\ See CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 169A(g)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed ``reasonable progress target'' has two elements: (1)
For the most impaired days, a rate of improvement equivalent to 1.0
deciview over a 10-year or 15-year period; and (2) for the least
impaired days, no increase in deciview as compared to the baseline
conditions.45 The EPA is proposing two options for the rate
of improvement for the most impaired days. One option is 1.0 deciview
improvement every 10 years, the second option is 1.0 deciview every 15
years. The EPA proposes to express the presumptive reasonable progress
targets in terms of deciview changes to reflect perceptible changes for
complex scenes like those found in mandatory Federal Class I areas. The
EPA believes it is important to express progress measures for
visibility in terms of ``perceptible'' changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See proposed 40 CFR 51.301(z).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes the presumptive rate of progress for the most impaired
days equivalent to a 1.0 deciview improvement over 10 to 15 years for
three main reasons. The first reason is that tracking visibility over
longer time periods, allows for better analysis of trends despite
inter-annual changes in weather conditions, transport patterns, and
variances in naturally occurring emissions of fine particles. Secondly,
the 10 to 15 year time periods are consistent with the Clean Air Act
requirement for each SIP to contain a long term strategy for visibility
protection covering the next 10-15 years.46 It logically
follows that the public would expect a visibility strategy covering a
10 to 15-year period to actually result in a perceptible improvement in
visibility over that period. Third, a gradual improvement in visibility
conditions over a 10 to 15 year period is consistent with the GCVTC
definition of reasonable progress, which is ``achieving continuous
emission reductions necessary to reduce existing impairment and attain
steady improvement of visibility in mandatory Class I areas * * *''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ See CAA Section 169A(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In considering the choice between the 10 and 15 year options, EPA
notes the following. Both time periods are within the statutory
provisions for long-term strategies of 10 to 15 years. However, while
the 15-year option allows more time for States to plan and implement
control strategies, a presumptive rate of 1.0 deciview in 15 years
would take 50 percent longer to attain the national goal than a
presumptive rate of 1.0 deciview in 10 years. Congress did not specify
a time frame within which the national
[[Page 41147]]
goal is to be achieved, but given the magnitude of current impairment
in some areas, even with the more expeditious 10-year presumptive
target, it will take a long time to achieve the national visibility
goal in all mandatory Class I Federal areas. At the same time, the
costs of the program may be substantial (see Unit II.A below). The more
conservative 15-year presumptive target would allow these costs to be
spread out over a longer time period. The EPA solicits comment on these
two options for presumptive rate of improvement for the most impaired
days.
With respect to the ``no degradation'' target (0.0 deciview change)
for the least impaired days, EPA believes this target is consistent
with the national goal of preventing future impairment, as well as with
the GCVTC definition of reasonable progress (``* * * managing emissions
growth so as to prevent perceptible degradation of clean air days'').
The EPA solicits comment on these and any other proposed options
for reasonable progress targets for the most impaired and least
impaired days. Commenters should address how alternative proposals
would ensure reasonable progress toward the national visibility
protection goal.
The proposed regulations require States to provide a demonstration
of reasonable progress every 3 years. The EPA intends that a
demonstration of compliance with the presumptive reasonable progress
targets be the principal means of measuring reasonable progress with
respect to regional haze impairment. Measures to achieve this progress
must include measures to address Best Available Retrofit Technology
requirements and other measures necessary to achieve such progress that
are contained in State SIPs and long-term strategies.
b. Determining Baseline Conditions. The demonstration of compliance
with the reasonable progress targets, beginning as early as 2003, will
require States to determine the baseline conditions, for both the
haziest days and the clearest days, 47 for all mandatory
Class I Federal areas in the State. The EPA proposes that for each
Class I area in the State, the State computes a simple annual average
of the haziest and clearest days to establish a record over time. As
noted in the previous section, the haziest and clearest days are to be
represented by the average of the 20% highest and lowest deciview
values measured each calendar year. Baseline values should be
calculated based on a minimum of three years of monitoring data
collected at the Class I area, or at a monitoring location that is
determined to be representative of that Class I area. EPA would allow
up to nine years of monitoring data collected prior to the first
reasonable progress demonstration SIP submittal (due as early as 2003)
to be used to establish baseline haziest and clearest conditions.
Currently, there are 30 Class I sites with 8 consecutive years of
visibility monitoring data (1988-95). A baseline established on more
than three years of data may better account for inter-annual
variability due to meteorology. However, a baseline established on more
than three years of data also may not accurately represent current
conditions if significant emission reductions have occurred during that
time period. The EPA is considering allowing any State that establishes
a baseline using only three years of data to call that baseline an
interim baseline, and to be able to modify that baseline at the time of
future reasonable progress demonstration SIP revisions so that up to
nine years of data are used for establishing a final baseline. It
should be noted that if there are substantial changes to regional
emissions during this time period that affect visibility levels (e.g.
large reduction in emissions from the acid rain program) then the State
should demonstrate why use of that time period is appropriate for
baseline determinations. The EPA solicits comment on this approach for
setting baselines from which to track reasonable progress for the
haziest and cleanest days, specifically on the use of the simple annual
averaging of the twenty percent haziest and clearest days, on the three
year minimum and nine year maximum number of years used in establishing
current baseline conditions, and on the interim baseline concept.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\\47 See proposed 40 CFR 51.306(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is proposed that tracking of the haziest and clearest days be
maintained on a three year SIP review and revision cycle. The EPA is
contemplating using a simple average of the 20 percent most impaired
days and the 20 percent least impaired days for each year over a three
year period as the indicator for determining whether the ``reasonable
progress target'' is being met. Since a three year period may be
subject to higher variation in both meteorological conditions and
natural emissions that impair visibility than a ten-year period, EPA is
considering supplementing the three year review of measured visibility
progress with evaluation of the emissions reductions used to support
the planned improvement in visibility during SIP development. This
evaluation of planned emission reductions is based on the approach
taken by the GCVTC in calling for continuous emissions reductions and
tracking. Analysis of IMPROVE data collected since 1988 shows that some
sites may not be meeting the proposed reasonable progress targets. If
the monitoring data representing a Class I area does not track along
the presumptive reasonable progress rate, the State would need to
review emissions inventory estimates for both anthropogenic and natural
emissions and anthropogenic emissions reduction assumptions, that were
used in estimating compliance with the presumptive rate as part of the
three year SIP revision process. If anthropogenic emissions tracked as
planned, the State, using any additional visibility data (i.e., optical
instrument measurements) and meteorological data, should demonstrate
that current emissions strategies will make progress in the next 3-year
planning period. A State would need to revise its SIP emission
reduction strategies in order to bring the visibility conditions to a
level at or below the reasonable progress target when anthropogenic
emissions were shown to exceed levels used in planning to meet the
reasonable progress target. The EPA solicits comment on this approach
toward tracking the reasonable progress target, specifically on (1)
approaches other than a simple block average, (2) the approach for
compliance with the presumptive target supplemented by a check on
anthropogenic emissions, and (3) on whether the compliance assessment
should be set forth in the regulations proposed here or in guidance.
Under the proposed rules, once the visibility conditions for the
haziest days in a mandatory Class I Federal area are within 1.0
deciview of natural conditions, the visibility SIP would be considered
a type of maintenance plan. The reasonable progress demonstration would
need to reflect no further degradation of visibility conditions for
both the haziest and clearest days consistent with the national goal to
prevent future impairment.
Due to the broad variety of scenic, atmospheric, and lighting
conditions at the mandatory Class I Federal areas across the country,
at any specific time a given area may contain vistas for which slightly
more or less than one deciview above background conditions represents a
perceptible impact for the components of the scene. For example, a view
of a snow-capped mountain may be more sensitive to changes in air
[[Page 41148]]
quality than a view of a forest with the result that less than a 1.0
deciview change is perceptible for that portion of the scene.
Conversely, in another scene a deciview change slightly greater than
1.0 may not be perceptible. The EPA proposes a one deciview increment
above natural conditions to be perceived as sufficiently near to
natural conditions for those sensitive scenes that are thought to exist
in all mandatory Class I Federal areas. However EPA acknowledges that
for specific scenes a greater or lesser deciview change can be
perceived, and so requests comments on whether it would be more
appropriate to establish a 0.5 deciview, 1.5 deciview, or 2.0 deciview
cut point for determining when visibility planning should become
exclusively preventative to assure maintenance of existing natural
conditions.
This concern is less important for the presumptive reasonable
progress target of 1.0 deciview improvement in the haziest days every
ten to fifteen years contained in today's proposal. Generally, a rate
of progress for the haziest days equivalent to 1.0 deciview every 10 or
15 years should result in a perceptible improvement across the range of
complex views found in all Class I areas. If there are particular Class
I areas for which a slight variation can be demonstrated, the adequacy
of 1.0 deciview in realizing perceptible improvement may be a relevant
consideration in evaluating an alternative reasonable progress target
so that a perceptible improvement is the target for the planning
period.
c. Protecting Vistas Seen From Within Class I Areas. The proposed
presumptive reasonable progress targets are designed to improve
visibility conditions in all mandatory Class I Federal areas. The
scenic vistas enjoyed by visitors to many parks often extend to
important natural features outside these parks. In developing the 1980
program addressing reasonably attributable impairment, the EPA afforded
the Federal Land Managers the opportunity to account for specific
impairment outside of the mandatory Federal class I areas by
establishing ``integral vistas.'' Integral vistas are views perceived
from within a mandatory Class I Federal area of a specific panorama or
landmark located outside the Class I area boundary. These vistas are
considered ``integral'' to the enjoyment of the Class I area and were
afforded a level of protection similar to views contained within the
Class I boundaries. With respect to regional haze, a monitoring station
in or near the Class I area that is established as representing the
regional haze conditions for that area may not be representative of all
views that can be seen from that Class I area, many of which may have
been critical to the reasons Congress established these protected
areas. The EPA solicits comment on whether, under a regional haze
program, such important views require special protection, what support
under the Clean Air Act exists for establishment of such protection,
and the appropriate mechanism for protecting such views outside Class I
areas within requirements of a State implementation plan.
d. Calculating Changes in Deciviews. The revised rule proposes in
40 CFR 51.306(d) that every 3 years, States perform a comparison of
actual or representative monitoring data to presumptive reasonable
progress targets. The EPA expects that tracking of visibility
conditions will be accomplished by measuring the particle constituents
at representative monitoring sites using techniques developed and peer-
reviewed, such as those used in the IMPROVE monitoring network.
Progress is to be tracked in terms of deciviews. Deciviews can be
calculated from light extinction values derived from speciated particle
monitoring (known as reconstructed light extinction), or from optical
measurements of light scattering (nephelometers) or light extinction
(transmissometers). A deciview measure derived from reconstructed light
extinction avoids the need of eliminating data for weather events which
can obstruct optical monitoring devices and therefore allows for a
consistent technique to be applied from year to year. The EPA solicits
comments on using a reconstructed light extinction approach as the
basis for calculating visibility changes in terms of deciview, whether
this approach should be specifically included in the regulatory
requirements, and on other approaches for calculating visibility
changes using other monitoring information collected at Class I areas.
G. Implementation Plan Revisions
1. SIPs Due 12 Months After Promulgation
40 CFR 51.302 of the existing visibility regulations required
States to revise implementation plans within 9 months of rule
promulgation to include a long-term strategy for making progress toward
the national goal, provisions for notification of Federal Land Managers
for certain new source permits, a monitoring strategy, an assessment of
visibility impairment in mandatory Class I Federal areas, and emission
limitations representing BART. Under 40 CFR 51.306(c) in the existing
regulations, long-term strategies are to be reviewed and revised as
appropriate every three years.
Proposed section 40 CFR 51.302(a)(1)(ii) would require States to
submit visibility SIP revisions for regional haze within 12 months of
issuance of the final regional haze rules. This is consistent with
section 169B(c)(2) of the Act and comparable to the time allowed for
visibility SIP revisions under the 1980 regulations. Based on the
current schedule, EPA plans to finalize this rule in February 1998, so
the first visibility SIP revision would be due 12 months later, in
February 1999.
The EPA is proposing that 40 CFR 51.302 of the existing regulations
be revised to incorporate timing requirements for future SIP revisions
and to outline additional plan elements required specifically to
address regional haze impairment. Specifically, proposed 40 CFR
51.302(a)(1)(ii) requires that implementation plans be revised to
require States to in the future revise SIPs in accordance with the
proposed new timing requirements in proposed 40 CFR 51.306(c). In this
proposed section, the next implementation plan revision is required 4
years later in order to coordinate implementation plan revisions with
those for the NAAQS to the extent possible. Future visibility
implementation plan revisions are required in proposed 40 CFR 51.306(c)
every 3 years thereafter. These implementation plan revisions will
include an assessment of whether reasonable progress targets have been
met for all mandatory Class I Federal areas in the State, and emission
reduction strategies as appropriate for meeting reasonable progress
targets for each subsequent 3-year period.
Many of the 40 CFR 51.302 elements currently required in visibility
SIPs for reasonably attributable impairment will also be needed in
visibility SIPs to address regional haze impairment. These include
provisions for coordination with FLMs as found in 40 CFR 51.302(b) of
the existing regulations for which EPA is proposing revisions related
to regional haze, and general implementation plan requirements for a
long-term strategy and a monitoring strategy, as found in the existing
40 CFR 51.302(c).
In addition, implementation plan requirements due within 12 months
that are specific to regional haze are proposed in 40 CFR 51.302(c)(5).
The proposed revision identifies two principal new elements:
identification of sources potentially subject to BART,
[[Page 41149]]
and revisions as necessary for the State to meet the requirements under
section 110(a)(2) of the Act as they pertain to implementation of
measures to address regional haze. These elements are discussed in
greater detail in the next two sections below.
2. Plan Revisions To Address Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
The first new element in proposed 40 CFR 51.302(c)(5) requires
States to identify, within the first 12 months after rule promulgation,
sources located in the State that are potentially subject to BART
(i.e., ``existing stationary facilities'' as defined in existing 40 CFR
51.301(e)). The list should include those sources potentially subject
to BART that emit any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated
to cause or contribute to regional haze visibility impairment in any
mandatory Class I Federal area, and which meet certain specific
criteria. These criteria require that potential BART sources are major
stationary sources, including reconstructed sources, from one of 26
identified source categories which have the potential to emit 250 tpy
or more of any air pollutant, and which were placed into operation
between August 1962 and August 1977. The 26 source categories
identified in existing 40 CFR 51.301(e) and section 169A(g)(7) of the
Clean Air Act include sources such as electric utilities, smelters,
petroleum refineries, and kraft pulp mills. The purpose of this
requirement is to have the States identify early in the planning
process the universe of sources potentially subject to BART so related
information can be taken into account in developing future control
strategies, both for the NAAQS and regional haze.
Several factors must be taken into consideration in determining
BART, including the technology available, the costs of compliance, the
energy and nonair environmental impacts of compliance, any pollution
control equipment in use at the source, the remaining useful life of
the source, and the degree of improvement in visibility which may
reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such
technology.48 The provisions in the Act requiring BART
appear to demonstrate Congress' intention to focus attention on this
specific set of large existing sources, which are minimally controlling
emissions, as possible candidates for emissions reductions needed to
make reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ See CAA section 169A(g)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that the States are responsible for revising their SIPs to
contain ``such emission limits, schedules of compliance, and other
measures'' as may be necessary to make reasonable progress toward the
national visibility goal.49 Such implementation plan
revisions are to include, at a minimum, provisions meeting the BART and
long-term strategy requirements of the Act.50 Thus, these
SIPs can ensure reasonable progress by addressing emissions reductions
from a wide range of existing emissions sources that may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to regional haze impairment, some of
which are specifically subject to the BART requirement and some of
which are not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ See CAA section 169A(b)(2).
\50\ See CAA section 169A(b)(2). The legislative history also
explains that at a minimum, visibility SIPs are to include two
principal elements: BART and the long-term strategy. H.R. Rep. No.
564, 95th Congress, 1st Sess. at 154 (1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed 40 CFR 51.302(c)(5) also requires States to submit within
12 months a plan and schedule for evaluating BART for applicable
sources within the next 3 years after rule promulgation (i.e., between
February 1998 and February 2001). A three-year time frame has been
proposed for this requirement so that possible emission limits and
associated emission reductions for all applicable BART sources can be
integrated into future regional modeling and control strategy
development activities for attainment of the PM2.5 and ozone standards
as well. In this way, States can assess the degree to which reductions
from sources subject to BART will also benefit other air quality
problems, and vice versa. In this way, States can explore ways to
integrate control strategies for ozone and PM with the requirement for
BART. It is expected that control strategy options will be analyzed by
States as part of regional technical assessments.
The EPA believes that because regional haze is the cumulative
product of emissions from many sources over a broad area, the test for
determining whether a single source ``may reasonably be anticipated to
contribute'' to regional haze in a mandatory Class I Federal area
should not involve extremely costly or lengthy studies of specific
sources. The National Academy of Sciences report supports this
recommendation, stating that ``it would be an extremely time-consuming
and expensive undertaking to try to determine, one source at a time,
the percent contribution of each source to haze.'' While one of the
factors to consider in determining BART is ``the degree of improvement
in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated,'' EPA believes this
factor should be evaluated to reflect the degree of improvement in
visibility that could be expected at each class I area if BART
requirements are implemented for applicable BART sources. This
evaluation would be similar to developing attainment strategies for the
NAAQS, and could be accomplished using a basic technique, such as a
speciated rollback approach,51 or a more complex technique,
such as a regional model (like REMSAD or MODELS3).52 Thus,
while the other BART factors would be evaluated for each source that is
reasonably anticipated to contribute to regional haze in a mandatory
Class I Federal area, EPA proposes that the degree of visibility
improvement expected to result would be evaluated in the context of the
overall emissions reduction strategy. As the descriptive name
``regional haze'' implies, regional haze is characterized by regional
or region wide impairment of mandatory Class I Federal areas. The EPA
requests public comments on this proposed approach for the BART
assessment process for regional haze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ The 1993 report of the National Research Council,
Protecting Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas,
provides an example, using a speciated rollback model, of the
apportionment of anthropogenic light extinction among source types
in the eastern, southwestern, and northwestern United States. This
example illustrates some of the key issues that arise in any
apportionment of visibility impairment.
\52\ REMSAD and MODELS3 are regional-scale computer models under
development that will predict particulate matter and visual air
quality based on emissions, transport, and atmospheric chemistry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By comparison, under the existing visibility regulations, the BART
process is triggered by the Federal land manager. The FLM may certify
to the State at any time that impairment exists in any mandatory Class
I Federal area. See existing 40 CFR 51.302(c)(1). State implementation
plans must provide for a BART analysis for any existing stationary
facility that may cause or contribute to ``reasonably attributable''
impairment in any Class I area identified by the Federal land manager.
In determining BART, the State must consider the various factors listed
in section 169A(g)(2), including costs of compliance and the degree of
improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result
from the use of such technology on a specific source. See existing 40
CFR 51.301(c).
The proposed approach to evaluating potential improvements in
regional haze visibility impairment due to BART differs from the
current approach for reasonably attributable impairment in that the
degree to which visibility is expected to improve in a mandatory
[[Page 41150]]
Class I Federal area would take into account the emission reductions
from the multiple sources affecting that Class I area. An alternative
approach would be to evaluate the degree of improvement in regional
haze impairment expected from each specific BART source. Under this
approach, a single source's contribution to regional haze visibility
impairment in a Class I area would be assessed. Section 169A(b)(2)(A)
provides that BART is required for applicable sources that emit air
pollution that is reasonably anticipated to contribute to any
visibility impairment in a Class I area.
Thus, the ``degree of improvement'' estimated under section
169A(g)(2), which in most cases may be less than perceptible, would be
based on the improvement projected from a single BART source. The
concern with this approach is the substantial technical difficulty in
establishing source-specific receptor relationships for a regional
transport environmental effect. The National Academy of Sciences
Committee on Haze in National Parks and Wilderness Areas has expressed
doubt that such source specific attributions could be the basis for a
workable visibility protection program. However, allowing assessment of
BART sources on a source-specific basis would not preclude States from
including controls on BART sources in their long-term strategy in order
to achieve the applicable reasonable progress targets, even if source-
specific impairment could not be demonstrated. This option would likely
give States greater flexibility in developing the most cost-effective
means to address the BART and long-term strategy requirements. The EPA
requests comment on these alternative approaches to implementing the
BART and long-term strategy requirements to address regional haze
visibility impairment.
In the proposed 40 CFR 51.306(d)(3), this action also sets forth
the timing requirement for States to include provisions to address the
BART requirement in their implementation plans due in July 2003 except
as discussed in Unit I.I. This approach is consistent with
recommendations of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) and its
Subcommittee to integrate control strategies across programs to the
greatest extent possible. The CAAAC's Subcommittee on Ozone,
Particulate Matter, and Regional Haze Implementation Programs is
currently discussing a number of issues related to control strategies,
and EPA intends to consider any CAAAC recommendations in future
implementation guidance.
Finally, with respect to proposed regulatory changes related to
BART, EPA notes that the existing 40 CFR 51.302(c)(4)(iv) of the
existing visibility regulations requires BART to be implemented no
later than five years after ``plan approval.'' EPA proposes to clarify
this provision to read ``plan approval or revision'' consistent with
section 169A(g)(4) of the Act.
The EPA requests comment on all of the proposed BART requirements
discussed above including whether additional regulatory revisions
beyond those addressed here are necessary. While EPA requests comment
on possible emission reduction strategies to be used for implementing
BART and long-term strategy requirements under the regional haze
program, EPA also expects to address more specific control strategy
options for BART and the long-term strategy requirements for regional
haze in later guidance.
3. Plan Revisions for Section 110(a)(2) Requirements
The second element of proposed 40 CFR 51.302(c)(5) relates to SIP
revisions necessary to meet the various requirements under section
110(a)(2) of the Act. Section 169B(e)(2) provides for EPA to require
States to revise their section 110 implementation plans within 12
months to contain ``such emission limits, schedules of compliance, and
other measures as necessary'' to carry out these regulations. In
addition, visibility protection is specifically provided for in section
110(a)(2)(J).
The elements of section 110(a)(2) are critical to establishing a
strong foundation for ongoing implementation of the visibility
protection program. The EPA believes that during this initial 12-month
period, the States should focus first on plan requirements providing
for adequate future planning activities in conjunction with other
States.
Important planning activities include development of enhanced
emission inventories and emissions tracking systems, monitoring network
deployment, and refinement of regional models. The EPA encourages all
States to participate in regional planning activities. This planning
will then facilitate the future assessment of regional strategies to
achieve reasonable progress targets, and will also provide beneficial
data and tools needed for attainment of the new ozone and PM NAAQS.
States will need to address each of the section 110 elements
needing revision to support implementation of the revised visibility
program. The EPA believes that the following sections should be closely
reviewed for meeting the needs of a regional haze program.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires the State plan to contain
adequate provisions to prohibit interstate transport that contributes
significantly to nonattainment in or interferes with maintenance by
other States with respect to the NAAQS or interferes with measures in
other States to protect visibility. This provision is highlighted to
emphasize the critical role of transport in dealing with visibility
issues and to serve as an incentive to regional planning and
cooperation among States.
Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires SIPs to provide for air
quality modeling for the NAAQS and collection of necessary emissions
inventory information to use as input to the models. Many primary and
secondary PM and ozone emissions (VOC, NOX, SO2, ammonia,
primary PM, elemental carbon, organic carbon) also result in visibility
impairment, so developing enhanced statewide emission inventories for
these pollutants will benefit all three programs. Further, sections
110(a)(2)(F), 110(a)(2)(A), and 169A(b) provide specific authority for
emissions inventory requirements and general authority to require
measures necessary to protect visibility. It will be important for
States to develop inventories both for sources potentially subject to
BART, and for other sources that are reasonably anticipated to
contribute to regional haze visibility impairment. The inventories can
then be used as inputs to regional models and possibly as the basis for
regional pollutant trading programs, as suggested by the GCVTC.
Integrated modeling tools such as MODELS3 are under development which
will be able to predict ozone and PM concentrations, as well as the
resulting regional haze, using the enhanced inventory data. It is
anticipated that emission inventory inputs to regional modeling will be
needed in the 1999-2000 time frame. The need for enhanced inventory
development and expanded regional modeling capabilities has been
greatly emphasized by a number of organizations, including the GCVTC
and CAAAC.
Section 110(a)(2)(B). Expansion of the existing visibility
monitoring network to provide for representative monitoring of all
Class I areas is the third major technical task for State emphasis.
Proposed revisions related to monitoring are more fully discussed in
Unit I.H. of this action.
Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires States to submit enforceable
emission limits and compliance schedules. The EPA
[[Page 41151]]
believes that, in general, enforceable ``emission limitations'' and
``schedules of compliance'' as required under sections 169A and 169B of
the Act should be appropriately incorporated into SIPs after assessment
of regional strategies can be coordinated with the ozone and PM
implementation programs. However, it is important to recognize that
regional haze ``areas of concern'' (i.e., mandatory Class I Federal
areas) are already defined, and modeling work can begin early in the
planning process to define the areas of influence affecting them. In
addition, there may be some parts of the country that have no
nonattainment areas (or areas of violation) for which the assessment of
regional strategies for haze could proceed earlier, but these modeling
activities would be dependent upon completion of inventory enhancements
and availability of adequate regional models.
Timing requirements for future SIP revisions after the ``12-month
SIP'' are included in proposed section 40 CFR 51.306(c). The proposal
states that the next SIP revision will be due 4 years after the first
SIP revision is required, in July 2003, except as noted below. By doing
this, EPA seeks to allow for integration of planning activities and
control strategy development to the maximum extent possible. The EPA
recognizes that the implementation schedule for the Ozone and PM NAAQS
may change in light of monitoring data availability and other factors
related to development of a SIP attainment strategy.
In light of EPA's intent to foster coordinated planning and
implementation of the regional haze requirements proposed and the new
PM2.5 while still addressing the need to ensure reasonable
progress in addressing visibility impairment, EPA is also proposing to
allow States preparing nonattainment plans for fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) to submit their regional haze emissions control
strategy SIP revisions by but not later than the required date for
submittal of the State's PM2.5 attainment control strategy
SIP revisions. See proposed 40 CFR 51.306 (d)(3) and (d)(6). This
approach would allow the initial emissions management measures portion
of the regional haze long-term strategies to be developed in
conjunction with the first round of PM2.5 nonattainment
actions. EPA also takes comment on how to appropriately balance
coordination among SIP requirements with the potential delay in
ensuring reasonable progress toward the national visibility protection
goal.
The proposed 40 CFR 51.306(c) also states that visibility SIPs are
to be revised every 3 years thereafter (e.g., 2006, 2009, etc.) This
requirement is consistent with the overall need to track reasonable
progress over time, as well as with the 3-year requirement for long-
term strategy review and revision in the current rules. The EPA has
clarified this provision by proposing to remove reference to periodic
review and revision ``as appropriate.'' The EPA proposes to require a
SIP revision every 3 years, and proposes that the process for
developing the plan revision include consideration of a ``report''
outlining progress toward the national goal. The EPA believes that a
requirement for regular SIP revisions will result in a more effective
program over time and provide a focus for demonstrating ongoing
progress and making mid-course corrections in emissions strategies.
To the extent possible, the EPA will endeavor to coordinate timing
requirements for RFP submittals for the NAAQS with long-term strategy
revisions for visibility. The timing of progress reviews for RFP for
the NAAQS will be addressed in future guidance.
Instead of periodic SIP revisions every three years, the EPA is
also considering requiring that the SIPs be revised every 5 years after
the initial visibility long-term strategy SIP (e.g., 2008, 2013, etc.).
This would allow more time for collection of visibility data to be used
in assessing compliance with the visibility target. This longer time
period would also be less influenced by unusual meteorological
conditions than a three-year period. Periodic five-year revisions would
also reduce the administrative burden on the States. However, a five-
year period may not as easily allow for mid-course corrections in
sufficient time to ensure meeting the progress target over a 10-year or
15-year period. A 5-year revision period would also be inconsistent
with the 3-year timing for long-term strategy revisions for reasonably
attributable visibility impairment in the existing rules. The EPA
requests public comment on the frequency of periodic SIP revisions. In
particular, EPA seeks public input on whether a five-year periodic SIP
revision schedule would be more appropriate. In considering a 5-year
review period for regional haze, the EPA also seeks comment on whether
it should revise current rules to adopt a 5-year SIP revision schedule
for ``reasonable attributable'' impairment SIP requirements to allow
for administrative efficiency.
H. Visibility Monitoring
Visibility monitoring is authorized under the section 169A(b)(1)
provision for issuing guidelines to the States on monitoring, the
section 169A(b)(2) provision requiring SIPs to address ``other measures
as may be necessary,'' as well as the section 110(a)(2)(B) authority
requiring State implementation plans to provide for the monitoring of
ambient air quality. Since 1986, visibility monitoring (using aerosol,
optical, and photographic techniques) has been coordinated through the
IMPROVE program, a cooperative, multi-agency approach with
participation by EPA, the FLMs, and States. Each of the participants in
the IMPROVE Steering Committee contributes funding for the purchase and
operation of monitoring equipment, and participates in resource and
siting decisions. Speciated fine PM data and reconstructed light
extinction data has been collected since 1988 for 30 sites, and more
than 60 sites have at least 1 year of data collected using IMPROVE
protocols. The IMPROVE protocols and quality assurance procedures that
have been enhanced over the years are the basis for forthcoming EPA
guidance.
EPA believes that continued coordination of visibility monitoring
is critical due to the common responsibilities of States, FLMs, and EPA
for visibility protection. Proposed in 40 CFR 51.305(b) are various
monitoring requirements for implementation of the regional haze
program, including a requirement that development of monitoring
strategies be coordinated with the FLMs and other agencies, such as
EPA, that are involved in existing visibility monitoring efforts.
Proposed 40 CFR 51.302(c)(2)(iv) requires States to submit
monitoring strategies (revisions for those States with existing
strategies) as part of their implementation plans within 12 months of
promulgation, and proposed section 40 CFR 51.302(c)(2)(v) requires
revisions of these strategies four years later (in 2003), and every 3
years thereafter, at the same time that long-term strategy revisions
would be required.
A central element of each State's visibility program will be the
demonstration every 3 years of current trends in visibility compared to
reasonable progress targets for each mandatory Class I Federal area in
the State. This demonstration must rely on historical monitoring data
to the greatest extent possible. Since visibility monitoring does not
exist at all 156 mandatory Class I Federal areas, it will be essential
for each State to develop a monitoring strategy, in conjunction with
the appropriate FLMs and other States, which ensures that
``representative'' monitoring has been or will be
[[Page 41152]]
established for each mandatory Class I Federal area in the State.
Proposed 40 CFR 51.305(b)(2) requires that additional monitoring
sites be established within 12 months of plan submittal as necessary to
ensure that progress in relation to the reasonable progress targets can
be determined. The EPA recognizes that due to resource limitations, it
would be difficult to establish monitoring sites at all 156 mandatory
Class I Federal areas. This section, in conjunction with the proposed
new provisions in 40 CFR 51.305(b)(1) and (b)(3), call for the
establishment of additional monitoring sites such that monitoring can
be considered representative of all Class I areas. The EPA believes
that several additional sites are needed to more effectively
characterize regional transport of haze on a national basis. However,
the concept of a ``representative'' network will likely be the subject
of much discussion, and ultimately it will need to incorporate both
technical and policy concerns of the States and FLMs. The EPA
encourages the States and FLMs to discuss this issue in depth, possibly
using the IMPROVE Steering Committee as a forum for further discussion.
EPA takes comment on whether 12 months from plan submittal is an
adequate amount of time for installation of new sites.
In the strategy, the participants in the monitoring network should
address the following questions:
--For areas with monitoring funded solely by one agency, will such
monitoring remain in place until the next progress demonstration?
--For an area without existing monitoring, is there a monitoring site
nearby that can be considered ``representative'' of this area? If not,
the strategy should implement the addition of a site to the network.
--For which mandatory Class I Federal areas in the State will new
visibility or fine particle monitoring be initiated within the next 3
years?
The EPA plans to issue a visibility monitoring guidance document in
the near future that will be designed to assist the States in
developing this monitoring strategy. The document will provide guidance
for determining ``representative'' sites and will include technical
criteria and procedures for conducting aerosol, optical, and scene
monitoring of visibility conditions in Class I areas. The procedures
currently used in the IMPROVE network will be included in this
guidance. For the purpose of assuring that monitoring data will be
complete in assessing and modifying long-term strategies, States should
review the existing monitoring strategy with the FLMs and other
participating agencies to assess the need for additional monitoring
sites or modifications to existing ones on the same periodic basis as
the long-term strategy revisions.
States should emphasize the coordination of the design of
monitoring networks for PM2.5 and visibility to the greatest
extent possible in order to optimize resources. In some situations,
existing visibility monitoring sites can be used to meet Part 58
requirements to characterize regional PM2.5 levels. However,
States needing to establish new PM2.5 monitoring sites to
characterize regional levels should consider siting new monitors at or
near a mandatory Class I Federal area that currently has no monitoring.
Reconstructed light extinction can be calculated for any
PM2.5 site collecting aerosol data that undergoes
compositional analysis. This information can help fill certain spatial
gaps and can be used for calibration of regional models for PM and
visibility, as well as for assessments of visibility nationally under
the secondary particulate matter standard.
Proposed 40 CFR 51.305(b)(4) requires the States to report to EPA
all visibility monitoring data on at least an annual basis. The
characterization of visibility trends is one important reason for this
requirement. It will be important for States to track annual trends in
relation to the reasonable progress targets. Annual trend data can
provide the States with an early indication of the effectiveness of
current strategies in meeting presumptive reasonable progress targets
for specific mandatory Class I Federal areas before the triennial long-
term strategy review comes due. Annual consolidation of this data will
also enable EPA to better characterize national and regional visibility
trends in its annual air quality trends report.
Another important reason for this requirement is to provide for the
ultimate integration of monitoring data from the new PM2.5
monitoring network and the visibility monitoring network, both of which
will include PM2.5 and PM10 mass as well as
compositional analysis by aerosol species. Class I area particle mass
and speciation data can fill important data gaps in defining regional
concentrations for air quality modeling analyses. As noted above, EPA
seeks for these two monitoring networks to be developed in a
complementary manner.
Due to the well-established quality assurance procedures and
accessibility of data collected through the IMPROVE network, EPA does
not expect this reporting requirement to be exceptionally burdensome.
The electronic transfer of data should facilitate the process as well.
The EPA requests public comment on its proposed requirement for
reporting of data, and on the other proposed revisions to the
visibility monitoring requirements.
I. Long-Term Strategy
The existing long-term strategy provisions in 40 CFR 51.306 require
several basic elements:
--A strategy for making reasonable progress in improving visibility in
all mandatory Class I Federal areas in the State. Specifically, the
strategy should include measures necessary to remedy any reasonably
attributable impairment certified by a FLM. The strategy should specify
emission reduction measures for sources subject to BART requirements,
and for other sources causing or contributing to such visibility
impairment in these areas. The strategy should also include measures
necessary for reasonable progress to be achieved in other mandatory
Class I Federal areas located outside the State that may be affected by
emissions within the State.
--A SIP assessment every 3 years, including a review of progress made
and a revision of the long-term strategy as appropriate, including
consultation with the FLM and a report to EPA and the public.
--Provisions for review of new source impacts on visibility.
--Coordination with existing plans and goals, including those of FLMs.
The basic framework for the long-term strategy provisions in 40 CFR
51.306 remains the same. The proposed revisions do not affect the on-
going requirement for States to continue to address reasonably
attributable impairment while adding new provisions to address regional
haze impairment. The EPA has specifically revised the regulation to
preserve the requirements in the existing visibility program for
addressing reasonably attributable impairment. These requirements are
to continue to be implemented independent of whether the State is
currently meeting reasonable progress targets or not. Proposed 40 CFR
51.306(a)(1) has been revised to address this point. This proposed
revision requires the State to first identify whether there is an
active certification of reasonably attributable impairment for any
Class I area in the State. If an active certification is pending, the
long-
[[Page 41153]]
term strategy needs to address the progress made in assessing BART
pursuant to this certification and other related activities. This
proposed section provides that all other visibility impairment will be
considered as regional haze and be addressed in accordance with other
provisions in 40 CFR 51.306, including the proposed 40 CFR 51.306(d).
The proposed 40 CFR 51.306(d) (1) and (2) set forth requirements
for the State, within 12 months to develop a procedure that will, by a
date 5 years from rule promulgation, determine current visibility
conditions for every mandatory Class I Federal area. The procedure
should provide for coordination with the FLMs and use appropriate data
available or planned for under the monitoring plan. Current conditions
are to be defined (or estimated for mandatory Class I Federal areas
without monitoring at the time of promulgation of these revisions) for
the average of the 20 percent most impaired days and 20 percent least
impaired days, using the deciview scale. The State should use all years
where monitoring data are available or estimation and apportionment
techniques noted in Agency guidance can be applied. As mentioned in the
discussion of the baseline in Part E. above, a minimum of three years
of monitoring data should be used. Adjustments to a baseline using 3
years of data can be made using more ambient data up to nine
consecutive years.
In addition, proposed 40 CFR 51.306(d)(1) requires the State to
establish a procedure in consultation with the FLMs by which levels of
naturally-occurring PM-fine and visibility will be established within
five years. Estimates from NAPAP 1990 and developed by Trijonis
(PM2.5: 1.5 g/m\3\ in west, 3.3 g/m\3\ in
east) may be converted to deciview and used as a default as necessary.
After the SIP revision due in 2003, these assessments will then be
required every 3 years. The periodic assessment of natural and current
conditions should take into consideration new findings from the
research community, improved emissions estimates for wildfire,
prescribed fire and windblown dust, and any future policies for
ecosystem management, prescribed fire, and so on.
The proposed 40 CFR 51.306(d)(3) also requires that the regional
haze long-term strategy submitted within 1 year of the final
promulgation of these rules include provisions for requiring that for
each Class I area with existing anthropogenic impairment greater than 1
deciview, the State shall within 5 years of rule promulgation (except
in the case of States concurrently preparing nonattainment control
strategy SIP revisions for PM2.5) adopt measures and revise
its SIP to include emission reduction strategies that would meet the
reasonable progress targets within the next 3-year period. These
measures are to address the best available retrofit technology
requirement, as well as other necessary measures from non-BART sources
to ensure that reasonable progress targets are achieved. Such measures
should include a combination of local and regional measures. Regional
measures recommended through the multistate implementation process are
expected to take regional modeling efforts into consideration. States
will take these assessments into account, but will be the ultimate
authority responsible for control strategy development and
implementation. The types of analyses conducted by the GCVTC to
identify and assess the various source categories contributing to
regional haze on the Colorado plateau can serve as a model for regional
approaches to develop strategies for making reasonable progress.
Although the GCVTC process did not emphasize analysis of sources
potentially subject to BART, EPA believes it is important that States
make such an analysis a primary component of the long-term strategy.
The proposed timing for required emission reduction strategies for
regional haze is designed to allow sufficient time to conduct technical
assessments on a regional scale. The EPA also proposes that emission
reduction strategies for visibility be revised every 3 years thereafter
in order to meet the reasonable progress targets for any mandatory
Class I Federal areas located in the State. These revised strategies
are to be implemented through SIP revisions.
Section 51.306(f) of 40 CFR specifies a number of factors,
currently set forth in 40 CFR 51.306(e), in considering the need for
visibility-specific measures, including the measures being implemented
for other programs. It is possible that for some areas of the country,
such as parts of the Eastern U.S., emission reductions achieved for the
acid rain program could be sufficient to meet the presumptive
reasonable progress targets initially. The EPA has proposed revisions
that would require the State to address the anticipated net effect on
visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source
emissions over the next 10-15 years when developing emissions
strategies that will meet the reasonable progress requirements. In some
areas, these changes in emissions would be expected primarily from
population growth, while in others emissions changes may result from
potential new industrial, energy, natural resource development, or land
management activities.
The proposed 40 CFR 51.306(d)(3)(ii)(B) would require SIPs to
explicitly address the contribution by each State needed to meet
reasonable progress targets. This section provides that such strategies
should be consistent with strategies recommended through regional
planning processes conducted for related air quality issues. This
provision should serve as an incentive for States to participate in
regional planning activities. The EPA believes that multi-state
planning, modeling, and control strategy assessment will be important
in addressing regional haze. At the same time, each State is ultimately
responsible for determining its contribution to ensure reasonable
progress in mandatory Class I Federal areas affected by its emissions
sources and implementing appropriate emissions control strategies. In
evaluating visibility SIP revisions, the EPA will consider the
information submitted by the State as well as any relevant regional
planning analysis.
The proposed 40 CFR 51.306(d)(4) sets forth requirements to be
addressed by the State in the implementation plan revision if it has
not met the presumptive reasonable progress targets over the past 3-
year period. This provision requires the State to first determine
whether targeted emissions reductions planned for in its previous long-
term strategy revision were achieved. This approach follows from the
GCVTC definition of reasonable progress as ``continuous emission
reductions.'' This step would involve reviewing emissions sources,
inventories, and other data used as the ``baseline'' for any modeling
assessments or assumptions used in developing the strategy. If such
reductions were found to have been actually achieved, the State must
then evaluate other factors, such as meteorological conditions, that
were responsible for not achieving the targets. This assessment must be
provided to EPA as part of the implementation plan revision process. If
planned emission reductions were not achieved, then the State must
revise its emissions reduction strategies to enable it to meet over the
next 3-year period the presumptive reasonable progress targets that
would have been required if the targets had been achieved initially.
This 3-year submittal, review and adjustment of emission reduction
strategies is similar to the tracking of reasonable
[[Page 41154]]
further progress for the NAAQS. Additional discussion on achieving
reasonable progress targets is found in Unit I.F.2.b., Determining
Baseline Conditions, of this action.
The proposed 40 CFR 51.306(d)(5) introduces requirements for States
to follow in developing ``alternate progress targets.'' A State would
pursue development of such targets if it can demonstrate that
achievement of the presumptive targets would not be reasonable due to
the factors found in section 169(A)(g)(1) of the Act that are to be
considered in developing long-term strategies. These factors include
the costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy
and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the
remaining useful life of any affected source or equipment therein. This
section requires the State to provide to EPA a satisfactory
justification for any alternate progress target. The State should
consult with other States whose emissions may contribute to regional
haze in the Class I area, the appropriate Federal Land Manager, and EPA
in development of an alternative reasonable progress target for any
Class I area. This provision recognizes that consideration of these
factors may lead a State to adopt alternative reasonable progress
targets for a mandatory Class I Federal area that differ from those of
other mandatory Class I Federal areas within a planning region.
However, the proposed rules prohibit States from interpreting the
alternative target to allow a degradation of visibility conditions due
to human-caused emissions. At a minimum, for any three year period
between long-term strategy revisions, the State's plan should provide
maintenance of current conditions for the most and least impaired days.
The alternative target and corresponding justification must be
submitted as part of the State visibility SIP revision process. Any
alternative reasonable progress target submitted by the State will be
reviewable through public hearings on the SIP revision and will be
subject to approval by EPA.
The EPA seeks public comment on all aspects of its proposed
regulatory revisions to the visibility long-term strategy requirements
in 40 CFR 51.306 as well as all of the other proposed policies and
regulatory revisions related to regional haze SIP requirements set
forth in this action.
II. Regulatory Requirements
The discussion below addresses requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, Paperwork Reduction Act,
Executive Order 12898, and Executive Order 12866 for purposes of the
proposed regional haze rule.
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866, the Agency must determine whether a
regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) review and other requirements of the
Executive Order. The order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another Agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
In view of its important policy implications, the proposed regional
haze rule has been judged to be a ``significant regulatory action''
within the meaning of the Executive Order, and EPA has submitted it to
OMB for review. The drafts of proposed rules submitted to OMB, the
documents accompanying such drafts, written comments thereon, written
responses by EPA, and identification of the changes made in response to
OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the public
docket and made available for public inspection at EPA's Air and
Radiation Docket Information Center (Docket No. A-95-38).
The EPA has prepared and entered into the docket a Regulatory
Impact Analysis (RIA) entitled Regulatory Impact Analysis for Proposed
Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standard and
Regional Haze Rule. This RIA assesses the costs, economic impacts, and
benefits associated with the implementation of the current and several
alternative NAAQS for ozone and PM and the regional haze rule. As
discussed in the RIA, there are an unusually large number of
limitations and uncertainties associated with the analyses and
resulting cost impacts and benefit estimates. Furthermore, the
assumptions regarding implementation are necessarily speculative in
nature. Under the proposed regional haze rule, States bear the primary
responsibility for establishing control requirements for assuring
reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal. Until such
time as States make decisions regarding control measures, EPA may only
speculate as to which sources may be regulated and as to what types of
control requirements or emission limits may be required.
The proposed regional haze rule establishes presumptive targets for
visibility improvements in mandatory Class I Federal areas, but also
provides discretion to the States to establish alternate targets where
warranted. The EPA has prepared a RIA that analyzes the costs and
benefits of implementing a regional haze program to achieve 2 different
presumptive targets for visibility improvement: one target equal to a
rate over 10 years, the other over 15 years. The targets can be
attained by taking into account emissions reductions achieved under
other air quality programs, including implementation of the new ozone
and particulate matter standards. The RIA analysis estimates that
annual costs over the period 2000-2010 would likely result in the
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments and the private
sector, in aggregate, of over $100 million per year for both
presumptive options.
It is important to note, however, that there is significant
uncertainty in these cost estimates for a number of technical reasons
specific to the analysis, but more importantly because of the
flexibility that States have in establishing alternate targets and in
developing emissions control strategies to meet the target. The EPA has
no way of estimating the number of States that may seek to establish
alternate progress targets for any of the 156 mandatory Class I Federal
areas required to make progress or in predicting the actual control
measures that will be employed. For this reason, the costs associated
with the presumptive target options in the RIA may be significantly
overstated. As stated in the RIA, total annual costs of the rule in
2010 would be zero if all States adopted alternative reasonable
progress targets which imposed no additional controls beyond those
required for the PM NAAQS, $2.1 billion if all States adopted the
proposed presumptive reasonable progress target of 1.0 deciview
improvement in the most impaired days over 15 years, and $2.7 billion
if all States adopted the proposed presumptive reasonable progress
target of 1.0 deciview improvement over 10 years. Nevertheless, it is
likely that they would exceed the $100 million threshold in any event.
[[Page 41155]]
Total annual benefits in 2010 under these three alternative
scenarios would be $0, $1.3 to $3.2 billion, or $1.7 to $5.7 billion
respectively. Since it is likely that some States will adopt the
presumptive targets and some will adopt alternative targets for
mandatory Class I Federal areas, actual costs and benefits would
probably fall within these ranges. These benefits are incremental to
the visibility benefits, including those for mandatory Class I Federal
area visibility improvement expected from implementation of the PM and
Ozone NAAQS recently promulgated on July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652 and
38856). There are important benefits to human health and welfare, and
to the environment from improving air quality in these important
natural areas by reducing emissions of fine particles (the main
contributors to visibility impairment).
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
provides that, whenever an agency is required to publish a general
notice of rulemaking for a proposed rule, the agency must prepare
regulatory flexibility analyses for the proposed and final rule unless
the head of the agency certifies that it will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small governments (e.g., cities,
towns, school districts), and small non-profit organizations. The
regional haze rule being proposed today applies to States, not to small
entities. It proposes to establish presumptive visibility protection
goals for certain national parks and wilderness areas that States may
modify, where appropriate, based on a review of specific criteria
related to the degree of visibility impairment, the costs of
controlling emissions and other relevant information, after
consultation with the Federal Land Managers. In addition, the rule
proposes planning, monitoring and progress reporting requirements that
would apply to States to assure that States are making progress toward
the national visibility goal for mandatory Class I Federal areas.
Under the proposed rules, States would decide how to obtain
sufficient emissions control measures through State-level rulemakings.
In developing emission control measures, section 169A of the Clean Air
Act requires States to address best available retrofit technology
requirements (BART) for a select list of major stationary sources
defined by the Clean Air Act section 169A(g)(7). Before any such major
stationary source would be subject to BART for regional haze, however,
the State would have to make a determination which involves some State
discretion in considering a number of relevant statutory factors set
forth in section 169A(g)(2), including the costs of compliance, any
existing control technology in use at the source, the remaining useful
life of the source, the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts
of compliance, and the degree of visibility improvement that may
reasonably be anticipated. Further, EPA is seeking public comment on
the potential for alternative approaches to addressing the BART
requirement, as discussed earlier in this action. For BART and for
other measures the State may adopt to meet the requirements of a
regional haze rule, EPA will also be exploring further policy issues in
a future implementation guidance. The potential consequences of today's
proposal are thus speculative at this time. Any requirements for
emission control measures, like the SIP process for attaining national
ambient air quality standards, will be established by State rulemaking.
Because the States will exercise substantial intervening discretion in
implementing the proposed rule, EPA certifies that the regional haze
rule being proposed today will not, if promulgated, have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the
meaning of the RFA. The legal reasoning supporting this certification
is analogous to the reasoning explained in certifying the recent NAAQS
rulemakings for ozone and particulate matter; a full statement of this
reasoning was published previously in the Federal Register as part of
the Notices of Final Rulemaking on July 18, 1997, for those two NAAQS
rulemakings (62 FR 38652 and 38856).
The EPA's finding that today's proposed regional haze rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities also entails that the small-entity provisions in section 609
of the RFA do not apply. Nevertheless, EPA undertook small-entity
outreach activities modeled on these provisions on a voluntary basis.
These activities include conducting a review panel, following RFA
procedures, to solicit advice and recommendations from representatives
of small businesses, small governments, and other small organizations.
This panel review resulted in a final report entitled ``Final Report of
the Review Panel Convened to Consider EPA's Planned Phase I Guidance on
Implementation of New or Revised Ozone and Particulate Matter NAAQS and
Proposed Rule on Regional Haze'', dated June 10, 1997. A copy of the
report has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking. The EPA has
also added a number of additional small-entity representatives to its
CAAAC Subcommittee on NAAQS and regional haze implementation.
The goal of this outreach activity is to work with the small-entity
representatives to find implementation approaches that minimize impacts
on small entities, and to help and encourage the States to use these
approaches as they develop their State Implementation Plans for NAAQS
attainment and regional haze reduction. It should be noted that the
principal way States can minimize small-entity impact is by their
choices of control strategies. While development of control strategies
will be required in order for States to fully implement a regional haze
program, EPA plans to address coordination of regional haze and NAAQS-
related implementation strategies in future guidance. However, the
small-entity review panel felt that it was important to share whatever
information available with the States, so that states can begin
thinking about small-entity impacts as part of their early planning.
Therefore, the panel recommended that EPA develop and publish a
guidance memorandum to the States which will summarize current
knowledge on approaches to minimize small-entity impacts. The EPA has
accepted that recommendation, and will publish such a memorandum
shortly after today's action appears. Included in the guidance
memorandum will be a preliminary list of various actions that States
might take to alleviate adverse implementation impacts on small
business while at the same time assuring that air quality goals are
achieved. This list will then continue to be refined as part of the
process to develop the future guidance.
C. Impact on Reporting Requirements
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule
relating to State requirements for the protection of visibility in
specially-protected national parks and wilderness areas have been
submitted to OMB for review under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501, et seq. An Information Collection Request document has
been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1813.01 and a copy may be obtained from
Sandy Farmer, Information Policy Branch; EPA; 401 M St., SW (Milked
2137); Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740.
This collection of information has an estimated reporting burden
for the fifty
[[Page 41156]]
States and District of Columbia, averaging 623 hours per year per
State. The Agency expects the Federal burden will be approximately 216
hours per year. The Agency anticipates annual States costs of about
$1.0 million, approximately $25,000 per State. The Agency estimates the
annual Federal costs to be approximately $7000. These estimates include
time for reviewing requirements and instructions, evaluating data
sources, gathering and maintaining data, and completing and reviewing
the collection of information.
Send comments by October 20, 1997 regarding these burden estimates
or any other aspect of these collections of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden to Chief, Information Policy
Branch; EPA; 401 M St., SW. (Mailcode 2137), Washington, DC 20460; and
to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk
Officer for EPA.'' The final rule will be accompanied with responses to
OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements
contained in this proposal.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``Unfunded
Mandates Act'') (signed into law on March 22, 1995) requires that the
Agency must prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a
rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. The budgetary
impact statement must include: (i) Identification of the Federal law
under which the rule is promulgated; (ii) a qualitative and
quantitative assessment of anticipated costs and benefits of the
Federal mandate and an analysis of the extent to which such costs to
State, local, and tribal governments may be paid with Federal financial
assistance; (iii) if feasible, estimates of the future compliance costs
and any disproportionate budgetary effects of the mandate; (iv) if
feasible, estimates of the effect on the national economy; and (v) a
description of the Agency's prior consultation with elected
representatives of State, local, and tribal governments and a summary
and evaluation of the comments and concerns presented. Section 203
requires the Agency to establish a plan for obtaining input from and
informing, educating, and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule. Section 204 requires
the Agency to provide for an effective process for State, local, and
Tribal officials to provide meaningful and timely input in the
development of regulatory proposals containing significant
intergovernmental mandates.
Under section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act, the Agency must
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
before promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact statement must
be prepared. The Agency must select from those alternatives the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative, for
State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector, that
achieves the objectives of the rule, unless the Agency explains why
this alternative is not selected or unless the selection of this
alternative is inconsistent with law.
This rule is being developed under the Federal Clean Air Act. The
RIA, discussed in Unit II.A. above, contains an assessment of the costs
and benefits of this proposed rule. Federal funds are available to meet
some of the largely administrative costs to State, local, and Tribal
governments through grants provided by EPA under the authority of
section 105 of the Clean Air Act.
As reflected in the RIA, the rule is expected to have a greater
effect initially on the private sector in the western United States
than the eastern U.S. because certain emissions control measures under
the Clean Air Act acid rain program are already under way to reduce
sulfur oxides emissions in the eastern U.S., a major precursor to
sulfate particles, the dominant fine particle constituent in the
eastern U.S. Phase II of the acid rain trading program will continue
through 2007. The rule is not expected to have any disproportionate
budgetary effects on any State, local, or tribal government, or urban
or rural or other type of community. The rule is not expected to have a
material effect on the national economy.
In developing the proposed rule, EPA has provided numerous
opportunities for consultation with interested parties, including
State, local, and tribal governments. These opportunities include
meetings and discussions under the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee,
Subcommittee on Ozone, Particulate Matter, and Regional Haze
Implementation Programs, and the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport
Commission. The EPA's consideration of the recommendations from these
two groups is discussed extensively in Unit I.C. of the preamble. The
principal comments of State, local, and Tribal groups are also
documented in the Subcommittee's Initial Report on Subcommittee
Discussions (April 1997) and the GCVTC's Recommendations on Improving
Western Vistas. Being comprised of State and Tribal governments, the
GCVTC issued recommendations on a wide range of topics, including
emission management alternatives, technical findings, and areas for
further research. The EPA also will have a public comment period of at
least 60 days on the proposed rule, as well as a public hearing, in
order to allow for additional meaningful input into the development of
the regulation.
The Agency is considering two main options for presumptive
reasonable progress targets in developing the rule. EPA believes that
because the rule also includes the flexibility for States to propose
alternate reasonable progress targets based on certain criteria, one of
which is the costs of compliance, the proposed rule meets the UMRA
requirement in section 205 to select the least costly and burdensome
alternative in light of the statutory mandate to issue regulations that
make reasonable progress toward the national visibility protection
goal. EPA also has provided a technical rationale in the preamble for
defining the presumptive reasonable progress target rate equal to 1.0
deciview improvement in the most impaired days over 10 or 15 years.
E. Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898 requires that each Federal agency make
achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and
activities on minorities and low-income populations. These requirements
have been addressed to the extent practicable in the RIA cited above.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Transportation, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: July 18, 1997.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 51 of chapter I of
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended
as follows:
[[Page 41157]]
PART 51--REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 51 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7410, 7414, 7421, 7470-7479, 7491, 7492,
7601, and 7602.
Subpart P--Protection of Visibility
2. Section 51.300 is amended as follows:
a. Adding a colon at the end of the words ``this subpart are'' in
paragraph (a) introductory text and adding a semicolon in place of the
comma at the end of paragraph (a)(1).
b. Revising ``Sec. 51.24'' to read ``Sec. 51.166'' in paragraph
(a)(2);
c. Adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (a)(2);
d. Adding a heading to paragraph (b)(1) and revising paragraph
(b)(1) introductory text;
e. Revising paragraph (b)(2) introductory text;
f. Adding a new paragraph (b)(3), to read as follows:
Sec. 51.300 Purpose and applicability.
(a) * * *
(2) * * * This subpart sets forth requirements addressing
visibility impairment in its two principal forms: ``reasonably
attributable'' impairment (i.e., impairment attributable to a single
source/small group of sources) and regional haze (i.e., widespread haze
from a multitude of sources which impairs visibility in every direction
over a large area).
(b) * * * (1) General applicability. The provisions of this subpart
pertaining to implementation plan requirements for assuring reasonable
progress in preventing any future and remedying any existing visibility
impairment are applicable to:
* * * * *
(2) The provisions of this subpart pertaining to implementation
plans to address reasonably attributable visibility impairment are
applicable to the following States:
* * * * *
(3) The provisions of this subpart pertaining to implementation
plans to address regional haze visibility impairment are applicable to
all States as defined in section 302(d) of the Clean Air Act except
Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands.
3. Section 51.301 is amended as follows:
a. Adding the words ``(or the Secretary's designee)'' after the
word ``area'' to paragraph (g);
b. Revising ``Sec. 51.24'' to read ``Sec. 51.166'' in paragraph
(p);
c. Adding the words ``light extinction,'' after the phrase ``in
terms of'' in paragraph (q);
d. Adding the words ``light extinction,'' to the beginning of the
parenthetical ``(visual range, contrast, coloration)'' in paragraph
(x);
e. Adding new paragraphs (z) through (cc), to read as follows:
Sec. 51.301 Definitions.
* * * * *
(z) Reasonable progress target means for the purposes of addressing
regional haze visibility impairment: an improvement in the average of
the twenty percent most impaired days each year, equivalent to an
improvement (decrease) of [Option A: 1.0 deciview per 10 years or
Option B: 1.0 deciview per 15 years], and no degradation (less than 0.1
deciview increase) in the average of the twenty percent least impaired
days each year.
(aa) Regional haze visibility impairment means any humanly
perceptible change in visibility (light extinction, visual range,
contrast, coloration) from that which would have existed under natural
conditions that is caused predominantly by a combination of many
sources, over a wide geographic area. Such sources include, but are not
limited to, major and minor stationary sources, mobile sources, area
sources, fugitive emissions, and forestry and agricultural practices.
(bb) Deciview (dv) means the metric, based on light extinction,
used for an atmospheric haze index, such that uniform changes in
haziness correspond to the same metric increment across the entire
range from pristine to highly impaired haze conditions. Deciview values
are calculated by multiplying by 10 the natural logarithm of 1/10th of
the atmospheric light extinction coefficient expressed in units of
inverse megameters.
(cc) State means State as defined in section 302(d) of the Clean
Air Act.
4. Section 51.302 is amended as follows:
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1);
b. In paragraph (a)(2)(i) by revising ``Sec. 51.4'' to read
``Sec. 51.102'';
c. Revising ``Sec. 51.4'' to read ``Sec. 51.102'' in paragraph
(a)(2)(ii);
d. Adding the word ``revision'' after the word ``plan'' at the end
of paragraph (a)(2)(ii);
e. Revising ``Sec. 51.5'' to read Sec. 51.103'' in paragraph
(a)(3);
f. Revising paragraph (b);
g. Adding the words ``reasonably attributable'' after the word
``exists'' in paragraph (c)(1);
h. Revising paragraph (c)(2) introductory text;
i. Adding the phrase ``, including a schedule'' after the word
``measures'' in paragraph (c)(2)(i);
j. Adding paragraphs (c)(2)(iv) and (c)(2)(v);
k. Adding the words ``reasonably attributable'' after the phrase
``For any existing'' in paragraph (c)(4) introductory text;
l. Adding the words ``or revision'' after the word ``approval'' at
the end of the sentence in paragraph (c)(4)(iv);
m. Adding a new paragraph (c)(5), to read as follows:
Sec. 51.302 Implementation control strategies.
(a) * * *
(1) (i) Each State identified in Sec. 51.300(b)(2) must have
submitted, not later than September 2, 1981, an implementation plan
revision meeting the requirements of this subpart pertaining to
reasonably attributable visibility impairment.
(ii) Each State identified in Sec. 51.300(b)(3) must submit, by
[date one year from publication of final rule revisions to this
subpart], an implementation plan revision meeting the requirements set
forth in this subpart addressing regional haze visibility impairment,
including provisions for submittal of future implementation plan
revisions in accordance with Sec. 51.306(c), with the exception of
requirements related to reasonably attributable visibility impairment
in paragraphs (c)(2)(iii) and (c)(4) of this section, Sec. 51.304 and
Sec. 51.305(a).
* * * * *
(b) State and Federal Land Manager coordination. (1) The State must
identify to the Federal Land Managers, in writing and by [date 30 days
from the date of publication of the final rule revisions to this
subpart], the title of the official to which the Federal Land Manager
of any mandatory Class I Federal area can submit a recommendation on
the implementation of this subpart including but not limited to:
(i) Identification of reasonably attributable and regional haze
visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I Federal area(s);
(ii) Identification of elements for inclusion in the visibility
monitoring strategy required by Sec. 51.305; and
(iii) Identification of elements for inclusion in the long-term
strategy and its periodic revisions required by Sec. 51.306.
(2) The State must provide opportunity for consultation, in person
[[Page 41158]]
and at least 60 days prior to holding any public comment on proposed
implementation plan revisions, with the Federal Land Manager on the
proposed SIP revisions required by this subpart. This consultation must
include the opportunity for the affected Federal Land Managers to
discuss their:
(i) Recommendations on the methods for estimating natural
conditions and levels of impairment of visibility in any mandatory
Class I Federal area; and
(ii) Recommendations on the development and implementation of the
long-term strategy.
(3) The plan or plan revisions must provide procedures for
continuing consultation between the State and the Federal Land Manager
on the implementation of the visibility protection program required by
this subpart.
(c) * * *
(2) The implementation plan must contain the following to address
reasonably attributable and regional haze visibility impairment:
* * * * *
(iv) A monitoring strategy as required in Sec. 51.305.
(v) A requirement for revision of the plan, including revisions to
the monitoring strategy required in Sec. 51.305 and the long-term
strategy required in Sec. 51.306, no later than four years from the
date of the plan revision required in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this
section, and no later than every 3 years thereafter.
* * * * *
(5) Plan revisions for regional haze visibility impairment. The
implementation plan due pursuant to paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this
section by [date one year from the date of the Federal Register
publication of the final rule] must contain:
(i) A list of existing stationary facilities in the State, and a
plan and schedule for evaluating, by [date 3 years from the date of
Federal Register publication of the final rule], the best available
retrofit technology and corresponding potential emission reductions for
those existing stationary facilities the State determines may
reasonably be anticipated to contribute to regional haze visibility
impairment in any mandatory Class I Federal area located within or
outside the State.
(ii) Revisions as necessary for the State to meet the requirements
of section 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act as they pertain to
implementation of measures to address regional haze visibility
impairment.
5. Section 51.305 is amended as follows:
a. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (a) introductory text;
b. Redesignating existing paragraph (b) as paragraph (c);
c. Adding new paragraph (b), to read as follows:
Sec. 51.305 Monitoring.
(a) For the purposes of addressing reasonably attributable
visibility impairment, each State containing a mandatory Class I
Federal area where visibility has been identified as an important value
(i.e., each State identified in Sec. 51.300(b)(2)) must include in the
plan a strategy for evaluating visibility in any mandatory Class I
Federal area by visual observation or other appropriate monitoring
techniques. * * *
(b) For the purposes of addressing regional haze visibility
impairment, the State must include in the plan required under
Sec. 51.302(a)(1)(ii) a monitoring strategy for characterizing regional
haze visibility impairment that is representative of all mandatory
Class I Federal areas within the State. The strategy must be revised no
later than four years from the date of the plan revision required in
Sec. 51.302(a)(1)(ii), and no later than every three years thereafter.
The strategy must be coordinated as appropriate with Federal Land
Managers, other States, and EPA, and must take into account such
guidance as is provided by the Agency.
(1) The plan must provide for establishment, within 12 months, of
any additional monitoring sites needed to assess whether reasonable
progress targets are being achieved for all mandatory Class I Federal
areas within the State.
(2) The plan must include a requirement to assess the relative
contribution to regional haze visibility impairment at each mandatory
Class I Federal area in the State by emissions from within and outside
the State.
(3) A State required to submit a plan under Sec. 51.302(a)(1)(ii)
and having no mandatory Class I Federal areas must include in its plan
procedures by which monitoring data will be used to determine the
contribution of emissions from within the State to regional haze
visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I Federal area.
(4) The plan must provide for the reporting of all visibility
monitoring data to EPA at least annually for each mandatory Class I
Federal area in the State having such monitoring. The State should
follow reporting procedures found in applicable EPA guidance. To the
extent possible, reporting of visibility monitoring data shall be
accomplished through electronic data transfer techniques.
* * * * *
6. Section 51.306 is amended as follows:
a. Adding introductory text to paragraph (a);
b. Revising paragraph (a)(1);
c. Revising paragraphs (c) introductory text, (c)(1), (c)(2) and
(c)(4);
d. Redesignating paragraphs (d) through (g) as new parag
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.