to an extent and in a manner that states and the EPA believe
appropriate. The EPA is committed to working with states, tribes,
federal land managers, other stakeholders and other federal agencies on
matters concerning the use of prescribed fire, as appropriate, to
reduce the impact of wildland fire emissions on visibility.
3. Final Rule
    We are finalizing the fire-related definitions as proposed,
including the revision of the definition of ``fire'' in 40 CFR
51.309(b)(4), with one change from proposal. We are finalizing a
different definition of ``wildfire'' than we proposed. The final
revised definition of a wildfire includes ``a prescribed fire that has
developed into a wildfire'' instead of the proposed language ``a
prescribed fire that has been declared to be a wildfire.'' Two comments
in this rulemaking objected to or asked for clarification of the
meaning of the ``declared to be a wildfire'' portion of the definition.
The definition of wildfire being finalized for the RHR in this final
action is the same definition as recently finalized for the revised
Exceptional Events Rule, as commenters in both rulemakings raised
similar concerns about the proposed definition. Consistent with the
approach taken in the final revised Exceptional Events Rule, we
concluded that whether a prescribed fire should be treated as a
wildfire for regional haze program purposes depends on the facts of the
situation. Specifically, the final definition includes the phrase ``a
prescribed fire that has developed into a wildfire,'' which means a
prescribed fire that has ``developed in an unplanned way such that its
management challenges are essentially the same as if it had been
initiated by an unplanned ignition.'' See 81 FR 68250. While we
proposed, and are finalizing, a definition of ``wildfire'' that
includes a statement that a wildfire that predominantly occurs on
wildland is a natural event, we do not intend to restrict a wildfire on
other types of land from also being treated as a natural event or
source, based on specific facts about the wildfire.
    We are also finalizing 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii) as proposed to
provide an adjustment to the URP framework for the 20 percent most
impaired days due to the impacts of wildland fire conducted with the
objective to establish, restore and/or maintain sustainable and
resilient wildland ecosystems, to reduce the risk of catastrophic
wildfires, and/or to preserve endangered or threatened species for
purposes of ecosystem health and public safety during which appropriate
basic smoke management practices were applied. Such an adjustment is
not available for fires of any type on lands other than wildland or to
burning on wildland that is for purposes of commercial logging slash
disposal rather than wildland ecosystem health and public safety.
    We are also finalizing the term ``basic smoke management
practices'' as an update of the term ``smoke management techniques'' in
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(D) (renumbered). We are also finalizing the use
of ``smoke management programs'' where the 1999 RHR used the term
``plans.'' The final rule differs from the proposal in that it does not
include the phrase ``as currently exist within the State for these
purposes.''
    This action also deletes the obsolete and duplicative definition of
``base year'' in 40 CFR 51.309(b)(8) and reserves that section number.
The definition of ``base year'' in 40 CFR 51.309(b)(7) is the operative
definition for this section of the RHR. The definition being deleted
refers to 40 CFR 51.309(f) which is reserved in the current rule.

H. Clarification of and Changes to the Required Content of Progress
Reports

1. Summary of Proposal
    The proposed rule detailed additional revisions to 40 CFR 51.308(g)
in order to clarify the substance of the regional haze progress
reports, given ambiguities in the 1999 RHR with respect to, among other
things, the period to be used for calculating current visibility
conditions, and whether forward-looking, quantitative modeling is
required in the progress reports to assess whether RPGs will be met.
These proposed revisions were numerous and often independent of one
another, and are summarized briefly as follows.
    A proposed revision to the opening portion of 40 CFR 51.308(g)
would have required that a state provide the public with a 60-day
comment period on a draft progress report that is not a SIP revision,
before submitting it to the EPA. The 1999 RHR did not explicitly say
that a public comment period was required for progress reports, because
other EPA rules require public notice for all SIP revisions and under
the 1999 RHR progress reports have been SIP revisions.
    Proposed revisions to 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(ii) added a number of
explanatory sentences to better indicate what ``current visibility
conditions'' are and how to calculate them, given that it is not clear
what ``current visibility conditions'' are in the 1999 RHR.
Practicality requires that ``current conditions'' should mean
``conditions for the most recent period of available data.'' \121\ The
proposed text also made

clear that the period for calculating current visibility conditions is
the most recent rolling 5-year period for which IMPROVE data are
available as of a date 6 months preceding the required date of the
progress report, given our belief that (since we also proposed that
progress reports no longer be submitted as SIP revisions) this period
would be sufficient for states to incorporate the most recent available
data into their progress reports.\122\ We also invited comment on other
specific appropriate timeframes, including 3 months, 9 months and 12
months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ In our guidance on the preparation of progress reports,
the EPA indicated that for ``current visibility conditions,'' the
reports should include the 5-year average that includes the most
recent quality assured public data available at the time the state
submits its 5-year progress report for public review. See section
II.C of General Principles for the 5-Year Regional Haze Progress
Reports for the Initial Regional Haze State Implementation Plans,
April 2013.
    \122\ Note that we are not proposing this specification of 6
months for the progress report aspects of a periodic comprehensive
SIP revision (see Section IV.E of this document), in light of the
longer time needed for administrative steps between completion of
technical work and submission to the EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed revisions to 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(iii) were designed to
remedy a gap in the 1999 RHR, which failed to make clear what the
``past 5 years'' are for assessing the change in visibility impairment.
We proposed to delete the ``past 5 years'' text and replace it with
text indicating the change in visibility impairment is to be assessed
over the span of time since the period addressed in the most recent
periodic comprehensive SIP revision. The EPA believed this would remedy
the issue that, because of data reporting delays, the period covered by
available monitoring data will not line up with the periods defined by
the submission dates for progress reports, and would ensure that each
year of visibility information is included either in a periodic
comprehensive SIP revision or the progress report that follows it. We
proposed to make the same change to the 1999 RHR's ``past 5 years''
text in the first sentence of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) for the purposes of
reporting changes in emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility
impairment, for similar reasons.
    We proposed several other revisions, particularly to 40 CFR
51.308(g)(4), to revise and clarify the states' obligations regarding
emissions inventories. One issue was that the 1999 RHR's text seemingly
required a state to project emissions inventories to the end of the
``applicable 5-year period'' whenever that endpoint is not the year of
a triennial inventory (2011, 2014, etc.) required by 40 CFR part 51
subpart A (Air Emissions Reporting Requirements). For a variety of
reasons more fully explained in the preamble to our proposal, we
proposed text changes that explain clearly that states must include in
their progress reports the emissions, by sector, from all sources and
activities up to the triennial year for which information has already
been submitted to the NEI. With regard to emissions data for EGUs,
states would need to include data up to the most recent year for which
the EPA has provided a state-level summary of such EGU-reported data.
Finally, the last sentence of the proposed text for 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4)
made clear that if emission estimation methods have changed from one
reporting year to the next, states need not backcast (i.e., use the
newest methods to repeat the estimation of emissions in earlier years)
in order to create a consistent trend line over the whole period, since
although some states expressed concern that other parties may interpret
the 1999 RHR as requiring it, the EPA has never expected states to
backcast in this context.
    We also proposed changes to 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5), which requires
assessments of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions that
have occurred, consistent with our proposed changes to other sections.
Specifically, we proposed to delete the reference to the ``past 5
years'' and instead direct states that the period to be assessed
involves that since the last periodic comprehensive SIP revision. We
also proposed text that would require states to report whether these
changes were anticipated in the most recent SIP, given that this would
assist the FLMs, the public and the EPA in understanding the
significance of any change in emissions for the adequacy of the SIP to
achieve established visibility improvement goals.
    The EPA further proposed to renumber the 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) of the
1999 RHR as 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7), and proposed to change that provision
to clarify that the RPGs to be assessed are those established for the
period covered by the most recent periodic comprehensive SIP revision.
The proposed change did not alter the intended meaning of this section,
and simply clarified that in a progress report, a state is not required
to look forward to visibility conditions beyond the end of the current
implementation period.
    The proposed, new 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) included a provision
requiring a state with a long-term strategy that includes a smoke
management program for prescribed fires on wildland to include in each
required progress report a summary of the most recent periodic
assessment of the smoke management program, including conclusions that
were reached in the assessment as to whether the program is meeting its
goals regarding improving ecosystem health and reducing the damaging
effects of catastrophic wildfires.
    A final proposed change to 40 CFR 51.308(g) removed the provisions
of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7) of the 1999 RHR entirely, relieving the state of
the need to review its visibility monitoring strategy within the
context of the progress report, a change that had been requested by
many states during our pre-proposal consultations. Such a change was
appropriate since all states currently rely on their participation in
the IMPROVE monitoring program (and expect to continue to do so), so
continuing the requirement for every state to submit a distinct
monitoring strategy element in each progress report would consume state
and EPA resources with little or no practical value for visibility
protection.
    Finally, we proposed minor changes to 40 CFR 51.308(h) and 40 CFR
51.308(i). Proposed changes to 40 CFR 51.308(h) regarding actions the
state is required to take based on the progress report merely removed
the implication that all progress reports are to be submitted at 5-year
intervals, and aimed to improve public understanding of the declaration
that a state must make when it determines that no SIP revisions are
required. The proposed changes to 40 CFR 51.308(i) created a stand-
alone requirement that states must consult with FLMs regarding progress
reports because the 1999 RHR only applies FLM consultation requirements
to SIP revisions (and the proposal would remove the formal SIP revision
requirement from progress reports).
2. Comments and Responses
    Several commenters pointed out that while there is no explicit
provision in the 1999 RHR for the public to comment prior to the
submission of progress reports for the first implementation period,
which are required to be SIP revisions, other provisions in EPA rules
require states to provide at least a 30-day notice to the public on any
type of SIP revision, in contrast to the 60-day period we proposed to
require for progress reports that are not SIP revisions. The commenters
generally opposed the longer period and noted that it, in combination
with the requirement to consult with FLMs well ahead of the start of
public comment, would make it more difficult to meet the requirement
that progress reports contain emissions and air quality

information no older than 6 months. We agree that retaining the current
requirement for a 30-day public comment period is appropriate and are
finalizing that period. States may provide a longer comment period,
either initially or upon request, and we recommend that states do so
when it would not prevent timely submission to the EPA.
    Some commenters opposed the proposed provision in 40 CFR
51.308(g)(3)(ii) making clear that the period for calculating current
visibility conditions is the most recent rolling 5-year period for
which IMPROVE data are available as of a date 6 months preceding the
required date of the progress report. As discussed previously, we also
invited comment on other specific timeframes, and most of these
commenters felt 12 months to be a more appropriate timeframe. However,
in general these comments pointed specifically to the proposed
provision requiring consultation with FLMs 60 to 120 days prior to a
public hearing or other public comment opportunity on progress reports,
and/or pointed to the proposed requirement for a 60-day public comment
opportunity, as the reason for a 12-month period for IMPROVE data
availability. However, as noted elsewhere in this document these two
review/comment periods are not being finalized as proposed. In
addition, the argument of several commenters that 6 months is an
insufficient period to incorporate IMPROVE data even without the
extended FLM consultation period was not well supported. Therefore, the
EPA does not find these comments persuasive given the other content of
the final rule.
    One commenter on the proposed 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(ii) noted that
given the fact that progress reports for the first implementation
period have often not been submitted on time, the EPA should adjust the
language of the rule text such that the period for calculating current
visibility conditions should be based on the later of the required date
or submittal date of the progress report. The EPA disagrees with this
assessment because this could create a situation requiring a state to
re-analyze data (and substantially re-draft portions of a progress
report) in situations where submittal of a progress report is delayed
for valid or unforeseeable reasons. We note that there will be other
avenues for the public and the EPA to obtain the most recent IMPROVE
data if a late progress report does not have the most current
information.
    Comments on the proposed revisions to 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) regarding
emissions tracking were numerous and varied, with many commenters
expressing reservations about the proposed text. In general, these
commenters asked that the EPA either not require states to use NEI data
unless such data are available in final form a minimum of 12 months
prior to the due date of the progress report, or that states should use
the most recent final NEI data available at the time the progress
report is prepared. In response, we want to reiterate that our proposal
addressed only the requirement for the time period for the emissions
information to be included in a progress report. We did not propose to
require that the emissions data actually submitted to or contained in
any version of the NEI be used in a progress report. Our intention is
that a state have the flexibility to update and revise such data prior
to presenting it in a progress report, but not the flexibility to limit
its presentation to only emissions information for earlier years.\123\
Second, we acknowledge that, as proposed, this subsection could be
interpreted to trigger a requirement to present emissions data for a
certain year should data for that year be made available for the first
time the day before the planned submission of a progress report. We are
therefore finalizing additional text in 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) (similar to
text proposed and being finalized in 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)) making clear
that only NEI emissions data submitted by the state to the
Administrator (or, in the case of data submitted directly by sources to
a centralized emissions data system, made available in a state-level
summary by the Administrator) at least 6 months prior to the due date
for the progress report triggers the requirement that the progress
report include emissions information for that year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ This point about updating and revising data for a
particular year also applies to emissions information made available
by the Administrator in a state-level summary. It is possible that a
state may have more recent, more complete or more accurate data for
its sources than the Administrator has been able to include in his
or her state-level summary for a particular year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed changes to 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) involving assessments of
any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions that have occurred
since the period addressed in the last SIP revision were generally well
received, however, one commenter asked that the EPA require additional
specificity in this assessment. The EPA did not make any changes in
response to this comment because the rule we are finalizing already
includes the required information.
    Comments on the proposed, new 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) regarding a
progress report including a summary of the most recent periodic
assessment of any existing smoke management program that is part of the
long-term strategy were numerous, with some commenters generally
favoring and all but one state opposing this additional rule provision.
The comments in opposition to the new provision appear to interpret it
as creating a requirement that states periodically assess their smoke
management programs and whether these programs are meeting their goals.
However, the proposed provision was not intended to create any such
requirement. It merely intended that if there is a smoke management
program in the long-term strategy that already has a periodic program
assessment element, the findings and recommendation of the most recent
assessment must be summarized in the regional haze progress report. We
are finalizing small changes from the proposed provision to make this
intention clear. We reiterate that we interpret this provision to only
apply to smoke management programs that have been made part of the
long-term strategy in the regional haze SIP, and only to programs that
have a program evaluation element. A state that has such a smoke
management program and has included its program in its regional haze
SIP has acknowledged that management of smoke is a significant concern
with respect to visibility. Providing the public with easy access to a
summary of the most recent program assessment via the regional haze
progress report will facilitate public participation in the state's
development of its next SIP revision. The benefit of including a
summary of the program assessment for a smoke management program that
is not part of the SIP in the progress report, if there has been a
program assessment, may be less, and we believe a state should have
flexibility to include or not include such a summary in its progress
report.
    Regarding the proposed 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7) (which as proposed was
simply a modified version of the 1999 RHR's 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) that
clarified that a progress report's required assessment of whether a SIP
is sufficient to meet established RPGs should address the RPGs defined
for the end of the particular implementation period), the few comments
received from states indicated a general opposition to the requirement
to evaluate SIP adequacy to meet RPGs. The EPA did not propose to
remove this function of the progress reports, so comments in favor of
removing it are outside the scope of this rulemaking.

    The proposed removal of the provisions of the 1999 RHR's 40 CFR
51.308(g)(7), designed to relieve the state of the need to review its
visibility monitoring strategy within the context of the progress
report, received few comments, but was generally opposed by
conservation organization commenters and favored by state commenters.
With respect to the progress reports that will be due in the second and
subsequent implementation period, the reasoning for eliminating these
provisions as explained in the proposal remains valid even in light of
the comments received. However, upon further consideration it is
appropriate to leave in place the requirement for a monitoring strategy
element for the remaining progress reports due in the first
implementation period, as many progress reports have already been
submitted and many others are well under development. Being consistent
with respect to this requirement for all progress reports during the
first implementation period will not be a significant burden on the
states. We have not disapproved the monitoring strategy element of any
progress report to date.
    The RTC responds to these comments in more detail.
    Public comments on 40 CFR 51.308(i) regarding the requirement for
consultation with FLMs on progress reports are discussed elsewhere in
this document.
3. Final Rule
    The EPA is finalizing all of the rule text detailed in the
preceding discussion as proposed with changes. Instead of removing the
1999 RHR's 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7) regarding monitoring strategies
entirely, we are retaining it but making it applicable only to progress
reports for the first implementation period. With the retention of 40
CFR 51.308(g)(7), the numbering of other sections in the final rule is
different than proposed and is consistent with the numbering in the
1999 RHR. We are revising the opening text of 40 CFR 51.308(g) to make
the required public comment period be 30 days rather than 60 days. We
are revising 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) to provide a 6-month grace period for
the trigger of the requirement to include emissions information for a
recent year. The final version of new 40 CFR 51.308(g)(8) (numbered as
(g)(6) in the proposal) has been revised from the proposal to clarify
its applicability.
    We are finalizing rule text in 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7) that makes it
clear that all remaining progress reports for the first implementation
period submitted after these rule revisions are finalized must address
the monitoring strategy, as has been the requirement of the 1999 RHR
for progress reports already submitted. A progress report for the
second or a subsequent implementation period will not have to address
the monitoring strategy.

I. Changes to Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment Provisions

1. Summary of Proposal
    The EPA proposed extensive changes to 40 CFR 51.300 through 51.308
with regard to reasonably attributable visibility impairment. The
motivation for these changes was discussed in detail in the proposal.
In summary, in the time since the reasonably attributable visibility
impairment provisions were originally promulgated in 1980, advances in
ambient monitoring, emissions quantification, emission control
technology and meteorological and air quality modeling have been built
into the regional haze program, such that state compliance with the
RHR's requirements will largely ensure that progress is made towards
the goal of natural visibility conditions. Therefore, some aspects of
the reasonably attributable visibility impairment provisions of the
visibility regulations have less potential benefit than they did when
they originally took effect. These provisions have received few
revisions over the years resulting in a substantial amount of confusing
and outdated language within the current visibility regulations
including seemingly overlapping and redundant requirements. While there
have historically been very few certifications of existing reasonably
attributable visibility impairment by an FLM, in several situations a
certification by an FLM has ultimately resulted in new controls or
changes in source operation.
    The EPA therefore proposed to (1) eliminate recurring requirements
on states that we believe have no significant benefit for visibility
protection; (2) clarify and strengthen the 1999 RHR's provisions under
which states must address reasonably attributable visibility impairment
when an FLM certifies that such impairment is occurring in a particular
Class I area due to a single source or a small number of sources; (3)
remove FIP provisions that require the EPA to periodically assess
whether reasonably attributable visibility impairment is occurring and
to respond to FLM certifications; and (4) edit various portions of 40
CFR 51.300 through 40 CFR 51.308 to make them clearer and more
compatible with each other. The EPA solicited comment on each of the
proposed changes as well as suggestions for alternative approaches.
    Specific proposed provisions included:
     Revisions to 40 CFR 51.300, Purpose and applicability, to
expand the reasonably attributable visibility impairment requirements
to all states in light of the evolved understanding that pollutants
emitted from one or a small number of sources can affect Class I areas
many miles away.
     Revisions to 40 CFR 51.301, Definitions, to change the
definition of reasonably attributable in order to make clear that a
state does not have complete discretion to determine what techniques
are appropriate for attributing visibility impairment to specific
sources.
     Deletion of the entire text of 40 CFR 51.302 and
replacement with new language clearly describing a state's
responsibilities upon receiving a FLM certification of reasonably
attributable visibility impairment. The following aspects of the
proposed 40 CFR 51.302 are of particular relevance in summarizing
comments and explaining our final action.
    [cir] The proposed 40 CFR 51.302(b) described the required state
action in response to any FLM certification of reasonably attributable
visibility impairment, namely that a state shall revise its regional
haze implementation plan to include a determination, based on the four
reasonable progress factors set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A), of
any controls necessary on the certified source(s) to make reasonable
progress toward natural visibility conditions in the affected Class I
area. This would preserve the existing state obligation, including the
fact that a certification by an FLM would not create a definite state
obligation to adopt a new control requirement, but rather only to
submit a SIP revision that provides for any controls necessary for
reasonable progress. It would be the EPA, not the certifying FLM, that
would determine whether the responding SIP is adequate and the response
reasonable.
    [cir] The proposed 40 CFR 51.302(c) addressed those situations
where an FLM certifies as a reasonably attributable visibility
impairment source a BART-eligible source where there is at that time no
SIP or FIP in place setting BART emission limits for that source or
addressing BART requirements via a better-than-BART alternative
program.\124\ In such an instance, the

proposed rule would require the state to revise its regional haze SIP
to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e), BART requirements for
regional haze visibility impairment, and notes that this requirement
exists in addition to the requirements of 40 CFR 51.302(b) regarding
imposition of controls for reasonable progress. The proposed version of
40 CFR 51.302(c) also clarified two aspects of the 1999 RHR to match
the EPA's past and current interpretations. First, while a
certification of reasonably attributable visibility impairment for a
BART-eligible source prior to the EPA's approval of a state's BART SIP
for that source does not impose any substantive obligation on a state
that is over and above the BART obligation imposed by 40 CFR 51.308,
the state's response to the certification of reasonably attributable
visibility impairment for a BART-eligible source must take into account
current information. Second, a certification of reasonably attributable
visibility impairment for a BART-eligible source after the state's BART
SIP for that source has been approved by the EPA does not trigger a
requirement for a new BART determination based on the five statutory
factors for BART, but rather, the state's obligation with respect to
that source is the same as for a non-BART eligible source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ Although most of the BART requirements have been addressed
in most states, there remain a handful of states with BART
obligations. In addition, there is litigation over the BART element
in some approved SIPs and promulgated FIPs. We expect that this
situation may exist in one or more states at some time after the
effective date of the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [cir] Three alternatives were proposed for 40 CFR 51.302(d)
regarding the time schedule for state response to an FLM certification
of reasonably attributable visibility impairment.
     Revisions to 40 CFR 51.303, Exemptions from control, to
correctly refer to the new 40 CFR 51.302(c) as well as to the BART
provisions in 40 CFR 51.308(e). Note that these revisions were
described in the preamble of the proposal, but were inadvertently not
included in the proposed rule text.
     Revisions to 40 CFR 51.304, Identification of integral
vistas, to remove antiquated language in light of the fact that FLMs
were required to identify any such integral vistas on or before
December 31, 1985, and to list those few integral vistas that were
properly identified.
     Revisions to 40 CFR 51.305, Monitoring for reasonably
attributable visibility impairment, to state that the requirement to
include in a periodic comprehensive SIP revision a monitoring strategy
specifically for reasonably attributable visibility impairment in Class
I area(s) only applies in situations where the Administrator, Regional
Administrator or FLM has advised the state of a need for it.
     Complete removal of 40 CFR 51.306.
     Revisions to 40 CFR 51.308 (in addition to those discussed
elsewhere in this document and in the proposal) related to reasonably
attributable visibility impairment.
     Revisions to 40 CFR 51.308(e), BART, relating to a state's
option to enact an emissions trading program or other alternative
measure in lieu of source-specific BART.
    Finally, consistent with our proposal to remove the requirement for
states to periodically assess reasonably attributable visibility
impairment, the EPA proposed to revise many sections of 40 CFR part 52
to remove provisions that establish FIPs that require the EPA to
periodically assess whether reasonably attributable visibility
impairment exists at Class I areas in certain states and to address it
if it does, and to respond to any certification of reasonably
attributable visibility impairment that may be directed to a state that
does not have an approved reasonably attributable visibility impairment
SIP.
2. Comments and Responses
    Comments on the proposed revisions to 40 CFR 51.300 regarding the
expansion of reasonably attributable visibility impairment to states
that do not have Class I areas were mixed across stakeholder groups.
While few commenters expressed disagreement with the EPA's statements
surrounding the improved scientific understanding of long-range
pollutant transport showing that reasonably attributable visibility
impairment can be an interstate issue, commenters opposing the
reasonably attributable visibility impairment expansion generally
pointed to the alleged redundant nature of the reasonably attributable
visibility impairment and regional haze requirements, as well as
asserting that any and all FLM concerns can be raised during the SIP
development process. Using similar arguments, a number of commenters
urged the EPA to remove the reasonably attributable visibility
impairment requirements entirely, although this was not an option
outlined in the proposal.
    A number of comments on the proposed revisions to 40 CFR 51.301
regarding definitions opined that changing the definition of
``reasonably attributable'' (to remove implied state discretion in
determining whether the technique used was appropriate) would
significantly alter the federal-state relationship in the visibility
program and give FLMs authority beyond that afforded in sections 169A
and 169B of the CAA. In response, the EPA is clarifying that the text
edit to remove the phrase ``the state deems'' from the definition of
``reasonably attributable'' was not intended to give the FLMs sole
power to determine what technique is appropriate for attributing
visibility impairment to a source or small number of sources. If and
when an FLM makes a certification, it can base the certification on a
technique that it thinks appropriate. Whether that technique is
appropriate is an issue that the affected state may opine on during the
consultation opportunity the FLM is required to offer (details of this
consultation opportunity are discussed later) and as part of its
responsive SIP revision. If the state believes that the technique is
not appropriate and that no appropriate technique would verify the
attribution alleged by the FLM, the state may submit a narrative-only
SIP revision that disagrees with the certification and explains the
reason for the disagreement, and accordingly contains no additional
measures for the identified source or sources. However, it will be the
EPA that ultimately determines whether the technique was appropriate,
when we approve or disapprove the responsive SIP revision after
considering the information that supports the certification, the
information in the SIP revision, and public comments. This change in
the rule text does not alter the federal-state relationship, because
even under the wording of the 1999 RHR, the EPA would review the
reasonableness of a state's determination as to what technique is
appropriate for attributing visibility impairment.
    Several of these comments also ask that, if the EPA finalizes this
change in definition, that the scope of attribution techniques which
would qualify as ``appropriate'' be better stated. On this point, the
EPA does not believe imposing such limits on the scope of techniques
that qualify as ``appropriate'' is justified, particularly given that
continually improving scientific understanding of pollutant transport
and the continually evolving scope of modeling will no doubt result in
even better attribution techniques in the future.
    Other comments on 40 CFR 51.301 asked for a more descriptive and
thorough definition of ``reasonably attributable visibility
impairment'' and its related terms. Comments on 40 CFR 51.302 regarding
FLM certification of reasonably attributable visibility impairment
contained similar requests,

with most states and industry expressing concern that the proposed rule
did not define sufficiently limiting principles for FLMs, failed to
identify information about the scientific basis for any certification
of reasonably attributable visibility impairment, and did not provide
any basis by which a state or source could review or object to any
certification of reasonably attributable visibility impairment before
it triggered a mandatory obligation to respond. Several commenters
asked for guidance or criteria in the final rule for the certification
process and techniques for attribution, with some providing a suggested
list of elements to include in a certification of reasonably
attributable visibility impairment.
    The comments in favor of a more specific provision in the final
rule for what type of source impact, assessed by what method,
constitutes reasonable attributable visibility impairment did not offer
any particular more specific definition of reasonably attributable
visibility impairment, and we had not proposed any more specific
definition. While the EPA acknowledges the comments, we do not think it
is necessary to finalize a more specific definition in the rule text.
The EPA agrees with the portion of one comment letter suggesting that a
thorough certification of reasonably attributable visibility impairment
should describe the location(s) within the Class I area where the
impairment occurs, when (e.g., year-round or only during certain times
of the year) the impairment occurs, what attribution methods were used
to determine impairment (such as photographs or videos, monitoring,
and/or modeling), a description of how the impairment adversely impacts
visibility, an identification of the source or sources believed by the
FLM to be causing the impairment and the methods used to make this
determination. Past reasonably attributable visibility impairment
certifications have generally included these elements or the certifying
FLM otherwise shared such information with the state.
    Additional comments on 40 CFR 51.302 asked for some degree of state
participation in certification development, such as a pre-certification
consultation requirement whereby FLMs must consult with states (and
possibly EPA) before certifying, as well as an option for the state to
appeal a certification once received. In response to these comments, we
are including a consultation obligation on the FLMs in the final rule
text. We would like to reiterate the importance of state-FLM
consultation for all aspects of the RHR, including reasonably
attributable visibility impairment. While the final rule requires the
FLM to offer a state an in-person consultation meeting at least 60 days
prior to making a certification of reasonably attributable visibility
impairment, we encourage FLMs and state to have conversations and
exchange technical information even earlier. The FLMs have conveyed to
the EPA their expectation that a reasonably attributable visibility
impairment certification will be an unusual ``backstop'' for a
situation that is not otherwise addressed under the regional haze
program despite good communication between the FLM and the state. In
addition, in each instance since the original regulations were
promulgated since 1980, FLMs have consulted with states and EPA and
only made the decision to certify reasonably attributable visibility
impairment when these conversations did not lead to a resolution of the
issue.
    One commenter said that there is no provision in the 1980 rule on
reasonably attributable visibility impairment that allows an FLM to
make a certification for a source that is not BART-eligible. This
commenter objected to the explicit provisions in our proposed rule
revisions that provide for such a certification. We disagree with the
commenter's description of the 1980 rule. We recognize that the term
``existing stationary facility'' was defined in the 1980 rule as
including only BART-eligible sources, and that many of the provisions
of the 1980 rule were specific to these sources. However, the 1980
rule's definition of reasonably attributable visibility impairment
refers to ``air pollutants from one, or a small number of sources,''
not more narrowly to ``existing stationary facilities.'' Also, 40 CFR
51.302(c)(2)(i) as promulgated in 1980 says that a state plan to
address reasonably attributable visibility impairment must include a
strategy ``as may be necessary to make reasonable progress towards the
national goal'' and 40 CFR 51.302(c)(2)(ii) requires an assessment of
how each element of the plan relates to preventing visibility
impairment. Neither of these sections is limited to only ``existing
stationary facilities.'' In addition, 40 CFR 51.302(c)(3) as
promulgated in 1980 required plans to require ``each source'' to
maintain control equipment and to establish procedures to ensure the
equipment is properly operated and maintained. While the remaining
parts of 40 CFR 51.302(c) contain more specific requirements that apply
when a certification of reasonably attributable visibility impairment
has identified an ``existing stationary facility'', the existence of
these requirements does not mean that an FLM may not make a
certification for another type of source or that a state has no
obligation to submit a SIP revision to respond to the certification.
Furthermore, as explained in more detail in the RTC, we believe that
the CAA provides broad enough authority for the EPA to promulgate the
provisions in the final rule regarding the certification of reasonably
attributable visibility impairment by sources that are not BART-
eligible, regardless of how these sources were addressed in the 1980
rule. If a certification is made for a source (or a small number of
sources) that is not BART-eligible (or for a BART-eligible source for
which the EPA has already approved or promulgated a plan addressing the
BART requirement), the responsive SIP revision must provide for
whatever measures for that source are necessary to make reasonable
progress considering the four statutory factors, unless the SIP
revision establishes that there is no reasonably attributable
visibility impairment due to the identified source.
    There were a number of comments on 40 CFR 51.302(d) regarding the
proposed three options for a schedule for state response to a
certification of reasonably attributable visibility impairment. Some
commenters recommended the first proposed approach of keeping the 1999
RHR's schedule under which a state response is due within 3 years of a
certification of reasonably attributable visibility impairment. Most
commenters found the third proposed approach to be unnecessarily
complicated, while some objected to how much time could elapse between
a certification and the state's responsive SIP revision; we are not
finalizing the third approach and will not discuss it further. Some
commenters favored a modified version of the second proposed option (in
which the deadline would be the earlier of the due date for the next
progress report or periodic comprehensive SIP revision, so long as that
submission is due at least 2 years after the certification), but with
more time to respond. These commenters generally stated that the
minimum workable time was either 3 or 4 years. It is noteworthy,
however, that other commenters opposed this second option, largely due
to the fact that in some situations a state response would not be due
for some time after an FLM certification (up to 7 years).
    We noted that if the second approach were finalized but with the
minimum time to respond to a certification increased to 3 or 4 years
(as recommended by some states),

responses to FLM certifications may not be due until 8 or 9 years after
certification, which is an excessive amount of time. The EPA believes
that retaining the fixed 3-year deadline of the existing rule is
workable for all parties and is most appropriate and hence is
finalizing the first option in this rulemaking, with an added provision
that no response will be due before the July 31, 2021, due date of the
next SIP revision.\125\ While not specifically proposed, this provision
is being finalized in response to the general concern of some
commenters with a state having to respond to a reasonably attributable
visibility impairment certification before it has had an opportunity to
systematically consider what additional emission reductions measures
are necessary for reasonable progress for the second implementation
period taking into account all the requirements of this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ The added provision that refers to July 31, 2021, will
have the effect of providing additional time for the state's
response only for a reasonably attributable visibility impairment
certification made prior to July 31, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While we did not publish specific proposed rule changes for
removing all mention of integral vistas from the visibility protection
rules, we invited comment on such a step. We did so because it appeared
that if we finalized our other proposals, there would be no requirement
in our rules that actually depends on whether an integral vista
associated with a Class I area had been identified. Thus, removing
mention of integral vistas would simplify the rule text without
changing any party's obligations under our visibility protection rules.
A number of commenters agreed with our assessment and supported the
removal of all mention of integral vistas, and no commenter opposed
this change. However, we now realize that because the definition in 40
CFR 51.301 that ``visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area
includes any integral vista associated with that area'' and because
there are several provisions that after our final action continue to
use the term ``visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area,''
there are some provisions where the existence of a single identified
integral vista could conceivably make a difference to the obligation of
some party or to an EPA action. For this reason, we are finalizing only
what we proposed, which is removal of antiquated language in section 40
CFR 51.304, but not removal of all references to integral vistas in
subpart P.
    For a discussion of the comments on other areas proposed and being
finalized related to reasonably attributable visibility impairment,
please see the RTC document available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
3. Final Rule
    We are finalizing the proposed revisions to the reasonably
attributable visibility impairment and related provisions, with four
changes.
    First, as mentioned in the Section IV.I.2 of this document, we are
finalizing a modified version of one of the proposed alternatives
regarding the deadline for state response to a certification of
reasonably attributable visibility impairment certification, namely
that the response would always be due within 3 years (as required by
the existing rule). The final rule retains this option's 3-year, fixed
deadline rather than one of the alternative schemes proposed that would
have always aligned the deadline with the next SIP revision or progress
report, but adds an additional one-time provision such that a state
response to a certification of reasonably attributable visibility
impairment will in no case be due earlier than July 31, 2021. The final
rule retains the language indicating that the state is not required at
the time of response to also revise its RPGs to reflect the additional
emission reductions required from the source or sources.
    Second, we are adding to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(v) and 40 CFR
51.308(e)(4) references to the reasonably attributable visibility
impairment provisions in 40 CFR 51.302(b) and 40 CFR 51.302(c). We
proposed to add to each of these parts of the rule only a reference to
40 CFR 51.302(b) but have realized that a reference in each to 40 CFR
51.302(c) is also needed. With these revisions, it is clear that for a
BART-eligible source participating in a trading program that has been
determined to be better-than-BART, if an FLM certifies that there is
reasonably attributable visibility impairment due to that source a
state may include a geographic enhancement of the trading program to
satisfy both the reasonable progress obligation under 40 CFR 51.302(b)
and any outstanding BART obligation under 40 CFR 51.302(c). While most
BART-eligible sources cannot become subject to 40 CFR 51.302(c) because
an approved BART SIP (or a SIP under 40 CFR 51.309) or a FIP is in
place as a result of planning efforts in the first implementation
period, there are a small number of BART-eligible sources that might
become subject to 40 CFR 51.302(c) and it is important to be clear that
a geographic enhancement is an option for them, as it has been under
the 1999 RHR.
    Third, also mentioned in the preceding section, we are finalizing a
requirement in 40 CFR 51.302(a) that the FLM making a certification of
reasonably attributable visibility impairment must offer an opportunity
to the state(s) containing the identified sources to consult regarding
the basis for the certification, in person and at least 60 days before
the FLM makes the certification. This change was added in response to
comments received that specifically asked for such consultation.
    Fourth, we are not finalizing the proposed changes to 40 CFR
51.308(c), for the following reasons. Because we are finalizing a 3-
year, fixed deadline for state response to a certification of
reasonably attributable visibility impairment, the first part of the
proposed provision (regarding the need to respond as part of an
upcoming, otherwise due SIP revision) no longer applies. As to the
second part of the proposed provision (regarding monitoring to assess
reasonably attributable visibility impairment), we now realize this
aspect is adequately covered by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(4) and that
duplication of requirements in different subsections would only cause
confusion. Therefore, 40 CFR 51.308(c) will remain unchanged from the
1999 RHR.

J. Consistency Revisions Related To Permitting of New and Modified
Major Sources

1. Summary of Proposal
    Proposed changes to 40 CFR 51.307, New source review, were limited
to a few proposed changes to maintain consistency with other sections
of the RHR and with the CAA. These changes were minor and therefore
will not be repeated here.
2. Comments and Responses
    There were no significant comments received on the proposed changes
to this subsection.
3. Final Rule
    Changes to 40 CFR 51.307 are being finalized as proposed. The EPA
does wish to emphasize the requirement for FLM consultation during the
new source review permitting process. As discussed in the preamble for
the proposal, 40 CFR 51.307(a) requires FLM consultation for any new
major source or major modification that would be constructed in an area
designated attainment or unclassifiable that may affect visibility in
any Federal Class I

area. FLM consultation is also required under 40 CFR 51.307(b)(2) for
any major source or major modification that proposes to locate in a
nonattainment area that may affect visibility in any mandatory Federal
Class I area. Two EPA guidance documents interpret this consultation
requirement, particularly with regard to evaluating whether a proposed
new major source or major modification may affect visibility in a
Federal Class I area.\126\ The EPA regional offices can provide
additional assistance to states in ensuring that their permitting
programs meet the regulations and that the appropriate consultation is
being conducted for affected permits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ Notification to Federal Land Manager Under Section 165(d)
of the Clean Air Act, memo from David G. Hawkins, EPA Assistant
Administrator for Air, Noise, and Radiation to EPA's Regional
Administrators, March 19, 1979; 1990 New Source Review Workshop
Manual, Chapter E, Section III A. Source Applicability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

K. Changes to FLM Consultation Requirements

1. Summary of Proposal
    As discussed in the proposed rule, state consultation with FLMs is
a critical part of the development of quality SIPs. We proposed not
only to apply the FLM consultation requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2)
to progress reports that are not SIP revisions, but to make further
edits to this subsection to support such consultations. The proposed
changes were motivated by a concern that the 1999 RHR's requirement for
consultation at least 60 days prior to a public hearing may not result
in a state offering an in-person consultation meeting sufficiently
early in the state's planning process to meaningfully inform the
state's development of the long-term strategy. We proposed to add a
requirement that such consultation on SIPs and progress reports occur
early enough to allow the state time for full consideration of FLM
input, but no fewer than 60 days prior to a public hearing or other
public comment opportunity. A consultation opportunity that takes place
no less than 120 days prior to a public hearing or other public comment
opportunity would then be deemed to have been ``early enough.''
2. Comments and Responses
    Overall, the comments were split with many favoring any enhanced
FLM participation in regional haze planning, while most states
generally disfavored enhanced participation.
    Regarding comments specific to the proposed changes to 40 CFR
51.308(i)(2), states were split in supporting or opposing the inclusion
of a reference using the phrase ``early enough.'' Some commenters said
the criteria were not clear and asked for clarity on what would be
needed to satisfy the requirement. In addition, many states and
industry said the current 60-day period is long enough for SIPs, and
that a longer period could delay their submission.
    For progress reports, several state and industry commenters
indicated that the 60-day period described in the 1999 RHR is
sufficient, or that FLMs should not be consulted on progress reports at
all if they are no longer required to be SIP revisions. A main concern
was that anything more than a 60-day period would conflict with the
proposed requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) to assess current
conditions based on the IMPROVE data available 6 months before the
progress report due date. As discussed earlier in this document, this
requirement under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) is being finalized as proposed.
The EPA agrees that a requirement to consult with FLMs on progress
reports more than 60 days prior to opening a public comment period may
interfere with the revised provisions in 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) and is
therefore finalizing the 60-day requirement without referring to
consultation being ``early enough'' and without referring to the 120-
day point in the process.
    Finally, some multi-state organization commenters asked for
confirmation that state and FLM participation in the RPO process would
continue to meet the consultation requirement. The EPA does not agree
that such participation would suffice for consultation because being
informed of the technical work performed by the multi-state
organizations is not the same as the FLMs being substantively involved
in regulatory decisions a state makes on what controls to require based
on that work (i.e., the decisions on the long-term strategy on which
public comment will be sought prior to submission to the EPA in the
form of a SIP revision). Furthermore, the objective of these provisions
is not to achieve FLM consultation with states on setting RPGs, since
that process is largely mechanical in nature because RPGs are to be
based on the long-term strategy and do not involve any additional
policy decisions. We note that a standing invitation for FLM
participation in the work performed by multi-state organizations may be
part of the procedures that a SIP provides for continuing consultation
between the state and the FLM, as required by 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4).
    For a more thorough discussion of the comments on FLM consultation
requirements, please see the RTC document available in the docket for
this rulemaking.
3. Final Rule
    After consideration of public comments, we are finalizing the
revisions to 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2) with changes from proposal. The
proposed requirement for consultation no fewer than 60 days prior to a
public hearing or other public comment opportunity (with a consultation
opportunity that takes place no less than 120 days prior to a public
hearing or other public comment opportunity being deemed ``early
enough'') is being finalized for SIP revisions. For progress reports
(which, as discussed elsewhere in this document, will no longer be
subject to the formalities of a SIP revision), the EPA is finalizing a
requirement for consultation no fewer than 60 days prior to a public
hearing or other public comment opportunity, with no reference to the
consultation opportunity being ``early enough.'' We are also finalizing
somewhat different wording regarding the purpose of the consultation on
SIP revisions, to convey the idea that consultation that takes place
via an in-person meeting 60 to 120 days prior to a public hearing or
comment opportunity will be about decisions that are about to be made
by the state on its long-term strategy rather than about the plan for
the technical analysis that informs these decisions, because by that
time the technical analysis will have already been largely
completed.\127\ The final wording on the purpose of the consultation
also emphasizes the content of the long-term strategy rather than the
setting of the RPGs, consistent with the concept that the RPGs are a
reflection of the requirements of the long-term strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ We expect that the FLM would have already provided input
into the planning of the technical analysis including steps to
gather information to be analyzed, as part of the ongoing
consultation required under 40 CFR 51.308(h)(4) and as part of FLM
participation in multi-state planning groups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

L. Extension of Next Regional Haze SIP Deadline From 2018 to 2021

1. Summary of Proposal
    The EPA proposed to revise 40 CFR 51.308(f) to move the deadline
for the submission of the next periodic comprehensive SIP revisions
from July 31, 2018, to July 31, 2021, with states retaining the option
of submitting their SIP revisions before July 31, 2021. We proposed to
leave the end date for the second implementation period at 2028,

regardless of when SIP revisions are submitted. The proposed change was
to be a one-time schedule adjustment such that the due dates for
periodic comprehensive SIP revisions for the third and subsequent
planning periods would still be due on July 31, 2028, and every 10
years thereafter. The EPA proposed this extension to allow states to
coordinate regional haze planning with other regulatory programs,
including but not limited to the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards,\128\
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS,\129\ the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS \130\ and the Clean Power Plan,\131\ with the
further expectation that this cross-program coordination would lead to
better overall policies and enhanced environmental protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ 77 FR 9304, February 16, 2012.
    \129\ 75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010.
    \130\ 78 FR 3086, January 15, 2013.
    \131\ 80 FR 64662, October 23, 2015. The Clean Power Plan was
stayed by the Supreme Court for the duration of litigation. Order in
Pending Case, West Virginia v. EPA, No. 15A773 (February 9, 2016).
As a result, states have no compliance obligations with respect to
the Clean Power Plan at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Comments and Reponses
    Many commenters, especially state air agencies, expressed support
for this extension, while other commenters opposed it. A primary
concern from the latter group of commenters was that, given the fact
that many initial regional haze SIPs were submitted late (in some
cases, well into the first implementation period), this pattern was
likely to continue and many periodic comprehensive SIP revisions would
not be submitted by July 31, 2021, which would leave even less time
during the second implementation period for any emission reductions
necessary for reasonable progress to occur. One commenter stated that
the 2021 date would be workable provided EPA acts promptly on each
state's periodic comprehensive SIP revision, and that EPA should
indicate now that it will make prompt findings of nonsubmittal or
substantial inadequacy when the time comes.
    As a general matter, making findings of nonsubmittal or substantial
inadequacy are well within the EPA's authority. While we recognize the
commenter's concern regarding the timing of SIP submissions, we expect
that the length of the second implementation period will be sufficient
to secure the emission reductions necessary for reasonable progress.
The EPA anticipates that the experience states and the EPA have gained
from the first round of regional haze planning will result in a more
efficient process of SIP submission and review moving forward.
Furthermore, the EPA has clarified in the final rule that whether or
not a control measure can be installed and become operational before
the end of the planning period is not a factor in determining whether
that measure is necessary to achieve reasonable progress. Thus, the
length of the implementation period should not be a barrier to
achieving the emission reductions identified by the reasonable progress
analysis. Finally, this rule change grants states additional time up
front (before 2021) for regional haze planning and analysis and thus
makes it more likely they will submit their SIP revisions for the
second implementation period either on or ahead of schedule.
    Some commenters contended that the EPA's rationales do not justify
the proposed extension, and that giving states an additional 3 years to
coordinate their planning would frustrate Congress's policy goals and
impair human health. One commenter said that the EPA should evaluate
the public health impacts of its proposal to delay the SIP deadline to
2021. We disagree with these comments. As we explained at proposal, the
RHR requires states to include the impacts of other regulatory programs
when developing their regional haze SIPs. Many industries, including
the utility sector, are currently in the midst of developing mid- to
long-term plans that will govern how they navigate the numerous recent
additions to the regulatory landscape that include, but are not limited
to, the programs discussed in the proposal and mentioned previously
(i.e., the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards,\132\ the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS,\133\ the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS \134\
and the Clean Power Plan).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \132\ 77 FR 9304, February 16, 2012.
    \133\ 75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010.
    \134\ 78 FR 3086, January 15, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Decisions that states and regulated entities make in response to
one program may affect the options available for addressing their
regional haze obligations, and vice versa. Providing time for regulated
entities to coordinate their planning will allow them to design
pollution control strategies that make efficient and effective use of
their resources over the long term. Congress's goal of attaining
natural visibility conditions will not be achieved in the next
implementation period--it is necessarily a longer-term effort that will
require states and regulated entities to make careful, considered
decisions about how to balance the requirement to achieve sustained and
sustainable visibility improvement moving forward with their business,
regulatory and other priorities. Additionally, with the extension of
the due date for the second implementation period SIPs, we are
maintaining 2028 as the end date of the implementation period. We thus
disagree that providing states 3 additional years to coordinate
planning is inconsistent with continuing to make reasonable progress
towards the ultimate goal of natural visibility conditions. We also
disagree that providing 3 additional years will seriously undermine the
goal of coordinated, regional planning among states. While we are aware
that some states in the eastern U.S. are considering submitting SIPs
before July 31, 2021, these states are coordinating among themselves on
their technical analyses and they have not indicated that the extension
will obstruct their coordination with other states.
    Although Congress did not establish an explicit role for health
considerations in the regional haze program, reductions of visibility-
impairing pollutants also have important health related co-benefits.
However, because the purpose of the regional haze program is improving
visibility in Class I areas, we disagree that the EPA should evaluate
the human health impacts of moving the deadline for regional haze SIP
submissions from 2018 to 2021. Importantly, the emission reductions
achieved in the first implementation period will continue to be in
effect, and emissions will continue to be addressed during this period
under the existing structure of federal, state and local clean air
programs. Insofar as states and sources were already planning to
undertake emission control projects in response to other regulatory
requirements, the timing of these projects will be unaffected by the
change in the SIP due date in the regional haze program. Furthermore,
states are not required to wait until 2021 to submit their regional
haze SIP revisions for the second implementation period, although they
may choose to do so.
    One commenter asserted that EPA's proposal to extend the deadline
for submission of regional haze SIPs for the second implementation
period violates the plain language of the section 169B(e)(2) of the
CAA. The commenter argues that this statutory provision requires EPA to
mandate that states submit regional haze SIP revisions within 12 months
of promulgating RHR revisions under section 169A. We disagree. Section
169B(e)(2) states that ``[a]ny regulations promulgated under section
[169A] of this title pursuant to this subsection shall require affected

States to revise within 12 months their implementation plans under
section [110].'' (emphasis added). The subsection at issue, 169B(e)(1),
requires EPA to promulgate regional haze regulations within 18 months
of receiving the report required of Visibility Transport Commissions
under 169B(d)(2). This report was a one-time requirement intended to
inform EPA's yet-to-be-promulgated regulations. Thus, section
169B(e)(1) clearly expresses Congress's intent to establish a timetable
for the EPA's initial regional haze rulemaking in order to ensure that
the regulations would be promulgated in a timely fashion and would be
informed by the studies and report required under 169B(a)(1) and
(d)(2), respectively. Section 169B(e)(2) states that regulations
promulgated pursuant to (e)(1)--which addresses only EPA's obligation
to undertake that initial regional haze rulemaking--must require states
to submit SIP revisions within 12 months. We disagree with the
commenter's assertion that Congress intended this 12-month deadline to
apply in the case of subsequent rule revisions, as subsection (e)
describes a one-time process of research, reports and rulemaking to get
the regional haze program off the ground. Neither 169(e)(1) nor (e)(2)
contains any indication that Congress intended this specific timeline
to apply for additional, future rulemakings.
    Another commenter said that in lieu of formally extending the
deadline, the Agency should consider granting an administrative waiver
to a state that affirmatively shows that a delay in submitting its
periodic comprehensive SIP revisions is warranted. The EPA does not
believe the additional effort required on the part of a state and the
EPA would be worthwhile for such an undertaking because many states
have good reason to coordinate their planning for their periodic
comprehensive SIP revisions with that for other regulatory requirements
and programs. A waiver process would thus add considerable
administrative burden with minimal benefit, as the EPA would be likely
to grant most or all of the waiver requests based on this need to
coordinate planning.
3. Final Rule
    The EPA is finalizing this one-time deadline extension with no
changes from proposal.

M. Changes to Scheduling of Regional Haze Progress Reports

1. Summary of Proposal
    The EPA proposed to revise the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and
(h) regarding the timing of submission of reports evaluating progress
towards the natural visibility goal. The 1999 RHR required states to
submit regional haze progress reports every 5 years, with the first
progress report due 5 years after submission of the first periodic
comprehensive SIP revisions. Because states submitted these first SIP
revisions on dates spread across several years, many of the due dates
for progress reports currently do not fall mid-way between the due
dates for periodic comprehensive SIP revisions, as the EPA initially
envisioned. Looking forward, continued operation of the 1999 RHR would
in many cases require a progress report shortly before or shortly after
a periodic comprehensive SIP revision, at which time it could not be
expected to have much utility as a mid-course review of environmental
progress or much incremental informational value for the public
compared to the data contained in that SIP revision.
    Complementing the revisions to 40 CFR 51.308(f) regarding the
deadlines for submittal of periodic comprehensive revisions, we
proposed to revise 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h) such that the second and
subsequent progress reports would be due by January 31, 2025, July 31,
2033, and every 10 years thereafter, placing one progress report mid-
way between the due dates for periodic comprehensive SIP revisions. As
we explained, this timing provides a balance between allowing the
implementation of the most recent SIP revision to proceed long enough
for a review to be possible and worthwhile, and having enough time
remaining before the next comprehensive SIP revision for state action
to make changes in its rules or implementation efforts, if necessary,
separately from the actions in that next SIP.
    As explained in the proposal, the EPA no longer believes a progress
report is useful at or near the time of submission of a periodic
comprehensive SIP revision, since in practical terms a progress report
provides little additional information beyond that required in a
periodic comprehensive SIP revision (with the exception of the 1999
RHR's requirement that a progress report include information on the
trend in visibility over the whole period since the baseline period of
2000-2004). In order to substantially reduce administrative burdens and
make progress reports more useful to the public with no attendant
reduction in environmental protection, we proposed to limit the
requirement for separate progress reports to the one due mid-way
between periodic comprehensive SIP revisions and to add to the
requirement for periodic comprehensive SIP revisions a requirement to
include the visibility trend information that the 1999 RHR previously
required exclusively in progress reports.
2. Comments and Responses
    Commenters generally supported the change to progress report
scheduling such that due dates would fall mid-way between those of
periodic comprehensive SIP revisions, though some comments recommended
that a periodic SIP revision be explicitly required to include all the
required progress report elements listed in 40 CFR 51.308(g) of the
1999 RHR and in particular element (g)(6), which requires an assessment
of whether the current SIP is sufficient to meet all established RPGs.
There are seven listed progress report elements in the 1999 RHR and
eight listed elements in the revised final rule. The subjects of the
first five of the elements are the same in the two versions of the
rule, and we proposed and are finalizing a requirement that each
periodic SIP revision address these five elements. We are not requiring
periodic SIP revisions to assess whether the SIP is sufficient to meet
all established RPGs (element (g)(6) in the 1999 RHR and the revised
final rule). Given that the SIP is being revised, there would be no
utility in assessing whether the previous terms of the SIP for the
previous implementation period were sufficient to meet the progress
goals for the previous period. Also, since the new SIP revision will
contain new progress goals for the end of the currently applicable
implementation period and these goals will be calculated to reflect the
new measures in that SIP revision and previously adopted measures, it
necessarily will be that this revised SIP is sufficient to meet the new
goals. The seventh element of a progress report as listed in the 1999
RHR (which EPA is eliminating in the revised rule for progress reports
for the second and subsequent implementation periods for reasons
described elsewhere in this document) is a review of the monitoring
strategy. However, periodic SIP revisions are required to address the
monitoring strategy under 40 CFR 308(f)(6) of the final rule text, so
no further mention of monitoring strategies is needed. The newly added
element of a progress report in the revised final rule (now numbered as
element (g)(8)) is

the summary of the most recent assessment of a smoke management program
if any. Our reasons for not requiring periodic SIP revisions to include
such a summary are given elsewhere in this document.
    Some commenters requested that the progress report due January 1,
2025, be removed from the rule, given the fact that it would be due
only 3.5 years after the July 31, 2021, due date of the next periodic
comprehensive SIP revision. These commenters felt this time period
prohibitively short and that this information could be better be
included in the next periodic comprehensive SIP revision due July 31,
2028. A few commenters asked that EPA entirely remove the requirement
for progress reports from the regional haze program. As noted
previously, progress reports are an important tool for states to review
and potentially make changes in their rules or implementation efforts,
if necessary. Although the progress report for the second
implementation period will be due only 3.5 years after the due date of
the preceding periodic comprehensive SIP revisions, we still believe in
the usefulness of such a mid-course review. In addition, some states
have indicated that they intend to submit periodic comprehensive SIP
revisions closer to the 1999 RHR's July 31, 2018 deadline, so for those
states substantially more than 3.5 years will have elapsed before the
progress report becomes due.
3. Final Rule
    The EPA is finalizing these provisions regarding scheduling of
progress reports, and the aforementioned additional requirement that
periodic comprehensive SIP revisions include gap-filling visibility
trend information, with no change from proposal.

N. Changes to the Requirement That Regional Haze Progress Reports Be
SIP Revisions

1. Summary of Proposal
    We proposed to revise 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding the requirements
for the form of progress reports, which under the 1999 RHR were
required to take the form of SIP revisions that comply with certain
procedural requirements.\135\ As explained in the proposed rule and
elsewhere in this document, the EPA originally included the requirement
for progress reports in the 1999 RHR primarily to ensure that the
states remain on track between periodic comprehensive SIP revisions. In
the 1999 RHR, we required progress reports to be in the form of SIP
revisions that meet the procedural requirements of 40 CFR 51.102 and
51.103 (which in turn refer to the requirements of Appendix V of 40 CFR
part 51). Given the requirements for what a state should include in its
progress report, we anticipated that these submittals would typically
contain narrative descriptions of such things as current visibility
conditions and emissions inventories. We did not anticipate that
progress reports would typically include new or revised emission
limits.\136\ Although the EPA specifically intended for progress
reports to involve significantly less effort than a periodic
comprehensive SIP revision, a state must provide public notice and an
opportunity for a public hearing for SIP revisions. In addition, they
must conform to certain administrative procedural requirements, provide
various administrative material, and must be submitted by an official
who is authorized by state law to submit a SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ These procedural requirements are detailed in 40 CFR
51.102, 40 CFR 51.103 and Appendix V to Part 51--Criteria for
Determining the Completeness of Plan Submissions.
    \136\ Under our regulations, if a state were to determine at the
time of submitting its progress report that its SIP is or may be
inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from
sources within the state, the state has 1 year in which to submit a
SIP revision addressing the inadequacy of its plan. 40 CFR
51.308(h)(4). This SIP revision would contain any required new or
revised emission limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed to revise our regulations so that progress reports need
not be in the form of SIP revisions, but to require states to consult
with FLMs and obtain public comment on their progress reports before
submission to the EPA. We also proposed that the SIP revision due in
2021 must include a commitment to prepare and submit these progress
reports to the EPA according to the revised schedule being finalized in
this rule (see previous section). While these progress reports would be
acknowledged and assessed by the EPA, our review of these reports would
not result in a formal approval or disapproval of them. In addition,
relieving states of the obligation to follow the procedural
requirements of 40 CFR 51.102 and 51.103 would free up state resources
for other important environmental planning, given the fact that they
are resource-intensive. Other advantages to the proposed approach were
discussed in detail at proposal.
2. Comments and Responses
    Many commenters expressed support, with some suggesting that EPA do
away with progress reports entirely (similar sentiments were expressed
in comments on progress report timing; see previously in this
document). Other commenters opposed eliminating the requirement that
progress reports take the form of SIP revisions, and expressed that
review by EPA should at least involve a finding of adequacy or
inadequacy.
    In response to comments opposing eliminating the requirement that
progress reports be SIP revisions, the EPA would like to reiterate that
as part of our review of a progress report, we will follow up with the
state on any appropriate next steps, and we note again that there are
additional remedies (such as undertaking a less formal assessment of
the results of the implementation of the previously submitted SIP)
available to the EPA in the event a state fails to properly submit a
progress report.
    Some comments expressed concern that the EPA would use progress
reports as a basis for a ``SIP call'' and opined that progress reports
should only provide information for subsequent SIP submittals. It
should be noted, however, that 40 CFR 51.308(h), which we are not
revising in any material way, already requires that if a state has
determined in its progress report that its implementation plan is or
may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions within
that state, it must revise its current SIP to address its deficiencies.
Thus, there is already a mechanism under which states must use the
information in their progress reports to assess the adequacy of their
existing SIPs. Additionally, under CAA section 110(k)(5), the EPA has
the authority to review a SIP and assess the adequacy of that SIP.
While this authority is discretionary, when and if the EPA does make a
determination about the adequacy of a regional haze SIP it must do so
reasonably, and this may require consideration of the information in a
progress report. Therefore, we are not including in the final rule any
provision saying that the content of a progress report may not be used
as part of the basis for a SIP call action.
    We will further consider a suggestion from one commenter that we
provide a centralized Web site that would inform the public of which
progress reports are currently available for public comment at the
state level and the planned end of each comment period.
3. Final Rule
    The EPA is finalizing the proposal to eliminate the requirement
that progress reports take the form of SIP revisions. The EPA would
like to emphasize (as explained at proposal) that although progress
reports will no longer be

required to take the form of SIP revisions, states will still be
required to include the required progress report elements listed in 40
CFR 51.308(g)(1) through 40 CFR 51.308(g)(8), in particular the
assessment of whether the existing SIP elements are sufficient to
enable a state to meet all established RPGs for the period covered by
the most recent periodic SIP revision. We are also retaining the
requirement that states consult with FLMs and obtain public comment on
their progress reports before submission to the EPA.\137\ Also, 40 CFR
51.308(h) will continue to require that at the same time the state is
required to submit a progress report, it must also take one of four
listed actions concerning whether the SIP is adequate to achieve
established goals for visibility improvement, and the state will
continue to have an obligation to revise its SIP to address any plan
deficiencies within 1 year of submission of a determination that the
SIP is or may be inadequate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ We discuss the timing for consultation elsewhere in this
preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

O. Changes to Requirements Related to the Grand Canyon Visibility
Transport Commission

1. Summary of Proposal
    As noted in the proposal, 40 CFR 51.309 has limited applicability
going forward because its provisions apply only to 16 Class I areas
covered by the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission Report,
only to three states that chose to rely on the special provisions in
this section and only to SIPs for the first regional haze
implementation period (i.e., through 2018). However, we proposed
certain conforming revisions to avoid confusion going forward,
including the following:
     Revising 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(v) to correctly refer to the
new 40 CFR 51.302(b) (in lieu of (e), which no longer exists in the
proposed 40 CFR 51.302) and to delete the reference to BART since it
does not appear in 40 CFR 51.302(b).
     Changing the title of 40 CFR 51.309(c)(10), Periodic
implementation plan revisions, to include ``and progress reports'' at
the end, to complement the revisions that will no longer require
progress reports be considered SIP revisions.
     Revising 40 CFR 51.309(c)(10) to preserve the 1999 RHR's
requirement that the progress reports due in 2013 take the form of SIP
revisions, but direct the reader to the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g)
for subsequent progress reports.
     Revising 40 CFR 51.309(c)(10)(iv) to indicate that
subsequent progress reports are subject to the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(h) regarding determinations of adequacy of existing SIPs.
     Revising 40 CFR 51.309(g)(2)(iii) to correct a
typographical error.
2. Comments and Responses
    Few comments were received on the proposed revisions to 40 CFR
51.309. Of those, most concerned fire issues, and this subject matter
is treated elsewhere in this document. One commenter requested
clarification on what happens to states participating in the GCVTC
after 2018, and in response the EPA would like to clarify that all
measures and obligations contained in a SIP approved pursuant to 40 CFR
51.309 must continue to be implemented unless the SIP itself provides
for that measure or obligation to sunset, that the revised provisions
of 40 CFR 51.309 will apply to any SIP revision that would revise a SIP
provision that was part of the basis of EPA initially approving the SIP
as meeting the requirements of the 1999 RHR's 40 CFR 51.309 and that
future periodic comprehensive SIP revisions and progress reports from
these states will be subject to the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)
and (g), respectively.
3. Final Rule
    All revisions to 40 CFR 51.309 are being finalized without change
from proposal.

V. Environmental Justice Considerations

    The EPA believes this action will not have disproportionately high
and adverse human health, well-being or environmental effects on
minority, low-income or indigenous populations because it will not
negatively affect the level of protection provided to human health,
well-being or the environment under the CAA's visibility protection
program. These revisions to the RHR alter procedural and timing aspects
of the SIP requirements for visibility protection but do not
substantively change the requirement that SIPs provide for reasonable
progress towards the goal of natural visibility conditions. These SIP
requirements are designed to protect all segments of the general
population.
    The EPA acknowledges that the delay in submitting SIP revisions
from 2018 to 2021 might, but will not necessarily, affect the schedule
on which sources must comply with any new requirements. One commenter
said that any such delay in reducing emissions is likely to
disproportionately impact children, communities of color and the
economically disadvantaged. However, because neither the CAA nor the
1999 RHR set specific deadlines for when sources must comply with any
new requirements in a state's next periodic comprehensive SIP revision,
states have substantial discretion in establishing reasonable
compliance deadlines for measures in their SIPs. Given this, we expect
to see a range of compliance deadlines in the next round of regional
haze SIPs from early in the second implementation period to 2028,
depending on the types of measures adopted, and this would have
occurred regardless of whether these changes had been finalized. Thus,
the EPA believes the delay in the periodic comprehensive SIP revision
submission deadline from 2018 to 2021 will not meaningfully reduce the
overall progress towards better visibility made by the end of 2028 and
will not meaningfully adversely affect environmental protection for any
segments of the population. Furthermore, by reducing uncertainty about
the requirements of the RHR and in some regards making those
requirements more protective, we believe this action is likely to
improve public health protection.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes
made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the
docket.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this final rule have been
submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that
the EPA prepared has been assigned the EPA ICR number 2540.02. A copy
of the ICR supporting statement is available in the docket for this
rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
    The EPA is finalizing revisions to requirements for state regional
haze planning to change the requirements that must be met by states in
developing regional haze SIPs, periodic comprehensive SIP revisions,
and progress reports for regional haze. The main intended effects of
this rulemaking are to provide states with additional time to submit
regional haze plans for the second implementation period and

to provide states with an improved schedule and process for progress
report submission. Further reductions in burden on states for the
second planning period include removal of the requirement for progress
reports to be SIP revisions, clarifying that states are not required to
project emissions inventories as part of preparing a progress report,
and relieving the state of the need to review its visibility monitoring
strategy within the context of the progress report. With all of these
changes considered, the overall burden on states would represent a
reduction compared to what would otherwise occur if the provisions of
the 1999 RHR were to stay in place. However, we agree with public
comments received on the ICR for the proposed rule indicating that the
EPA's previous estimates of burden for the 1999 RHR, as well as
estimates of burden for the proposed rule, did not accurately reflect
the level of effort required to draft SIPs and progress reports.
Although at proposal, the total estimated burden for the applicable
period of this ICR (i.e., 2016-2019) was estimated to be reduced from
10,307 hours (per year) to 5,974 hours (per year), and total estimated
cost was expected to be reduced from $510,498 (per year) to $295,876
(per year), taking into account the information submitted by the
commenters, the EPA now estimates burden under the final rule for the
applicable period of 2016-2019 to be 13,310 hours (per year) and total
estimated cost to be $659,245 (per year). Please note that the EPA
believes the final rule will allow for a reduction in effort compared
to the 1999 RHR. Thus, if the SIP development and other were undertaken
under the 1999 RHR, the costs would be higher than with this final
rule. The apparent increase in estimated hours and cost is related to
updates of prior estimates in light of more accurate information.
Despite this, the EPA projects that the total estimated burden and cost
associated with the final rule are less than would be required if the
rule revisions were not made. The revisions, for example, extend
planning deadlines, reduce the number of SIP submissions to the EPA,
relieve states of the need to supply progress reports in the form of
formal SIP revisions, and relieve the state of the need to review its
visibility monitoring strategy within the context of the progress
report. In addition, in accordance with OMB guidance, these numbers
reflect the average burden on states per year over the next 3 years
only. This burden will vary from year to year, and due to the nature of
an average, some states may be above the average while other states may
be below the average. The ``per-year'' numbers provided here are the 3-
year averages, and these 3-year averages will also vary. For example,
the prior 3-year period (associated with the prior ICR) was not an
active SIP development period, and therefore burden on states was
relatively low in comparison to the 3-year period associated with this
ICR. During this 3-year period states will be taking steps to prepare
their next SIPs. SIP development and adoption will continue into the
following 3-year period (approximately 2019-2022), and then subside
until the next SIP is due in 2028, resulting in a reduced burden
compared to the estimates reflected here. For more information and a
summary and response to comments received on the proposed rule ICR,
please see the Information Collection Request Supporting Statement for
EPA ICR Number 2540.02. ICR for Final Revisions to the Regional Haze
Regulations, in the docket for this rule. All states are required to
submit regional haze SIPs and progress reports under this rule.
    Respondents/affected entities: All state air agencies.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory, in accordance with
the provisions of the 1999 RHR.
    Estimated number of respondents: 52: 50 states, District of
Columbia and U.S. Virgin Islands.
    Frequency of response: Approximately every 10 years (SIP) and
approximately every 10 years (progress report).
    Total estimated burden: 13,310 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $659,245 (per year), includes $0 annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. Entities
potentially affected directly by these rule revisions include state
governments, and for the purposes of the RFA, state governments are not
considered small governments. Tribes may choose to follow the
provisions of the RHR but are not required to do so. Other types of
small entities are not directly subject to the requirements of this
rule.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any
state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes. Furthermore, these regulation revisions do
not affect the relationship or distribution of power and
responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes. The
CAA and the TAR establish the relationship of the federal government
and tribes in characterizing air quality and developing plans to
protect visibility in Class I areas, and these revisions to the
regulations do nothing to modify that relationship. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
    Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action, the
EPA held public hearings attended by members of tribes and separate
meetings with tribal representatives to discuss the revisions proposed
in this action. The EPA also provided an opportunity for all interested
parties to provide oral or written comments on potential concepts for
the EPA to address during the rule revision process. Summaries of these
meetings are included in the docket for this rule. The EPA also offered
to consult with any tribal government to discuss this proposal. A copy
of this offer for consultation can be found in the docket for this
rulemaking. No tribes requested consultation. One tribal organization
submitted comments, which generally endorsed the proposed revisions.
However, this commenter said that this action does have implications to
tribes and that the EPA must develop an accountability process to
ensure meaningful and timely input to states as they implement the
revised

requirements of the RHR. We acknowledge this comment but we do not find
it to contain a basis for changing our finding that Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this action. See also Section III.B.5 of this
document for further discussion regarding the role of tribes in
visibility protection.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes that this action may not have disproportionately
high and adverse effects on minority populations, low-income
populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order
12898.\138\ The results of our evaluation are contained in Section V of
this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ 59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the U.S. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

VII. Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by 42 U.S.C.
7403, 7407, 7410 and 7601.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 51

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

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide,
Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides, Transportation, Volatile organic
compounds.

    Dated: December 14, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 51 and part 52 of
chapter I of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as
follows:

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

0
1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart P--Protection of Visibility

0
2. Section 51.300 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:

Sec.  51.300  Purpose and applicability.

* * * * *
    (b) Applicability The provisions of this subpart are applicable to
all States as defined in section 302(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
except Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana
Islands.

0
3. Section 51.301 is amended by:
0
a. Adding the definitions in alphabetical order for ``Baseline
visibility condition'', ``Clearest days'', and ``Current visibility
condition'';
0
b. Revising the definition of ``Deciview'';
0
c. Adding the definitions in alphabetical order for ``Deciview index''
and ``End of the applicable implementation period'';
0
d. Revising the definition of ``Least impaired days'', ``Mandatory
Class I Federal Area'', ``Most impaired days'', and ``Natural
conditions'';
0
e. Adding the definitions in alphabetical order for ``Natural
visibility'', ``Natural visibility condition'', and ``Prescribed
fire'';
0
f. Revising the definitions of ``Reasonably attributable'' and
``Regional haze'';
0
g. Adding the definition in alphabetical order for ``Visibility'';
0
h. Removing the definition of ``Visibility impairment'';
0
i. Adding the definition of ``Visibility impairment or anthropogenic
visibility impairment''; and,
0
j. Adding the definitions in alphabetical order for ``Wildfire'' and
``Wildland''.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  51.301  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Baseline visibility condition means the average of the five annual
averages of the individual values of daily visibility for the period
2000-2004 unique to each Class I area for either the most impaired days
or the clearest days.
* * * * *
    Clearest days means the twenty percent of monitored days in a
calendar year with the lowest values of the deciview index.
    Current visibility condition means the average of the five annual
averages of individual values of daily visibility for the most recent
period for which data are available unique to each Class I area for
either the most impaired days or the clearest days.
    Deciview is the unit of measurement on the deciview index scale for
quantifying in a standard manner human perceptions of visibility.
    Deciview index means a value for a day that is derived from
calculated or measured light extinction, such that uniform increments
of the index correspond to uniform incremental changes in perception
across the entire range of conditions, from pristine to very obscured.
The deciview index is calculated based on the following equation (for
the purposes of calculating deciview using IMPROVE data, the
atmospheric light extinction coefficient must be calculated from
aerosol measurements and an estimate of Rayleigh scattering):
    Deciview index = 10 ln (bext/10 Mm-1).
    bext = the atmospheric light extinction coefficient,
expressed in inverse megameters (Mm-1).
    End of the applicable implementation period means December 31 of
the year in which the next periodic comprehensive implementation plan
revision is due under Sec.  51.308(f).
* * * * *
    Least impaired days means the twenty percent of monitored days in a
calendar

year with the lowest amounts of visibility impairment.
* * * * *
    Mandatory Class I Federal Area or Mandatory Federal Class I Area
means any area identified in part 81, subpart D of this title.
    Most impaired days means the twenty percent of monitored days in a
calendar year with the highest amounts of anthropogenic visibility
impairment.
    Natural conditions reflect naturally occurring phenomena that
reduce visibility as measured in terms of light extinction, visual
range, contrast, or coloration, and may refer to the conditions on a
single day or a set of days. These phenomena include, but are not
limited to, humidity, fire events, dust storms, volcanic activity, and
biogenic emissions from soils and trees. These phenomena may be near or
far from a Class I area and may be outside the United States.
    Natural visibility means visibility (contrast, coloration, and
texture) on a day or days that would have existed under natural
conditions. Natural visibility varies with time and location, is
estimated or inferred rather than directly measured, and may have long-
term trends due to long-term trends in natural conditions.
    Natural visibility condition means the average of individual values
of daily natural visibility unique to each Class I area for either the
most impaired days or the clearest days.
* * * * *
    Prescribed fire means any fire intentionally ignited by management
actions in accordance with applicable laws, policies, and regulations
to meet specific land or resource management objectives.
    Reasonably attributable means attributable by visual observation or
any other appropriate technique.
* * * * *
    Regional haze means visibility impairment that is caused by the
emission of air pollutants from numerous anthropogenic sources located
over a wide geographic area. Such sources include, but are not limited
to, major and minor stationary sources, mobile sources, and area
sources.
* * * * *
    Visibility means the degree of perceived clarity when viewing
objects at a distance. Visibility includes perceived changes in
contrast, coloration, and texture elements in a scene.
    Visibility impairment or anthropogenic visibility impairment means
any humanly perceptible difference due to air pollution from
anthropogenic sources between actual visibility and natural visibility
on one or more days. Because natural visibility can only be estimated
or inferred, visibility impairment also is estimated or inferred rather
than directly measured.
* * * * *
    Wildfire means any fire started by an unplanned ignition caused by
lightning; volcanoes; other acts of nature; unauthorized activity; or
accidental, human-caused actions, or a prescribed fire that has
developed into a wildfire. A wildfire that predominantly occurs on
wildland is a natural event.
    Wildland means an area in which human activity and development is
essentially non-existent, except for roads, railroads, power lines, and
similar transportation facilities. Structures, if any, are widely
scattered.

0
4. Revise Sec.  51.302 to read as follows:

Sec.  51.302  Reasonably attributable visibility impairment.

    (a) The affected Federal Land Manager may certify, at any time,
that there exists reasonably attributable visibility impairment in any
mandatory Class I Federal area and identify which single source or
small number of sources is responsible for such impairment. The
affected Federal Land Manager will provide the certification to the
State in which the impairment occurs and the State(s) in which the
source(s) is located. The affected Federal Land Manager shall provide
the State(s) in which the source(s) is located an opportunity to
consult on the basis of the planned certification, in person and at
least 60 days prior to providing the certification to the State(s).
    (b) The State(s) in which the source(s) is located shall revise its
regional haze implementation plan, in accordance with the schedule set
forth in paragraph (d) of this section, to include for each source or
small number of sources that the Federal Land Manager has identified in
whole or in part for reasonably attributable visibility impairment as
part of a certification under paragraph (a) of this section:
    (1) A determination, based on the factors set forth in Sec.
51.308(f)(2), of the control measures, if any, that are necessary with
respect to the source or sources in order for the plan to make
reasonable progress toward natural visibility conditions in the
affected Class I Federal area;
    (2) Emission limitations that reflect the degree of emission
reduction achievable by such control measures and schedules for
compliance as expeditiously as practicable; and
    (3) Monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
sufficient to ensure the enforceability of the emission limitations.
    (c) If a source that the Federal Land Manager has identified as
responsible in whole or in part for reasonably attributable visibility
impairment as part of a certification under paragraph (a) of this
section is a BART-eligible source, and if there is not in effect as of
the date of the certification a fully or conditionally approved
implementation plan addressing the BART requirement for that source
(which existing plan may incorporate either source-specific emission
limitations reflecting the emission control performance of BART, an
alternative program to address the BART requirement under Sec.
51.308(e)(2) through (4), or for sources of SO2, a program
approved under paragraph Sec.  51.309(d)(4)), then the State shall
revise its regional haze implementation plan to meet the requirements
of Sec.  51.308(e) with respect to that source, taking into account
current conditions related to the factors listed in Sec.
51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). This requirement is in addition to the requirement
of paragraph (b) of this section.
    (d) For any existing reasonably attributable visibility impairment
the Federal Land Manager certifies to the State(s) under paragraph (a)
of this section, the State(s) shall submit a revision to its regional
haze implementation plan that includes the elements described in
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section no later than 3 years after the
date of the certification. The State(s) is not required at that time to
also revise its reasonable progress goals to reflect any additional
emission reductions required from the source or sources. In no case
shall such a revision in response to a reasonably attributable
visibility impairment certification be due before July 31, 2021.

0
5. Section 51.303 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as
follows:

Sec.  51.303  Exemptions from control.

    (a)(1) Any existing stationary facility subject to the requirement
under Sec.  51.302(c) or Sec.  51.308(e) to install, operate, and
maintain BART may apply to the Administrator for an exemption from that
requirement.
* * * * *

0
6. Revise Sec.  51.304 to read as follows:

Sec.  51.304  Identification of integral vistas.

    (a) Federal Land Managers were required to identify any integral
vistas on or before December 31, 1985, according to criteria the
Federal Land

Managers developed. These criteria must have included, but were not
limited to, whether the integral vista was important to the visitor's
visual experience of the mandatory Class I Federal area.
    (b) The following integral vistas were identified by Federal Land
Managers: At Roosevelt Campobello International Park, from the
observation point of Roosevelt cottage and beach area, the viewing
angle from 244 to 256 degrees; and at Roosevelt Campobello
International Park, from the observation point of Friar's Head, the
viewing angle from 154 to 194 degrees.
    (c) The State must list in its implementation plan any integral
vista listed in paragraph (b) of this section.

0
7. Revise Sec.  51.305 to read as follows:

Sec.  51.305  Monitoring for reasonably attributable visibility
impairment.

    For the purposes of addressing reasonably attributable visibility
impairment, if the Administrator, Regional Administrator, or the
affected Federal Land Manager has advised a State containing a
mandatory Class I Federal area of a need for monitoring to assess
reasonably attributable visibility impairment at the mandatory Class I
Federal area in addition to the monitoring currently being conducted to
meet the requirements of Sec.  51.308(d)(4), the State must include in
the next implementation plan revision to meet the requirement of Sec.
51.308(f) an appropriate strategy for evaluating reasonably
attributable visibility impairment in the mandatory Class I Federal
area by visual observation or other appropriate monitoring techniques.
Such strategy must take into account current and anticipated visibility
monitoring research, the availability of appropriate monitoring
techniques, and such guidance as is provided by the Agency.

Sec.  51.306  [Removed and Reserved]

0
8. Section 51.306 is removed and reserved.

0
9. Section 51.307 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory
text and (b)(1) and (2) to read as follows:

Sec.  51.307   New source review.

    (a) For purposes of new source review of any new major stationary
source or major modification that would be constructed in an area that
is designated attainment or unclassified under section 107(d) of the
CAA, the State plan must, in any review under Sec.  51.166 with respect
to visibility protection and analyses, provide for:
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) That may have an impact on any integral vista of a mandatory
Class I Federal area listed in Sec.  51.304(b), or
    (2) That proposes to locate in an area classified as nonattainment
under section 107(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act that may have an impact on
visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area.
* * * * *

0
10. Section 51.308 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (d)(2)(iv), (d)(3) introductory text, (e)(2)(v),
(e)(4) and (5), (f), (g) introductory text, and (g)(3) through (7);
0
c. Adding paragraph (g)(8); and
0
d. Revising paragraphs (h) introductory text, (h)(1), (i)(2)
introductory text, (i)(2)(ii), and (i)(3) and (4).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  51.308  Regional haze program requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) When are the first implementation plans due under the regional
haze program? Except as provided in Sec.  51.309(c), each State
identified in Sec.  51.300(b) must submit, for the entire State, an
implementation plan for regional haze meeting the requirements of
paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section no later than December 17, 2007.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) For the first implementation plan addressing the requirements
of paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, the number of deciviews by
which baseline conditions exceed natural visibility conditions for the
most impaired and least impaired days.
    (3) Long-term strategy for regional haze. Each State listed in
Sec.  51.300(b) must submit a long-term strategy that addresses
regional haze visibility impairment for each mandatory Class I Federal
area within the State and for each mandatory Class I Federal area
located outside the State that may be affected by emissions from the
State. The long-term strategy must include enforceable emissions
limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to
achieve the reasonable progress goals established by States having
mandatory Class I Federal areas. In establishing its long-term strategy
for regional haze, the State must meet the following requirements:
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (v) At the State's option, a provision that the emissions trading
program or other alternative measure may include a geographic
enhancement to the program to address the requirement under Sec.
51.302(b) or (c) related to reasonably attributable impairment from the
pollutants covered under the emissions trading program or other
alternative measure.
* * * * *
    (4) A State whose sources are subject to a trading program
established under part 97 of this chapter in accordance with a federal
implementation plan set forth in Sec.  52.38 or Sec.  52.39 of this
chapter or a trading program established under a SIP revision approved
by the Administrator as meeting the requirements of Sec.  52.38 or
Sec.  52.39 of this chapter need not require BART-eligible fossil fuel-
fired steam electric plants in the State to install, operate, and
maintain BART for the pollutant covered by such trading program in the
State. A State may adopt provisions, consistent with the requirements
applicable to the State's sources for such trading program, for a
geographic enhancement to the trading program to address any
requirement under Sec.  51.302(b) or (c) related to reasonably
attributable impairment from the pollutant covered by such trading
program in that State.
    (5) After a State has met the requirements for BART or implemented
an emissions trading program or other alternative measure that achieves
more reasonable progress than the installation and operation of BART,
BART-eligible sources will be subject to the requirements of paragraphs
(d) and (f) of this section, as applicable, in the same manner as other
sources.
* * * * *
    (f) Requirements for periodic comprehensive revisions of
implementation plans for regional haze. Each State identified in Sec.
51.300(b) must revise and submit its regional haze implementation plan
revision to EPA by July 31, 2021, July 31, 2028, and every 10 years
thereafter. The plan revision due on or before July 31, 2021, must
include a commitment by the State to meet the requirements of paragraph
(g) of this section. In each plan revision, the State must address
regional haze in each mandatory Class I Federal area located within the
State and in each mandatory Class I Federal area located outside the
State that may be affected by emissions from within the State. To meet
the core requirements for regional haze for these areas, the State must
submit an implementation plan containing the following plan elements
and supporting documentation for all required analyses:

    (1) Calculations of baseline, current, and natural visibility
conditions; progress to date; and the uniform rate of progress. For
each mandatory Class I Federal area located within the State, the State
must determine the following:
    (i) Baseline visibility conditions for the most impaired and
clearest days. The period for establishing baseline visibility
conditions is 2000 to 2004. The State must calculate the baseline
visibility conditions for the most impaired days and the clearest days
using available monitoring data. To determine the baseline visibility
condition, the State must calculate the average of the annual deciview
index values for the most impaired days and for the clearest days for
the calendar years from 2000 to 2004. The baseline visibility condition
for the most impaired days or the clearest days is the average of the
respective annual values. For purposes of calculating the uniform rate
of progress, the baseline visibility condition for the most impaired
days must be associated with the last day of 2004. For mandatory Class
I Federal areas without onsite monitoring data for 2000-2004, the State
must establish baseline values using the most representative available
monitoring data for 2000-2004, in consultation with the Administrator
or his or her designee. For mandatory Class I Federal areas with
incomplete monitoring data for 2000-2004, the State must establish
baseline values using the 5 complete years of monitoring data closest
in time to 2000-2004.
    (ii) Natural visibility conditions for the most impaired and
clearest days. A State must calculate natural visibility condition by
estimating the average deciview index existing under natural conditions
for the most impaired days or the clearest days based on available
monitoring information and appropriate data analysis techniques; and
    (iii) Current visibility conditions for the most impaired and
clearest days. The period for calculating current visibility conditions
is the most recent 5-year period for which data are available. The
State must calculate the current visibility conditions for the most
impaired days and the clearest days using available monitoring data. To
calculate each current visibility condition, the State must calculate
the average of the annual deciview index values for the years in the
most recent 5-year period. The current visibility condition for the
most impaired or the clearest days is the average of the respective
annual values.
    (iv) Progress to date for the most impaired and clearest days.
Actual progress made towards the natural visibility condition since the
baseline period, and actual progress made during the previous
implementation period up to and including the period for calculating
current visibility conditions, for the most impaired and for the
clearest days.
    (v) Differences between current visibility condition and natural
visibility condition. The number of deciviews by which the current
visibility condition exceeds the natural visibility condition, for the
most impaired and for the clearest days.
    (vi) Uniform rate of progress. (A) The uniform rate of progress for
each mandatory Class I Federal area in the State. To calculate the
uniform rate of progress, the State must compare the baseline
visibility condition for the most impaired days to the natural
visibility condition for the most impaired days in the mandatory Class
I Federal area and determine the uniform rate of visibility improvement
(measured in deciviews of improvement per year) that would need to be
maintained during each implementation period in order to attain natural
visibility conditions by the end of 2064.
    (B) As part of its implementation plan submission, the State may
propose (1) an adjustment to the uniform rate of progress for a
mandatory Class I Federal area to account for impacts from
anthropogenic sources outside the United States and/or (2) an
adjustment to the uniform rate of progress for the mandatory Class I
Federal area to account for impacts from wildland prescribed fires that
were conducted with the objective to establish, restore, and/or
maintain sustainable and resilient wildland ecosystems, to reduce the
risk of catastrophic wildfires, and/or to preserve endangered or
threatened species during which appropriate basic smoke management
practices were applied. To calculate the proposed adjustment(s), the
State must add the estimated impact(s) to the natural visibility
condition and compare the baseline visibility condition for the most
impaired days to the resulting sum. If the Administrator determines
that the State has estimated the impact(s) from anthropogenic sources
outside the United States and/or wildland prescribed fires using
scientifically valid data and methods, the Administrator may approve
the proposed adjustment(s) to the uniform rate of progress.
    (2) Long-term strategy for regional haze. Each State must submit a
long-term strategy that addresses regional haze visibility impairment
for each mandatory Class I Federal area within the State and for each
mandatory Class I Federal area located outside the State that may be
affected by emissions from the State. The long-term strategy must
include the enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules,
and other measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress, as
determined pursuant to (f)(2)(i) through (iv). In establishing its
long-term strategy for regional haze, the State must meet the following
requirements:
    (i) The State must evaluate and determine the emission reduction
measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress by considering
the costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy
and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the
remaining useful life of any potentially affected anthropogenic source
of visibility impairment. The State should consider evaluating major
and minor stationary sources or groups of sources, mobile sources, and
area sources. The State must include in its implementation plan a
description of the criteria it used to determine which sources or
groups of sources it evaluated and how the four factors were taken into
consideration in selecting the measures for inclusion in its long-term
strategy. In considering the time necessary for compliance, if the
State concludes that a control measure cannot reasonably be installed
and become operational until after the end of the implementation
period, the State may not consider this fact in determining whether the
measure is necessary to make reasonable progress.
    (ii) The State must consult with those States that have emissions
that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment
in the mandatory Class I Federal area to develop coordinated emission
management strategies containing the emission reductions necessary to
make reasonable progress.
    (A) The State must demonstrate that it has included in its
implementation plan all measures agreed to during state-to-state
consultations or a regional planning process, or measures that will
provide equivalent visibility improvement.
    (B) The State must consider the emission reduction measures
identified by other States for their sources as being necessary to make
reasonable progress in the mandatory Class I Federal area.
    (C) In any situation in which a State cannot agree with another
State on the emission reduction measures necessary to make reasonable
progress in a mandatory Class I Federal area, the State must describe
the actions taken to resolve the disagreement. In reviewing the State's
implementation plan, the

Administrator will take this information into account in determining
whether the plan provides for reasonable progress at each mandatory
Class I Federal area that is located in the State or that may be
affected by emissions from the State. All substantive interstate
consultations must be documented.
    (iii) The State must document the technical basis, including
modeling, monitoring, cost, engineering, and emissions information, on
which the State is relying to determine the emission reduction measures
that are necessary to make reasonable progress in each mandatory Class
I Federal area it affects. The State may meet this requirement by
relying on technical analyses developed by a regional planning process
and approved by all State participants. The emissions information must
include, but need not be limited to, information on emissions in a year
at least as recent as the most recent year for which the State has
submitted emission inventory information to the Administrator in
compliance with the triennial reporting requirements of subpart A of
this part. However, if a State has made a submission for a new
inventory year to meet the requirements of subpart A in the period 12
months prior to submission of the SIP, the State may use the inventory
year of its prior submission.
    (iv) The State must consider the following additional factors in
developing its long-term strategy:
    (A) Emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control
programs, including measures to address reasonably attributable
visibility impairment;
    (B) Measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities;
    (C) Source retirement and replacement schedules;
    (D) Basic smoke management practices for prescribed fire used for
agricultural and wildland vegetation management purposes and smoke
management programs; and
    (E) The anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected
changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period
addressed by the long-term strategy.
    (3) Reasonable progress goals. (i) A state in which a mandatory