Part of E.O. 12866 Review - Interagency Discussion about Regional Haze Proposal FRN 2016_02_05 2060-AS55 4/29/2016

1 

# Regional Haze Rule Revisions

NPRM Briefing for E.O. 12866 Interagency Review

February 8, 2016Part of E.O. 12866 Review - Interagency Discussion about Regional Haze Proposal FRN 2016_02_05 2060-AS55 4/29/2016

2 

# Overview

• Background • Summary of Regional Haze Rule Revision Process • Anticipated Schedule for Rule and Guidance • Regional Haze Rule Revisions

2Part of E.O. 12866 Review - Interagency Discussion about Regional Haze Proposal FRN 2016_02_05 2060-AS55 4/29/2016

3 

# Background

• Origin of the Regional Haze Rule • **1977** : Section 169A of the Clean Air Act requires EPA to create a program for protecting visibility in the nation’s national p arks, wilderness areas, national forests and other Class I areas due to thei r “great scenic importance.” • **1980** : EPA promulgates first regulations to address visi bility impairment in Class I areas. • Regulations focus on addressing impairment that is “reasonably attributable” to a single source or small group of sources, i.e., “reasonablyattributable visibility impairment” or RAVI. • Action on regional haze (visibility-impairing pollu tion caused by the emission of air pollutants from numerous sources located over a wid e geographic area) deferred until some future date when science and technology improves. 

### • **1990** : Section 169B of the Clean Air Act requires EPA to create a program to address regional haze issues in Class I areas. • **1999** : EPA promulgates Regional Haze Rule. • **2005 & 2012** : EPA promulgates rules on Best Available Retrofit T echnology (BART). 3Part of E.O. 12866 Review - Interagency Discussion about Regional Haze Proposal FRN 2016_02_05 2060-AS55 4/29/2016

4 

# Background

• Main elements of the 1999 Regional Haze Rule • Initial SIPs required by December 2007 • BART controls • One time, certain older sources • Focus of first planning period • Reasonable Progress controls • Repeating, all sources • Will be focus of remaining planning periods 

### • Periodic comprehensive SIP revisions due every ~10 years thereafter (2018, 2028, 2038, etc.) • Progress reports required every 5 years (counting from submission date of initial SIP)

4Part of E.O. 12866 Review - Interagency Discussion about Regional Haze Proposal FRN 2016_02_05 2060-AS55 4/29/2016

5 

# Background

• EPA- and stakeholder-identified issues with the curre nt Regional Haze Rule • Relationship between Long-Term Strategies and Reaso nable Progress Goals is confusing. • Methods and metric for tracking progress do not ful ly focus on the intended goal of reducing anthropogenic impairment. • RAVI provisions are antiquated due to improvements in scientific understanding, and due to their receiving limited u pdates compared to original 1980 versions. • Requirements for consulting with Federal Land Manag ers during SIP development are too limited, resulting in an inabil ity or unwillingness by States to fully consider input. • The next periodic comprehensive SIP revision deadli ne of 2018 likely will not allow for coordinated planning with the unusually h igh number of recently developed regulatory programs not in existence at t ime of 1999 RHR. • The timing of progress reports based on date of ini tial SIP submission has resulted in many reports being due close to the duedates of periodic comprehensive SIP revisions, and therefore not usef ul as a mid-course review. • Required substance of progress reports is not fullyclear. • The required formality of progress reports as SIP revisions results in inefficient use of State and EPA resources. 5Part of E.O. 12866 Review - Interagency Discussion about Regional Haze Proposal FRN 2016_02_05 2060-AS55 4/29/2016

6 

# Summary of Regional Haze Rule Summary of Regional Haze Rule Revision Revision Process
• EPA stakeholder outreach during development of prop osed rule revisions was extensive. • Spring 2015: face-to-face meeting was held in RTP w ith States. • Several conference calls were conducted with States, Tribes, and RPOs. • Written comments were submitted to, and considered by, EPA. • Consultations with FLMs from National Park Service, Fish & Wildlife Service, and U.S. Forest Service have been extensive. • Issues and possible changes were discussed at both staff and management level. • The feedback received during this process has been invaluable in developing this proposal. • FLMs were not granted access to draft proposed ruletext or preamble until start of OMB review. 

### • Proposed changes will continue steady environmental progress in the regional haze program while streamlining admini strative aspects that do not add to environmental protection. • Reducing administrative burdens will result in a mo re effective program in terms of achieving the goal of improved visibility. • EPA has gained substantial knowledge through the process of approving SIPs for the first regional haze implementation period a nd has learned what aspects of the program work well and what aspects s hould be modified. 6Part of E.O. 12866 Review - Interagency Discussion about Regional Haze Proposal FRN 2016_02_05 2060-AS55 4/29/2016

7 

# Anticipated Schedule for Rule and Guidance • Regional Haze Rule revisions • Winter 2016 – sign Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for rule revisions • Early Spring 2016 – public hearing in Washington, DC • August 2016 – sign final rule 

# • Relationship to other actions • Regional Haze guidance document also under development • Guidance document will lag rule revisions, but aiming for completion in 2016 7Part of E.O. 12866 Review - Interagency Discussion about Regional Haze Proposal FRN 2016_02_05 2060-AS55 4/29/2016

8 

# Regional Haze Rule Regional Haze Rule Revisions

Revisions 1. Extension of Next Regional Haze SIP Deadline from 2 018 to 2021 • Propose this one-time adjustment to allow States tobetter coordinate planning among several new EPA-required programs. 

### 2. Clarifications to Reflect the EPA’s Long-Standing I nterpretation of the Relationship Between Long-Term Strategies and Reasonabl e Progress Goals 3. Other Clarifications and Changes to Requirements for Periodic Comprehensive Revisions of Implementation Plans • Includes clarification that the Uniform Rate of Pro gress line starts at 2000-2004 for every implementation period, and adds an enhanced a nalytical obligation when the RPG for the 20 percent most impaired days is not on or below this line. 

### 4. Changes to Definitions and Terminology Related toHow Days Are Selected for Tracking Progress • Experience now indicates that for the most impaired days, an approach focusing on anthropogenic impairment in particular is more appropriate going forward. • Proposed new approach effectively sets aside days d ominated by wildfires and dust storms, using objective criteria to be included in the following guidance. 8Part of E.O. 12866 Review - Interagency Discussion about Regional Haze Proposal FRN 2016_02_05 2060-AS55 4/29/2016

9 

# Regional Haze Rule Revisions, cont’d. 5. Impacts on Visibility from Anthropogenic Sources Out side the U.S. • EPA believes that it may be appropriate to allow st ates to adjust the reasonable progress goal framework, including their progress reports, to explicitly take into account international impacts from anthropogenic so urces, but only when and if these impacts can be estimated with sufficient accu racy. 

### 6. Clarification of and Changes to the Required Conten t of Progress Reports 7. Changes to Reasonably Attributable Visibility Imp airment Provisions • Extend RAVI to all States. • Eliminate recurring requirements on States that EPAbelieves have no significant benefit for visibility protection. • Clarify and strengthen the existing provisions unde r which States must address RAVI when an FLM certifies that RAVI is occurring in a p articular Class I area due to a single source or a small number of sources. • Remove existing FIP provisions which require the EP A to periodically assess whether RAVI is occurring and to respond to FLM certificati ons. • Edit various portions of §§51.300-308 to make them clearer and more compatible with each other. 9Part of E.O. 12866 Review - Interagency Discussion about Regional Haze Proposal FRN 2016_02_05 2060-AS55 4/29/2016

10 

# Regional Haze Rule Revisions, cont’d. 8. Changes to FLM Consultation Requirements • Extend the current requirement such that consultati on occurs early enough to allow the State time for full consideration of FLM input. 

### 9. Changes to Scheduling of Regional Haze Progress R eports • Propose to require progress reports mid-way between the due dates for periodic comprehensive SIP revisions. 

### 10. Changes to the Requirement that Regional Haze Prog ress Reports be SIP Revisions • Propose that progress reports need not be in the fo rm of SIP revisions, but that States must consult with FLMs and obtain public com ment on their progress reports before submission to EPA.

10Part of E.O. 12866 Review - Interagency Discussion about Regional Haze Proposal FRN 2016_02_05 2060-AS55 4/29/2016

11 

# Questions?

11