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, 2016
Part 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

2
Part 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 parks, wilderness areas, 

national forests and other Class I areas due to their “great scenic 

importance.”

• 1980: EPA promulgates first regulations to address visibility 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., “reasonably attributable visibility impairment” or 

RAVI. 

• Action on regional haze (visibility-impairing pollution caused by the emission of air 

pollutants from numerous sources located over a wide 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 Technology 

(BART).

3
Part 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)

4
Part 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 current Regional Haze Rule

• Relationship between Long-Term Strategies and Reasonable Progress Goals is 

confusing.

• Methods and metric for tracking progress do not fully 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 updates compared to 

original 1980 versions.

• Requirements for consulting with Federal Land Managers during SIP 

development are too limited, resulting in an inability or unwillingness by 

States to fully consider input.

• The next periodic comprehensive SIP revision deadline of 2018 likely will not 

allow for coordinated planning with the unusually high number of recently 

developed regulatory programs not in existence at time of 1999 RHR.

• The timing of progress reports based on date of initial SIP submission has 

resulted in many reports being due close to the due dates of periodic 

comprehensive SIP revisions, and therefore not useful as a mid-course review.

• Required substance of progress reports is not fully clear.

• The required formality of progress reports as SIP revisions results in inefficient 

use of State and EPA resources.

5
Part 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 Revision Summary of Regional Haze Rule Revision 

Process

• EPA stakeholder outreach during development of proposed rule 

revisions was extensive.

• Spring 2015: face-to-face meeting was held in RTP with 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 rule text or preamble until start of OMB 

review.

• Proposed changes will continue steady environmental progress in 

the regional haze program while streamlining administrative aspects 

that do not add to environmental protection. 

• Reducing administrative burdens will result in a more 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 and has learned what 

aspects of the program work well and what aspects should be modified.

6
Part 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

7
Part of E.O. 12866 Review - Interagency 

Discussion about Regional Haze Proposal FRN 

2016_02_05 2060-AS55

4/29/2016

8

Regional Haze Rule Revisions Regional Haze Rule Revisions

1. Extension of Next Regional Haze SIP Deadline from 2018 to 2021

• Propose this one-time adjustment to allow States to better coordinate planning 

among several new EPA-required programs.

2. Clarifications to Reflect the EPA’s Long-Standing Interpretation of the 

Relationship Between Long-Term Strategies and Reasonable Progress 

Goals

3. Other Clarifications and Changes to Requirements for Periodic 

Comprehensive Revisions of Implementation Plans

• Includes clarification that the Uniform Rate of Progress line starts at 2000-2004 for 

every implementation period, and adds an enhanced analytical 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 to How 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 dominated by wildfires and dust 

storms, using objective criteria to be included in the following guidance.

8
Part 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 Outside the U.S.

• EPA believes that it may be appropriate to allow states to adjust the reasonable 

progress goal framework, including their progress reports, to explicitly take into 

account international impacts from anthropogenic sources, but only when and if 

these impacts can be estimated with sufficient accuracy. 

6. Clarification of and Changes to the Required Content of Progress 

Reports

7. Changes to Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment Provisions

• Extend RAVI to all States.

• Eliminate recurring requirements on States that EPA believes have no significant 

benefit for visibility protection.

• Clarify and strengthen the existing provisions under which States must address RAVI 

when an FLM certifies that RAVI is occurring in a particular Class I area due to a 

single source or a small number of sources.

• Remove existing FIP provisions which require the EPA to periodically assess whether 

RAVI is occurring and to respond to FLM certifications.

• Edit various portions of §§51.300-308 to make them clearer and more compatible 

with each other.

9
Part 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 consultation occurs early enough to allow 

the State time for full consideration of FLM input.

9. Changes to Scheduling of Regional Haze Progress Reports

• Propose to require progress reports mid-way between the due dates for periodic 

comprehensive SIP revisions. 

10. Changes to the Requirement that Regional Haze Progress Reports be 

SIP Revisions

• Propose that progress reports need not be in the form of SIP revisions, but that 

States must consult with FLMs and obtain public comment on their progress reports 

before submission to EPA. 

10
Part of E.O. 12866 Review - Interagency 

Discussion about Regional Haze Proposal FRN 

2016_02_05 2060-AS55

4/29/2016

11

Questions?

11