ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

EPA-R09-OAR-2011—0131, FRLApproval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 

State of California; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan and 

Interstate Transport Plan; Interference with Visibility 

Requirement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the California Regional Haze Plan 

(“CRHP”), a revision to the California State Implementation Plan 

(“SIP”) addressing Clean Air Act (“CAA” or “Act”) requirements 

and EPA’s rules for states to prevent and remedy future and 

existing anthropogenic impairment of visibility in mandatory 

Class I areas through a regional haze program. Regional haze is 

caused by emissions of air pollutants from many sources located 

over a wide geographic area. Also, EPA is approving certain 

portions of the CRHP and the “Interstate Transport State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 to satisfy 

the Requirements of Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the

State of California” (“2007 Transport SIP”), submitted by 

California on November 16, 2007, as meeting the requirements of 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference with other 

states’ measures to protect visibility for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

and 1997 particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 
2

Standards (NAAQS). EPA proposed to approve these SIP revisions 

on March 15, 2011 (76 FR 13944). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on [Insert date 30 days 

from the date of publication in the Federal Register].

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2011-

0131 for this action. Generally, documents in the docket for 

this action are available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents 

in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov, some 

information may be publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-volume 

reports), and some may not be available at either location (e.g., 

confidential business information (CBI)). To inspect the hard 

copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal 

business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER 

INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry Wamsley, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, Air Division, Planning 

Office, Air-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; via 

telephone at (415) 947-4111; or via electronic mail at 

wamsley.jerry@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” 

or “our,” refer to EPA.
3

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. The Regional Haze Problem

B. The CAA Requirements and EPA’s Regional Haze Rule

C. Interstate Transport Pollution and Visibility Requirements

D. Our Proposed Action

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

III. EPA Action

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background 

A. The Regional Haze Problem

Regional haze is visibility impairment produced by many 

sources and activities located across a broad geographic area 

that emit fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, 

organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), and their 

precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), oxides of nitrogen (NOx) 

and in some cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile organic compounds 

(VOC)). Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to form 

fine particulate matter that impairs visibility by scattering and 

absorbing light, thereby reducing the clarity, color, and visible 

distance that one can see. Also, PM2.5 can cause serious health 

effects and mortality in humans and contributes to environmental 

impacts, such as acid deposition and eutrophication of water 

bodies. 
4

Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the 

“Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments” 

(IMPROVE) monitoring network, show that visibility impairment 

caused by air pollution occurs nearly all the time at most 

national park and wilderness areas. The average visual range in 

many Class I areas (i.e., national parks and memorial parks, 

wilderness areas, and international parks meeting certain size 

criteria) in the western United States is 100-150 kilometers, or 

about one-half to two-thirds of the visual range that would exist 

without anthropogenic air pollution.1 In most of the eastern 

Class I areas of the United States, the average visual range is 

less than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth of the visual range 

that would exist under estimated natural conditions. 64 FR 35715 

(July 1, 1999).

B. The CAA Requirements and EPA’s Regional Haze Rule

In section 169A(a)(1) of the CAA Amendments of 1977, 

Congress created a program to protect visibility in the nation’s 

national parks and wilderness areas.2 This section of the CAA 

 

1 Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or miles, at 

which a dark object can be viewed against the sky.

2 Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist of 

national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and national memorial 

parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks that were in existence 

on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the 

CAA and after consulting with the Department of Interior, EPA promulgated a 

list of 156 areas where visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 

69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes 

subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). 

Although states and tribes may designate as Class I additional areas which 

they consider to have visibility as an important value, the requirements of 
5

establishes as a national goal the “prevention of any future, and 

the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in 

mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results from 

manmade air pollution.” On December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated 

regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I areas 

that is “reasonably attributable” to a single source or small 

group of sources, i.e., “reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment” (RAVI) (45 FR 80084). These regulations represented 

the first phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA 

deferred action on regional haze that emanates from a variety of 

sources until monitoring, modeling, and scientific knowledge 

about the relationships between pollutants and visibility 

impairment were improved. 

With the CAA Amendments of 1990, Congress added section 169B 

to address regional haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to 

address regional haze on July 1, 1999, the Regional Haze Rule 

(RHR) (64 FR 35713). The RHR revised the existing visibility 

regulations to integrate provisions addressing regional haze 

impairment and to establish a comprehensive visibility protection 

program for Class I areas. The requirements for regional haze, 

found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in EPA’s 

visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309. The 

 

the visibility program set forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to 

“mandatory Class I Federal areas.” Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the 

responsibility of a “Federal Land Manager.” 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use
6

requirement to submit a regional haze plan revision to the SIP 

applies to all 50 states, the District of Columbia and the Virgin 

Islands.3 

For a more detailed discussion of the CAA and RHR 

requirements, please see sections II and III of our March 15, 

2011 proposal (76 FR 13944). Our evaluation of the California 

Regional Haze Plan can be found in Section IV of the same 

proposal. 

C. Interstate Transport Pollution and Visibility Requirements

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated new NAAQS for 8-hour ozone 

and for PM2.5 (62 FR 38856; 62 FR 38652). Section 110(a)(1) 

requires each state to submit a plan to address certain 

requirements for a new or revised NAAQS within three years after 

promulgation of such standards, or within such shorter time as 

EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) lists the elements that 

such new plan submissions must address, as applicable, including 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which pertains to the interstate 

transport of certain emissions. 

The “good neighbor” provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of 

the CAA require each state to have a SIP that prohibits emissions

that adversely affect other states in the ways contemplated in 

 

the term “Class I area” in this action, we mean a “mandatory Class I Federal 

area.”

3 Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico must also submit a 

regional haze SIP to completely satisfy the requirements of section

110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico under the New 

Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 74-2-4).
7

the statute. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains four distinct 

requirements related to the impacts of interstate transport. The 

SIP must contain adequate provisions prohibiting sources in the 

state from emitting air pollutants in amounts which will: (1) 

contribute significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in any 

other state; (2) interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in any 

other state; (3) interfere with provisions to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality in any other state; or, (4) 

interfere with efforts to protect visibility in any other state.

The regional haze program, as reflected in the RHR, 

recognizes the importance of addressing the long-range transport 

of pollutants for visibility and encourages states to work 

together to develop plans to address haze. The regulations 

explicitly require each state to address its “share” of the 

emission reductions needed to meet the reasonable progress goals 

for neighboring Class I areas. Working together through a 

regional planning process, states are required to address an 

agreed upon share of their contribution to visibility impairment 

in the Class I areas of their neighbors. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(ii). Given these requirements, we anticipate that 

regional haze SIPs will contain measures that will achieve these 

emissions reductions, and that these measures will meet the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).

California’s 2007 Transport SIP states that the Regional 
8

Haze SIP would address interstate regional haze impacts. We 

interpreted this to mean that California intended for the

Regional Haze Plan to address the interstate visibility 

requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, our evaluation of the 2007 

Transport SIP and whether it meets these CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) visibility requirements relied on our evaluation 

of relevant information from the CRHP.

For a more detailed discussion of the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and our evaluation of how the 2007 

Transport SIP and relevant portions of the CRHP meet these 

requirements, please see sections II.D and V of our March 15, 

2011 proposal (76 FR 13944). 

D. Our Proposed Action

On March 15, 2011, EPA proposed to approve: (i) the 

California Regional Haze Plan (CRHP) as meeting the relevant 

requirements of CAA section 169B and the Regional Haze Rule; and 

(ii) the 2007 Transport SIP and certain portions of the CRHP as 

meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

regarding interference with other states’ measures to protect 

visibility for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (76 FR 

13944).

Regarding our proposed approval of the CRHP, we proposed to 

find that California met the following Regional Haze Rule 
9

requirements: the State established baseline visibility 

conditions and reasonable progress goals for each of its Class I 

areas; the State developed a long-term strategy with enforceable 

measures ensuring reasonable progress towards meeting the 

reasonable progress goals for the first ten-year planning period, 

through 2018; the State adequately addressed the application of 

Best Available Retrofit Technology to specific stationary 

sources; the State has an adequate regional haze monitoring 

strategy; the State provided for consultation and coordination 

with federal land managers in producing its regional haze plan; 

and, the State provided for the regional haze plan’s future 

revisions. 

Regarding our proposed approval of California’s 2007 

Transport SIP, we proposed to find that the following 

specific elements of the CRHP satisfied the CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement to prohibit emissions that 

will interfere with measures to protect visibility in 

another state for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS: 

chapter 3 (Emissions Inventory), chapter 4 (California 2018 

Progress Strategy), and chapter 8 (Consultation). 

For the portion of today’s final action related to the 2007 

Transport SIP, we are taking final action only with regard to the 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement that the SIP must contain 

adequate provisions prohibiting any source or other type of 
10

emissions activity in California from emitting pollutants that 

will interfere with another state’s measures to protect 

visibility. EPA intends to act in separate rulemakings on other 

portions of California’s 2007 Transport SIP that address the 

remaining elements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-

hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.4

We proposed to approve the CRHP and the 2007 Transport SIP 

because we determined that they complied with the relevant CAA 

requirements. Our proposed action provides more information 

about the relevant CAA requirements, EPA guidance, the state’s 

submittals, and our review and evaluation of these SIP revisions. 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

EPA’s proposed action provided a 30-day public comment 

period. We received no comments. 

III. EPA Action

Under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, EPA is fully 

approving the California Regional Haze Plan as satisfying

all of the relevant requirements of Section 169B and the 

 

4 The other elements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) require that the 

California SIP contain adequate provisions prohibiting emission sources within 

the State from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will: (a) 

contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS in any other State; (b) interfere with maintenance of these standards by 

any other State; and, (c) interfere with any other State’s measures required 

under Part C of the CAA to prevent significant deterioration of air quality. 

On March 17, 2011, we proposed to approve California’s 2007 Transport SIP as 

meeting the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(I) requirements that the California SIP 

contain adequate provisions to ensure that emissions from California do not 

significantly contribute to nonattainment of, or interfere with maintenance 

of, the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 standards in other states (76 FR 

14616).
11

Regional Haze Rule. Specifically, we find that California 

has met the following Regional Haze Rule requirements: the 

State established baseline visibility conditions and 

reasonable progress goals for each of its Class I areas; the 

State developed a long-term strategy with enforceable 

measures ensuring reasonable progress towards meeting the 

reasonable progress goals for the first ten-year planning 

period, through 2018; the State has adequately addressed the 

application of Best Available Retrofit Technology to 

specific stationary sources; the State has an adequate 

regional haze monitoring strategy; the State provided for 

consultation and coordination with federal land managers in 

producing its regional haze plan; and, the State provided 

for the regional haze plan’s future revisions. 

In addition, under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, we are 

fully approving the 2007 Transport SIP and the following 

specific elements of the CRHP as satisfying the CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement to prohibit emissions that 

will interfere with measures to protect visibility in 

another state for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS: 

chapter 3 (Emissions Inventory), chapter 4 (California 2018 

Progress Strategy), and, chapter 8 (Consultation). 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
12

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to 

approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 

CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is 

to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves 

state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this action:

• is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review 

by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 

12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• does not impose an information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 

seq.);

• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);

• does not have Federalism implications as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
13

• is not an economically significant regulatory action based 

on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements 

would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and

• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 

address disproportionate human health or environmental 

effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 

16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal 

law.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added 

by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which 
14

includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to 

the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other required information to 

the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the 

Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of 

the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take 

effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 

Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 

U.S.C. 804(2). 

 Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 

judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by [FEDERAL REGISTER 

OFFICE: insert date 60 days from date of publication of this 

document in the Federal Register]. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for 

judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the 

effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see 

section 307(b)(2)).
15

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, 

Visibility, Volatile organic compounds.

_May 9, 2011_______ _________/sb/___________

Dated: Jared Blumenfeld,

Regional Administrator,

Region IX.