PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Power.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 4, 2011
Regional Haze Federalism Act - Amends the Clean Air Act to require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to promulgate a federal implementation plan in place of a state implementation plan to remedy any impairment to visibility in designated class I areas (international parks, wilderness areas and memorial parks that exceed 5,000 acres, and national parks that exceed 6,000 acres) only if: (1) such state failed to consider the costs of, the time necessary for, and and the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance with such plan and the remaining useful life of any existing air pollution source; and (2) compliance with federal implementation plan requirements is not required earlier than five years after the date of promulgation.
Requires: (1) the Administrator to revoke an existing federal or state implementation plan for a state regarding visibility or any determination made in 2010 or 2011 of best available retrofit technology for a source upon receipt of a request by such state; and (2) such state to submit to the Administrator a visibility plan or a revised retrofit technology determination within a reasonable period of time.
Provides that states have sole discretion, after considering certain economic factors, in determining emission limits, schedules of compliance, and other measures for each applicable implementation plan for a state for any area that is listed as contributing to impairment of visibility.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the state, in determining best available retrofit technology (or the Administrator in determining emission limitations that reflect such technology), to consider, in addition to other factors, the economic impacts to the state and the degree of improvement in visibility that may reasonably be anticipated to result from measures described in the applicable implementation plan. Provides that a state's determination of such technology for any source may be subject to review by the Administrator or an administrative entity or federal or state court only pursuant to a clearly erroneous standard of review.
People & committees
Rep. Berg, Rick [R-ND-At Large] · R–ND
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Power.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3379 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3379 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3379 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3379 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.