Rule2025-17045
Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Second Implementation Period
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
September 5, 2025
Effective
October 6, 2025
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the regional haze state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by California on August 9, 2022 (hereinafter the "2022 California Regional Haze Plan" or "the Plan"), under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR) for the program's second implementation period. The Plan addresses the requirement that states must periodically revise their long-term strategies for making reasonable progress towards the national goal of preventing any future, and remedying any existing, anthropogenic impairment of visibility, including regional haze, in mandatory Class I Federal areas. The Plan also addresses other applicable requirements for the second implementation period of the regional haze program. The EPA is taking this action pursuant to CAA sections 110 and 169A.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 170 (Friday, September 5, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 170 (Friday, September 5, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42818-42821]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-17045]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2025-0203; FRL-12755-02-R9]
Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California;
Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Second Implementation
Period
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the
regional haze state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by
California on August 9, 2022 (hereinafter the ``2022 California
Regional Haze Plan'' or ``the Plan''), under the Clean Air Act (CAA)
and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR) for the program's second
implementation period. The Plan addresses the requirement that states
must periodically revise their long-term strategies for making
reasonable progress towards the national goal of preventing any future,
and remedying any existing, anthropogenic impairment of visibility,
including regional haze, in mandatory Class I Federal areas. The Plan
also addresses other applicable requirements for the second
implementation period of the regional haze program. The EPA is taking
this action pursuant to CAA sections 110 and 169A.
DATES: This final rule is effective on October 6, 2025.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2025-0203. All documents in the docket are
listed on the <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> website. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available through <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>, or please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section for
additional availability information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Millar, Geographic Strategies
and Modeling Section (ARD-2-2), Planning & Analysis Branch, EPA Region
IX, by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f39e9a9f9f9281dd969e9a9f8ab3968392dd949c85"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d7babebbbbb6a5f9b2babebbae97b2a7b6f9b0b8a1">[email protected]</span></a> or phone at (213) 244-1882.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Rationale for Final Action
III. Public Comments and EPA Responses
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On August 9, 2022, the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
submitted the 2022 California Regional Haze Plan to address the
requirements of the CAA's regional haze program pursuant to CAA
sections 169A and 169B and 40 CFR 51.308. On December 19, 2024, the EPA
proposed to approve the elements of the Plan related to requirements
contained in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1), 40 CFR 51.308(f)(4)-(6), and 40 CFR
51.308 (g)(1)-(5) and to disapprove the elements of the Plan related to
requirements contained in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2), 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3), and
40 CFR 51.308(i)(2)-(4).\1\ During that public notice-and-comment
period, the EPA received six sets of comments. The full text of
comments received on the December 19, 2024 proposal are available via
Docket ID Number EPA-R09-OAR-2024-0459 at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 89 FR 103737.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 18, 2025, the EPA withdrew the December 19, 2024 proposal
and proposed full approval of the Plan.\2\ The June 18, 2025 proposal
provided background on the requirements of the CAA and RHR, summarized
California's regional haze SIP submittal, and explained the rationale
for our proposed action. That background and rationale will not be
restated in full here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 90 FR 25929 (June 18, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Rationale for Final Action
In this final action, the EPA is affirming the Agency's policy
that, where projected 2028 visibility conditions on the most impaired
days for a Class I Federal area impacted by a state are below the
uniform rate of progress (URP) and the state has considered the four
statutory factors, the state will have presumptively demonstrated
reasonable progress for the second planning period for that area. The
policy was first articulated in a proposed action on the West Virginia
regional haze SIP for the second planning period,\3\ which was then
finalized.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 90 FR 16478 (April 18, 2025).
\4\ 90 FR 29737, 29738 (July 7, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All twenty-nine areas Class I areas in California and twenty-four
out of the twenty-five Class I areas in neighboring states are below
the adjusted URP, and the Plan demonstrated that the state took into
consideration the four reasonable progress factors listed in CAA
169A(g)(1) \5\ with respect to an adequate number of emissions sources.
For the one remaining Class I area, Sycamore Canyon, projected 2028
visibility conditions on the most impaired days are above the adjusted
URP. However, as detailed in our proposed rulemaking \6\ and section
IV.A.3 of the Response to Comments Document available in the docket for
this action (``RTC Document''), there is uncertainty with respect to
the trends in visibility impairment and whether the site will really be
above the URP in 2028, due to the monitor location having been moved in
2015. In addition, there is a strong downward trend in observed sulfate
and nitrates, and modeled source apportionment data from WRAP shows a
strong downward trend in modeled U.S. anthropogenic contributions to
Sycamore Canyon between the baseline and 2028. Furthermore, even if we
assume that Sycamore Canyon will be above the URP in 2028, the
available evidence indicates that this is due to local sources of
coarse mass and fine soil, not pollution transported from outside of
Arizona. Finally, while the EPA's policy establishes a presumption
regarding areas that are projected to be below the URP, states whose
emissions contribute to impairment in areas above the URP can still
meet the applicable requirements of the CAA and the RHR. Indeed, the
RHR specifically addresses this situation by requiring a ``robust
demonstration'' that there are no additional emissions reduction
measures at contributing sources that would be reasonable to include in
the long-term strategy.'' \7\ Because California did not determine that
its sources contribute to impairment in Sycamore Canyon, it did not
expressly make such
[[Page 42819]]
a demonstration. However, as described in section IV.A.3 of the RTC
Document, even if Sycamore Canyon is assumed to be above the 2028 URP,
we find, consistent with 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B), that there are no
additional emissions reduction measures for anthropogenic sources or
groups of sources in California that may reasonably be anticipated to
contribute to visibility impairment in the Sycamore Canyon that would
be reasonable to include in California's own long-term strategy. Thus,
the EPA has determined that the Plan is fully approvable under the CAA,
the RHR and the Agency's new policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The four statutory factors required to be taken into
consideration in determining reasonable progress are: the costs of
compliance, the time necessary for compliance, and the energy and
nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the
remaining useful life of any existing source subject to such
requirements. CAA section 169(g)(1).
\6\ 90 FR 25929, 25940.
\7\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Public Comments and EPA Responses
The EPA's June 18, 2025 proposal provided a 30-day public comment
period that ended on July 18, 2025. The EPA received 10 comments during
the comment period: one anonymous comment; four comments from private
individuals; a comment letter from the California Air Resources Board
(CARB); a comment from Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union
(MANEVU); a comment from the Power Generators Air Coalition; a joint
comment letter signed by Access Fund, Central California Asthma
Collaborative, Central California Environmental Justice Network,
Central Valley Air Quality Coalition, Clean Water Action, Coalition to
Protect America's National Parks, and the National Parks Conservation
Association (NPCA); and a joint comment letter signed by NPCA, Sierra
Club, and Coalition to Protect America's National Parks. After
reviewing the anonymous comment and the comments from the private
individuals, the EPA has determined that they fail to raise issues
germane to the approval of the Plan, which is based on the criteria set
forth in the Act, the RHR and relevant policy documents. Therefore, we
have determined that these comments do not necessitate a response, and
the EPA will not provide specific response to these comments. The
comments from CARB and the Power Generators Air Coalition supported the
EPA's proposed action. The EPA acknowledges these supportive comments,
which are included in the docket for this action. We respond to the
issues raised in the three remaining comment letters received on our
proposed rulemaking in this document and the associated RTC Document,
which is included in the docket for this rulemaking.
We briefly address in this section: (1) whether the EPA's new
policy is consistent with the CAA and RHR; (2) whether the EPA
sufficiently justified its basis for the new policy; (3) whether the
action is nationally applicable or based on a determination of
nationwide scope and effect; (4) whether the action departs from
national policy without complying with the EPA's consistency
regulations at 40 CFR part 56; and (5) whether the Plan meets the
applicable statutory and regulatory requirements in accordance with the
new policy.
As detailed at length in the RTC Document section III.A, the EPA's
new policy is consistent with the CAA. Pursuant to CAA 169A(a)(4),
Congress explicitly delegated to the EPA the authority to promulgate
regulations regarding reasonable progress towards meeting the national
goal. As some comments note, to determine the measures necessary to
make reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal under
169A(a)(1), Congress mandated ``tak[ing] into consideration the cost of
compliance, the time necessary for compliance, and the energy and
nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining
useful life of any existing source subject to such requirement.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ CAA 169A(g)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA emphasizes that just because a Class I area is below the
URP does not mean that a state is relieved of its obligations under the
CAA and the RHR to make reasonable progress. In other words, the URP is
not a ``safe harbor,'' as that phrase has sometimes been used, because
the EPA still must review a state's determination whether additional
control measures are necessary to make reasonable progress, determine
whether the state submitted those measures for incorporation into the
SIP, and evaluate whether the measures are consistent with other
provisions in the CAA .
As discussed in the West Virginia final action,\9\ the EPA's change
in policy is consistent with FCC v. Fox Television, 556 U.S 502 (2009).
Under FCC v. Fox, an agency's change in policy is permissible if the
agency acknowledges the change, believes it to be better, and ``show[s]
that there are good reasons for the new policy.'' \10\ In section V of
our proposal for this rulemaking, we stated our reasons for
implementing this new policy.\11\ In sum, the EPA's proposal
sufficiently justifies the change in policy under FCC v. Fox.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 90 FR 29737, 29738 (July 7, 2025).
\10\ 556 U.S. 502, 515.
\11\ 90 FR 25929, 25933-25934.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The decision in FCC v. Fox turned primarily on whether the FCC's
change in policy would lead to the FCC ``arbitrarily punishing parties
without notice of the potential consequences of their action.'' \12\ As
we explained in the proposal, the changed policy is prospective, which
addresses the primary concern in FCC v. Fox. Additionally, the new
policy ``aligns with the purpose of the statute and RHR, which is
achieving `reasonable' progress, not maximal progress, toward Congress'
natural visibility goal.'' \13\ Furthermore, we note that the
legislative history of CAA section 169A is consistent with our change
in policy. The reconciliation report for the 1977 CAA amendments
indicates that the term ``maximum feasible progress'' in section 169A
was changed to ``reasonable progress'' in the final version of the
legislation passed by both chambers.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 556 U.S. at 517.
\13\ 90 FR at 16483.
\14\ See Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1977 Public Law 95-95 (1977), H.R. Rep. No. 95-564, at 535.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the West Virginia final action \15\ and the RTC
document for this action in response III.C.1, the EPA's Regional
Consistency regulations at 40 CFR part 56, and in particular 40 CFR
56.5(b), are not relevant to this action. 40 CFR 56.5(b) requires that
a ``responsible official in a Regional office shall seek concurrence
from the appropriate EPA Headquarters office on any interpretation of
the Act, or rule, regulation, or program directive when such
interpretation may result in application of the act or rule,
regulation, or program directive that is inconsistent with Agency
policy.'' (emphasis added). As we expressly indicated in the proposal,
the approval is consistent with the change in agency policy, first
announced in Air Plan Approval; West Virginia; Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan for the Second Implementation Period. Therefore,
there is no obligation under the plain language of the EPA's Regional
Consistency regulations for anyone in the region to seek concurrence
from EPA Headquarters to take action consistent with EPA policy. The
lack of relevance of these regulations to this action accounts for the
lack of materials related to compliance with the Regional Consistency
process in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 90 FR 29737, 29740 (July 7, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This action is ``locally or regionally applicable'' under CAA
section 307(b)(1) because it applies only to a SIP submission from a
single state, California.\16\ To determine whether an
[[Page 42820]]
action is ``nationally applicable'' or ``locally or regionally
applicable,'' ``court[s] need look only to the face of the agency
action, not its practical effects. . . .''.\17\ As discussed in the
West Virginia final action \18\ and the RTC Document for this action in
the response III.C.4, comments that claim that the EPA ``must'' publish
a finding that this action is ``based on a determination of nationwide
scope [or] effect'' are also unsupported and incorrect. The Supreme
Court has recognized that ``[b]ecause the `nationwide scope or effect'
exception can apply only when `EPA so finds and publishes' that it
does, EPA can decide whether the exception is even potentially
relevant.'' \19\ As the D.C. Circuit has also stated, the ``EPA's
decision whether to make and publish a finding of nationwide scope or
effect is committed to the agency's discretion and thus is
unreviewable.'' \20\ The Administrator has not made and published a
finding that this action is based on a determination of nationwide
scope or effect. Accordingly, any petition for review of this action
must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate
regional circuit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Oklahoma v. EPA, 605 U.S. _, _-_ (2025) (slip op., at
8) (a SIP is ``a state-specific plan'' and ``the CAA recognizes this
limited scope in enumerating a SIP approval as a locally or
regionally applicable action''); see also, Am. Rd. & Transp.
Builders Ass'n, 705 F.3d 453, 455 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (describing EPA
action to approve a single SIP under CAA section 110 as the
``[p]rototypical'' locally or regionally applicable action).
\17\ EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C., 605 U.S. _
(2025) (slip op. at 12) (``[W]e determine an action's range of
applicability by `look[ing] only to the face of the [action], rather
than to its practical effects.' '') (quoting Am. Rd. & Transp.
Builders Ass'n, 705 F.3d at 456) and Oklahoma, 605 U.S. _, _-_
(2025) (slip op. at 9) (basis for EPA action is not relevant to
determining its applicability); see also Sierra Club v. EPA, 926
F.3d 844, 849 (D.C. Cir. 2019) and RMS of Georgia, LLC v. EPA, 64
F.4th 1368, 1372 (11th Cir. 2023) (``our sister circuits have
established a consensus that we should begin our analysis by
analyzing the nature of the EPA's action, not the specifics of the
petitioner's grievance'').
\18\ 90 FR 29737, 29740 (July 7, 2025).
\19\ Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C., 605 U.S. (slip op. at
16), citing Sierra Club v. EPA, 47 F.4th 738, 746 (D.C. Cir. 2022).
\20\ Sierra Club v. EPA, 47 F.4th at 745; see also Texas v. EPA,
983 F.3d 826, 835 (5th Cir. 2020) (``when a locally applicable
action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect,
the EPA has discretion to select the venue for judicial review'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, as also detailed in section IV.A of the RTC Document, the
Plan meets the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. As
required by the statute, California took into consideration the four
statutory factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and determined that no
additional controls for stationary sources were necessary to make
reasonable progress. California therefore concluded that it was not
necessary to incorporate any new emissions limitations, schedules of
compliance, or other measures for stationary sources into its SIP.
Thus, California did not ignore the results of its consideration of the
four statutory factors. Rather, consistent with the CAA, RHR, and EPA's
new policy, the state's final decisions as to the measures necessary to
make reasonable progress in the second planning period are reasonable.
In addition, the RHR requires states to 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,\21\ and the statute refers to ``a State the
emissions from which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any impairment of visibility in any such area.'' \22\
However, there is no specific statutory or regulatory requirement to
identify the precise set of Class I areas that are affected by
emissions from California, and there is no requirement to establish a
source contribution threshold in identifying those areas. In this case,
CARB appropriately identified affected out-of-state Class I areas, as
we explain in section IV.A.4 of the RTC document. The EPA believes CARB
has reasonably documented its out-of-state Class I area contributions,
and that, with one possible exception discussed in section II of this
document and in the RTC at response section IV.A.3, emissions from
California do not impact any Class I area whose 2028 RPG for the most
impaired days is above the URP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
\22\ CAA section 169A(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion, as discussed in more detail in the responses at
section IV.B.8 of the RTC Document, California took into consideration
the four statutory factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and selected four
mobile source measures as necessary for reasonable progress.\23\
Consistent with an approach used in many of its attainment plans, which
has been upheld by the Ninth Circuit,\24\ CARB did not adopt and submit
the specific identified measures, but instead provided a ``commitment
to achieve aggregate emissions reductions of 40 tpd of NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions Statewide.'' \25\ Therefore, while some of these measures
were subsequently invalidated, this does not necessitate a disapproval
of any portion of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Plan, p. 116.
\24\ See, e.g., Comm. for a Better Arvin v. EPA, 786 F.3d 1169,
1179 (9th Cir. 2015)).
\25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The full text of comments received is included in the publicly
posted docket associated with this action at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. The
RTC Document, which is also included in the docket associated with this
action, provides detailed responses to all significant comments
received. The RTC Document is organized by topic. Therefore, if
additional information is desired concerning how the EPA addressed a
particular comment, the reader should refer to the appropriate section
in the RTC Document.
IV. Final Action
For the reasons set forth in the June 18, 2025 proposal, the RTC
Document, and in this final rule, the EPA is approving the 2022
California Regional Haze Plan as satisfying the regional haze
requirements for the second planning period contained in 40 CFR
51.308(f), (g), and (i).
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations.\26\ Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's
role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria
of the 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
<bullet> Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065,
February 6, 2025) because SIP actions are exempt from review under
Executive Order 12866;
<bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
<bullet> 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.);
<bullet> Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
<bullet> Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive
[[Page 42821]]
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
<bullet> Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it proposes to approve a state program;
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
<bullet> 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 CAA.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe
has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the EPA
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. 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 November 4, 2025. 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).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: August 25, 2025.
Joshua F.W. Cook,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends chapter I,
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F--California
0
2. In Sec. 52.220a, in paragraph (e), amend table 1 by adding entries,
in the following order, for ``California's Regional Haze Plan For the
Second Implementation Period'' and ``California Air Resources Board
Resolution 22-11, dated June 24, 2022'' before the entry for
``California Regional Haze Plan 2014 Progress Report'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.220a Identification of plan--in part.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
Table 1--General Provisions of California State Implementation Plan (SIP); Infrastructure and Regional Haze
SIPs; Materials Related to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Program; and Compliance Schedules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable geographic EPA approval
Name of SIP provision area State submittal date date Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
California's Regional Haze Statewide............ August 9, 2022.......... 9/5/2025, 90 FR Adopted by
Plan For the Second [Insert California Air
Implementation Period. Federal Resources
Register page Board on June
where the 24, 2022.
document
begins].
California Air Resources Statewide............ August 9, 2022.......... 9/5/2025, 90 FR Resolution
Board Resolution 22-11, [Insert approving
dated June 24, 2022. Federal ``California's
Register page Regional Haze
where the Plan For the
document Second
begins]. Implementation
Period''.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 52.281 by adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.281 Visibility protection
* * * * *
(h) Approval. On August 9, 2022, the California Air Resources Board
submitted ``California's Regional Haze Plan For the Second
Implementation Period'' (``Plan''). The Plan meets the requirements of
Clean Air Act sections 169A and 169B and the Regional Haze Rule in 40
CFR 51.308 for the second implementation period.
[FR Doc. 2025-17045 Filed 9-4-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on September 5, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.