Rule2025-18599
Air Plan Approval; Washington; 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 25, 2025
Effective
October 27, 2025
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the regional haze State implementation plan (SIP) revision, submitted by Washington on January 28, 2022, to address applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR) for the regional haze program's second implementation period.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 184 (Thursday, September 25, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 184 (Thursday, September 25, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46070-46073]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-18599]
[[Page 46070]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R10-OAR-2024-0541; FRL-12449-02-R10]
Air Plan Approval; Washington; 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
Washington on January 28, 2022, to address applicable requirements
under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
for the regional haze program's second implementation period.
DATES: This final rule is effective October 27, 2025.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2024-0541. All documents in the docket are
listed on the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information or other information the disclosure
of which 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 at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, or please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunt, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth
Avenue, Suite 155, Seattle, WA 98101, at (206) 553-0256 or
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#432b362d376d29262525032633226d242c35"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="563e233822783c3330301633263778313920">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we'' or
``our'' is used, it means the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. Summary of the Proposed Action and the EPA's Reasons for This
Final Action
III. Public Comments and EPA Responses
IV. Final Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is being addressed in this document?
The EPA is approving a SIP revision submitted by the State of
Washington to the EPA on January 28, 2022, addressing the Regional Haze
Rule (RHR) requirements for the regional haze program's second
implementation period. As required by section 169A of the CAA, the RHR
calls for state and Federal agencies to work together to improve
visibility in 156 national parks and wilderness areas. The RHR requires
the states, in coordination with the EPA, the Federal Land Managers
(FLMs), and other interested parties, to develop and implement air
quality protection plans to reduce the pollution that causes visibility
impairment in mandatory Class I Federal areas (Class I areas).
Visibility impairing pollutants include fine and coarse particulate
matter (e.g. sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and
soil dust) and their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide, oxides of
nitrogen, and, in some cases, volatile organic compounds and ammonia).
As discussed in further detail in our proposed action published on July
24, 2025 (90 FR 34792), in this document, and in the accompanying
Response to Comments (RTC) document, the EPA finds that Washington
submitted a SIP revision that meets all RHR requirements for the second
implementation period. Washington's SIP revision, the proposed action,
and the accompanying RTC document may be found in the docket for this
action.
II. Summary of the Proposed Action and the EPA's Reasons for This Final
Action
A. Summary of the Proposed Action
On January 28, 2022, Washington submitted a SIP revision to address
its regional haze obligations for the second implementation period
(2018-2028). Washington made this revision to satisfy the requirements
of the CAA's regional haze program pursuant to CAA sections 169A and
169B and 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 51.308.
On July 24, 2025, the EPA proposed to approve Washington's 2022 SIP
revision (90 FR 34792). Specifically, the EPA proposed to approve
Washington's 2022 SIP revision as satisfying the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1): calculations of baseline, current, and natural visibility
conditions, progress to date, and the uniform rate of progress; 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2): long-term strategy; 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3): reasonable
progress goals; 40 CFR 51.308(f)(4): reasonably attributable visibility
impairment; 40 CFR 51.308(f)(5) and 40 CFR 51.308(g): progress report
requirements; 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6): monitoring strategy and other
implementation plan requirements; and 40 CFR 51.308(i): FLM
consultation. Our public comment period closed on August 25, 2025. We
received 5 comments, the full text of which may be found in the docket
for this action.
Our July 2025 proposed action provided background on the
requirements of the CAA and RHR, a summary of Washington's regional
haze SIP revision and related EPA actions, and the EPA's rationale for
its proposed action. That background and rationale will not be restated
here.
B. Reasons for This Final Action
In this final action, the EPA is affirming that it is now the
Agency's policy that, where visibility conditions for a Class I 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
implementation period for that Class I area. The EPA acknowledges that
this final action reflects a change in policy as to how the URP should
be used in the evaluation of regional haze second implementation period
SIP revisions but believes that this policy better aligns with the
purpose of the statute and RHR: achieving ``reasonable'' progress
towards natural visibility.
As described in the final rule approving West Virginia's regional
haze plan, the EPA has discretion and authority to change its
policy.\1\ In FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., the U.S. Supreme
Court plainly stated that an agency is free to change a prior policy
and ``need not demonstrate . . . that the reasons for the new policy
are better than the reasons for the old one; it suffices that the new
policy is permissible under the statute, that there are good reasons
for it, and that the agency believes it to be better.'' 566 U.S. 502,
515 (2009) (referencing Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of United States,
Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983)). See also
Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Assn., 135 S. Ct. 1199 (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 90 FR 29737 (August 6, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Class I areas impacted by emissions from Washington are all
below the 2028 URP, and Washington's SIP revision demonstrated that the
state took into consideration the four reasonable progress factors
listed in CAA section 169A(g)(1) \2\ with respect to
[[Page 46071]]
an adequate number of emissions sources. Thus, the EPA has determined
that Washington's SIP revision is fully approvable under the Agency's
new policy. Indeed, we think this policy better aligns with the
statutory goal because it recognizes the considerable improvements in
visibility impairment that have been made by a wide variety of state
and Federal programs in recent decades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 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
non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the
remaining useful life of any existing source subject to such
requirements. CAA section 169(g)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In developing the regulations required by CAA section 169A(b), the
EPA established the concept of the URP for each Class I area. The URP
is determined by drawing a straight line from the measured 2000-2004
baseline conditions (in deciviews) for the 20% most impaired days at
each Class I area to the estimated natural conditions (in deciviews)
for the 20% most impaired days in 2064. From this calculation, a URP
value can be calculated for each year between 2004 and 2064. The EPA
developed the URP to address the diverse concerns of Eastern and
Western states and account for the varying levels of visibility
impairment in Class I areas around the country while ensuring an
equitable approach nationwide. For each Class I area, states must
calculate the URP for the end of each implementation period (e.g., in
2028 for the second implementation period).\3\ 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1)(vi)(A). States may also adjust the URP to account for
impacts from anthropogenic sources outside the United States and/or
impacts from certain wildland prescribed fires. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1)(vi)(B). Then, for each Class I area, states must compare
the reasonable progress goal (RPG) for the 20% most impaired days to
the URP for the end of the implementation period. If the RPG is above
the URP, then an additional ``robust demonstration'' requirement is
triggered for each state that contributes to that Class I area. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ We note that RPGs are a regulatory construct that we
developed to address the statutory mandate in CAA section
169B(e)(1), which required our regulations to include ``criteria for
measuring `reasonable progress' toward the national goal.'' Under 40
CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii), RPGs measure the progress that is projected to
be achieved by the control measures a state has determined are
necessary to make reasonable progress. Consistent with the 1999 RHR,
the RPGs are unenforceable, though they create a benchmark that
allows for analytical comparisons to the URP and mid-implementation-
period course corrections if necessary (82 FR 3078, January 10,
2017, at pages 3091-92).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 2017 RHR Revisions, the EPA addressed the role of the URP as
it relates to a state's development of its second implementation period
SIP (82 FR 3078, January 10, 2017). Specifically, in response to
comments suggesting that the URP should be considered a ``safe harbor''
that relieve states of any obligation to consider the four statutory
factors, the EPA explained that the URP was not intended to be such a
safe harbor (82 FR 3078, January 10, 2017, at page 3099). ``Some
commenters stated a desire for corresponding rule text dealing with
situations where RPGs are equal to (``on'') or better than (``below'')
the URP or glidepath. Several commenters stated that the URP or
glidepath should be a ``safe harbor,'' opining that states should be
permitted to analyze whether projected visibility conditions for the
end of the implementation period will be on or below the glidepath
based on on-the-books or on-the-way control measures, and that in such
cases a four-factor analysis should not be required.'' Id.
Other comments indicated a similar approach, such as ``a somewhat
narrower entrance to a `safe harbor,' by suggesting that if current
visibility conditions are already below the end-of-planning-period
point on the URP line, a four-factor analysis should not be required.''
Id. The EPA stated in its response that we did not agree with either of
these recommendations. ``The CAA requires that each SIP revision
contain long-term strategies for making reasonable progress, and that
in determining reasonable progress states must consider the four
statutory factors. Treating the URP as a safe harbor would be
inconsistent with the statutory requirement that states assess the
potential to make further reasonable progress towards natural
visibility goal in every implementation period.'' Id.
Importantly, the EPA's recently adopted policy does not make the
URP a safe harbor. The policy merely creates a presumption that the
State's second implementation period SIP is making reasonable progress
for a Class I area if the state has taken into consideration the four
statutory factors of CAA section 169A(g)(1) and that area is below the
URP. As discussed in our proposed action, the Class I areas impacted by
emissions from Washington are all below the 2028 URP, and Washington's
SIP revision demonstrated that the state took into consideration the
four reasonable progress factors listed in CAA section 169A(g)(1) \4\
with respect to an adequate number of emissions sources. Thus, the EPA
has determined that Washington's SIP revision is fully approvable under
the Agency's new policy. This is consistent with the CAA and RHR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 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
non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the
remaining useful life of any existing source subject to such
requirements. CAA section 169(g)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Public Comments and EPA Responses
The public comment period on our proposed action closed on August
25, 2025. During the public comment period, we received 5 comments. The
commenters were: a coalition of conservation groups,\5\ the Mid-
Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANEVU),\6\ the Power Generators
Air Coalition,\7\ a coalition of park advocates,\8\ and one anonymous
member of the public.\9\ The full text of the comments received may be
found in the docket for this action, at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
The accompanying RTC document, which is also included in the docket for
this action, provides detailed responses to all significant comments
received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Letter dated August 25, 2025, from the Coalition to Protect
America's National Parks, the National Parks Conservation
Association, the North Cascades Conservation Council, the Olympic
Park Advocates, the Puget Soundkeeper and the Sierra Club.
\6\ Letter dated August 25, 2025, from MANEVU.
\7\ Letter dated August 25, 2025, from the Power Generators Air
Coalition.
\8\ Letter dated August 25, 2025, signed by 160 individuals.
\9\ Submitted via <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Final Action
For the reasons stated in our July 24, 2025, proposed action, in
the accompanying RTC document, and in this document, we are approving
Washington's 2022 SIP revision. Specifically, we are approving the
following aspects of Washington's 2022 SIP revision relating to CAA
section 169A:
<bullet> Calculations of baseline, current, and natural visibility
conditions, progress to date, and uniform rate of progress (40 CFR
51.308(f)(1));
<bullet> Long-term strategy (40 CFR 51.308(f)(2));
<bullet> Reasonable progress goals (40 CFR 51.308(f)(3));
<bullet> Reasonably attributable visibility impairment (40 CFR
51.308(f)(4));
<bullet> Progress report requirements (40 CFR 51.308(f)(5) and 40
CFR 51.308(g));
<bullet> Monitoring strategy and other implementation plan
requirements (40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)); and
<bullet> FLM consultation (40 CFR 51.308(i)).
We are also finalizing our proposed determination to update certain
outdated provisions in the Washington
[[Page 46072]]
SIP. As part of the regional haze SIP for the first implementation
period, the EPA approved Administrative Order No. 7837, Revision 1, for
the Alcoa Intalco Works facility located in Ferndale, Washington (79 FR
33438, June 11, 2014). In the same action, the EPA promulgated Federal
implementation plan (FIP) requirements under 40 CFR 52.2500 Best
available retrofit technology requirements for the Intalco Aluminum
Corporation (Intalco Works) primary aluminum plant--Better than BART
Alternative and 40 CFR 52.2502 Best available retrofit technology
requirements for the Alcoa Inc.--Wenatchee Works primary aluminum
smelter. Our proposed action explained that the two Alcoa aluminum
smelters in Washington have both permanently closed with termination of
the operating permits.\10\ Therefore, we are removing from
incorporation by reference in 40 CFR 52.2470(d), Administrative Order
No. 7837, Revision 1, for the Alcoa Intalco Works in Ferndale. We are
also removing the FIP requirements for both closed facilities in 40 CFR
52.2500 and 52.2502, and we are revising cross references to these
provisions in 40 CFR 40 CFR 52.2470(e) and 52.2498(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 90 FR 34792 (July 24, 2025), at pages 34806 and 34812.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that
includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of
1 CFR 51.5, we are removing the incorporation by reference of source-
specific provisions for the Alcoa Intalco Works facility located in
Ferndale, Washington, as described in section IV. of this preamble and
set forth in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 in this document. The EPA
has made, and will continue to make, incorporation by reference
materials generally available through <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> and
at the EPA Region 10 Office (please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information). Therefore, revisions to the materials incorporated by
reference have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have
been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully
federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the
effective date of the final rule of the EPA's approval, and will be
incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP
compilation.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
revision that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP revisions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 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:
<bullet> 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);
<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 Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
<bullet> Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it approves 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 Clean Air Act.
In addition, this action 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). Nevertheless, we provided an opportunity for consultation to all
Tribes in Washington in letters dated June 27, 2022, included in the
docket for this action.
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 24, 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: September 15, 2025.
Emma Pokon,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR
part 52 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 WW--Washington
0
2. In Sec. 52.2470:
0
a. Amend the table in paragraph (d) by removing the entry for ``Alcoa
Intalco Works''; and
0
b. Amend table 2 in paragraph (e), under the heading ``Visibility and
Regional Haze Plans'', by:
0
i. Revising the entry ``Regional Haze SIP''; and
0
ii. Adding an entry for ``Washington Regional Haze SIP Revision for the
Second Implementation Period (2018-2028)'' immediately after the entry
for ``Regional Haze Progress Report''.
[[Page 46073]]
The revision and addition read as follows:
Sec. 52.2470 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
Table 2--Attainment, Maintenance, and Other Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or submittal EPA approval date Explanations
nonattainment area date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility and Regional Haze Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Regional Haze SIP............... Statewide................ 12/22/10 6/11/14, 79 FR The Regional Haze
33438. SIP including
those provisions
relating to BART
incorporated by
reference in Sec.
52.2470
`Identification
of plan' with the
exception of the
BART provisions
that are replaced
with a BART FIP
in Sec. 52.2498
Visibility
protection and
Sec. 52.2501
Best available
retrofit
technology (BART)
requirement for
the Tesoro
Refining and
Marketing Company
oil refinery--
Better than BART
Alternative.
* * * * * * *
Washington Regional Haze SIP Statewide................ 1/28/22 9/25/25, 90 FR
Revision for the Second [INSERT Federal
Implementation Period (2018- Register PAGE
2028). WHERE THE
DOCUMENT BEGINS].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. In Sec. 52.2498, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2498 Visibility protection.
* * * * *
(c) The requirements of sections 169A and 169B of the Clean Air Act
are not met because the plan does not include approvable provisions for
protection of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas,
specifically the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirement
for regional haze visibility impairment (Sec. 51.308(e)). The EPA BART
requirements are found in Sec. 52.2501.
Sec. Sec. 52.2500 and 52.2502 [Removed and Reserved]
0
4. Remove and reserve Sec. Sec. 52.2500 and 52.2502.
[FR Doc. 2025-18599 Filed 9-24-25; 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 25, 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.