[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 232 (Friday, December 5, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56001-56009]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-22002]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R06-OAR-2025-0197; FRL-12217-02-R6]
Air Plan Approval; Texas and Oklahoma; Texas Regional Haze Plans
for the First and Second Implementation Periods and Five-Year Progress
Report; Oklahoma Regional Haze Plan for the First 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) revisions submitted by
the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ or Texas), dated
March 20, 2014, and July 20, 2021, as satisfying applicable
requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA's Regional
Haze Rule (RHR). Additionally, the EPA is approving portions of the
2009 Texas Regional Haze SIP submission and portions of the 2010
Oklahoma Regional Haze SIP submission that relate to reasonable
progress requirements for the first planning period from 2007 through
2018. The EPA is taking these actions pursuant to sections 110 and 169A
of the Act.
DATES: This final rule is effective on January 5, 2026.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID EPA-R06-OAR-2025-0197. All documents in the docket are listed
on the www.regulations.gov 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
[[Page 56002]]
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 www.regulations.gov, or please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
for additional availability information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Feldman, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 6, Air and Radiation Division, SO2
and Regional Haze Section (ARSH), 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas,
Texas 75270, 214-665-9793, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Rationale for This Final Action
III. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Action and Responses
to Comments
IV. Impact on Areas of Indian Country
V. Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On March 31, 2009, Texas submitted a revision to its SIP to address
regional haze for the first planning period \1\ (2009 Plan). Texas made
this SIP submission to satisfy the requirements of the CAA's regional
haze program pursuant to CAA sections 169A and 169B and 40 CFR 51.308.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We use the term ``planning period'' and ``implementation
period'' interchangeably throughout this preamble and in the
associated RTC Document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As detailed in our May 2025 Proposed Rule, the EPA is approving the
portions of the Texas 2009 Plan addressing the following requirements
which were previously disapproved: \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 81 FR 296 (January 5, 2016). As explained in the May 2025
Proposed Rule, the Fifth Circuit granted the EPA's motion for
partial voluntary vacatur on December 17, 2024, vacating the SIP
disapprovals and FIP portions of the 2016 Final Rule. Texas v. EPA,
Case No. 16-60118, Order (December 17, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) and (d)(1)(ii), regarding
Texas's consideration of the four statutory factors in establishing its
reasonable progress goals for the Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend
National Parks;
Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B), regarding Texas's calculation
of the emission reductions needed to achieve the uniform rates of
progress for the Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend National Parks;
Section 51.308(d)(2)(iii), regarding Texas's calculation
of natural visibility conditions for the Guadalupe Mountains and Big
Bend National Parks;
Section 51.308(d)(2)(iv)(A), regarding Texas's calculation
of the number of deciviews by which baseline conditions exceed natural
visibility conditions for the Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend National
Parks;
Section 51.308(d)(3)(i), regarding consultation
requirements with other states where emissions from Texas are
reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in any
Class I area located in another state or states;
Section 51.308(d)(3)(ii), regarding Texas securing its
share of reductions necessary to achieve the reasonable progress goals
at impacted Class I areas in other states;
Section 51.308(d)(3)(iii), regarding Texas's documentation
of its technical basis for which it is relying on to determine its
apportionment of emission reductions necessary for those Class I areas
in other states for which it affects; and
Section 51.308(d)(3)(v)(C), regarding Texas's emission
limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the reasonable
progress goals.
Similarly, we are also approving the portion of Oklahoma's first
planning period SIP addressing 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) \3\ which we
previously disapproved.\4\ The May 2025 Proposed Rule provided
background on the requirements of the CAA and RHR, summarized Texas's
2009 Plan and Oklahoma's 2010 Plan, and explained the rationale for our
proposed approvals.\5\ That background and rationale will not be
restated in full here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Excluding the portion addressing 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(vi),
which we previously approved.
\4\ 81 FR 296 (January 5, 2016).
\5\ 90 FR 22166 (May 23, 2025). See sections II, III, and V of
the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 20, 2014, Texas submitted its five-year progress report as
a SIP revision (2014 Plan) to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(g) and (h). The May 2025 Proposed Rule provided background on
the requirements of the CAA and RHR, summarized Texas's 2014 Plan, and
explained the rationale for our proposed approval.\6\ That background
and rationale will not be restated in full here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 90 FR 22166 (May 23, 2025). See sections II, III, and V of
the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 20, 2021, the TCEQ submitted a revision to its SIP (2021
Plan) to address the State's regional haze obligations for the second
planning period, which runs through 2028, in accordance with CAA
sections 169A and the RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(f). On October 15, 2024, the
EPA proposed to approve the elements of the 2021 Plan related to
requirements contained in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1), (f)(4), (f)(5),\7\ and
(f)(6) and to disapprove the elements of the 2021 Plan related to
requirements contained in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2), (f)(3), and (i). During
that public notice-and-comment period, the EPA received several adverse
comments. The full text of comments received on the October 15, 2024,
proposal are available via Docket ID Number EPA-R06-OAR-2021-0539 at
www.regulations.gov. On May 23, 2025 (May 2025 Proposed Rule), the EPA
withdrew the October 15, 2024, proposal and proposed to approve Texas's
2021 Plan in full. The May 2025 Proposed Rule provided background on
the requirements of the CAA and RHR, summarized Texas's 2021 Plan, and
explained the rationale for our proposed approval.\8\ That background
and rationale will not be restated in full here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(5) requires that the second planning period
SIP revision address the requirements listed in 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1)
through (5).
\8\ 90 FR 22166 (May 23, 2025). See sections II, III, and VII of
the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in our May 2025 Proposed Rule, in sections II and III
of this preamble, and in the accompanying Response to Comments document
(RTC Document), the EPA finds that Texas's, and where relevant
Oklahoma's, regional haze SIPs meet the statutory and specific
regulatory requirements of the regional haze first planning period, the
five-year progress report for the first planning period, and for the
regional haze second planning period.
II. Rationale for This Final Action
A. Rationale for First Planning Period and Progress Report
In this final rule, the EPA is approving portions of Texas's 2009
Plan and portions of Oklahoma's 2010 Plan. As articulated in the May
2025 Proposed Rule, and the RTC Document in support of this final rule,
the EPA's evaluation takes into account the requirements of the CAA and
RHR and is informed by the published Stay Opinion from the Fifth
Circuit. The Stay Opinion outlined that the Petitioners had a strong
likelihood of success on the merits in showing that the EPA was
arbitrary and capricious and exceeded its statutory authority in
partially disapproving the Texas and Oklahoma plans and replacing
portions of them with a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). Because
Texas considered the four factors and otherwise met the outstanding
first planning period rule requirements contained in 40 CFR 51.308(d),
we are finalizing approval of Texas's 2009 Plan. As discussed in
[[Page 56003]]
greater detail in the proposal and the RTC Document, the RHR provides
states with flexibility in the sources they select for further
evaluation and how states consider the four factors. As permitted by
the RHR, Texas relied on the technical information and analyses from
the regional planning organization (RPO) it participated in at the
time, CENRAP,\9\ as a starting point for its analyses. We reviewed the
source selection, four factor analysis and reasonable progress
determination in the SIP and find it to meet the applicable
requirements. The source selection methodology identified a reasonable
number of sources. Texas considered the costs and emission reductions
associated with potential controls, along with the other statutory
factors, weighed the estimated visibility benefits that would result
from those controls and determined that no additional reductions were
necessary beyond those accounted for in the CENRAP modeling. Approval
of Texas's 2009 Plan is further warranted due to Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART) obligations for electric generating units
(EGUs) that have been addressed since 2017 and affirmed in 2020 which
ensured that the emissions reductions from Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR) \10\ that were included in the CENRAP modeling were accounted
for.\11\ As we noted in the May 2025 Proposed Rule, and further
elaborate on in the RTC Document, emission reductions and improvement
in visibility have far exceeded the reductions and improvements
contemplated in the 2009 Plan. Moreover, the Fifth Circuit weighed the
improvements in monitored visibility exceeding the goals in its 2016
Stay Opinion. Finally, as explained in the May 2025 Proposed Rule,
because our now-vacated disapproval of portions of Oklahoma's 2010 Plan
was largely contingent on our now-vacated disapproval of portions of
Texas's 2009 Plan, we are also finalizing approval of the portion of
Oklahoma's 2010 Plan that addresses 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The Central States Air Resource Agencies (CenSARA) is a
regional planning organization (RPO) that was created in 1995 and
currently includes as members the States of Texas, Oklahoma,
Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa, as well
as the federally recognized tribes within the boundaries of these
States. CenSARA created the Central Regional Air Planning
Association (CENRAP) to coordinate activities associated with the
management of regional haze issues within the member States and
tribes. However, CENRAP has since been abolished and CenSARA
currently conducts regional haze and other air quality planning
activities for the CenSARA States. Since CENRAP was the entity which
conducted technical analyses during the first planning period, this
notice references CENRAP when discussing Texas's 2009 Plan and
Oklahoma's 2010 Plan.
\10\ CAIR required certain States, including Texas, to reduce
emissions of SO2 and NOX that significantly
contribute to downwind nonattainment of the 1997 NAAQS for fine
particulate matter and ozone. See 70 FR 25152 (May 12, 2005).
\11\ See 82 FR 48324 (October 17, 2017); 85 FR 49170 (August 12,
2020).
\12\ Excluding the portion addressing 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(vi),
which we previously approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the EPA is approving Texas's 2014 Plan, for the
reasons set out in the May 2025 Proposed Rule and RTC Document. The EPA
finds that Texas's 2014 Plan satisfies the progress report SIP
requirements for the first planning period contained in 40 CFR
51.308(g), (h), and (i).
B. Rationale for Second Planning Period
In this final rule, the EPA is approving Texas's 2021 Plan and
affirming that it is now the Agency's policy that, where visibility
conditions 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
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
planning period SIPs 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 May 2025 Proposed Rule, the EPA has discretion
and authority to change its policy. 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).
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 planning period (e.g., in 2028
for the second planning period).\13\ 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 planning 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ We note that Reasonable Progress Goals (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 3091-92 (January 10, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 2017 RHR Revisions, the EPA addressed the role of the URP as
it relates to a state's development of its second planning 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. Id. at 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.
[[Page 56004]]
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 planning period SIP is making reasonable progress for a
Class I Federal area if the state has taken into consideration the four
statutory factors of 169A(g)(1) and that area is below the URP. This is
consistent with the CAA and RHR.
The Class I areas impacted by emissions from Texas sources are all
below the 2028 adjusted URP with one possible exception, and Texas's
SIP submittal demonstrated that the state took into consideration the
four reasonable progress factors listed in CAA 169A(g)(1) \14\ with
respect to an adequate number of emissions sources. Based on Texas's
modeling, projected 2028 visibility conditions on the most impaired
days at Salt Creek Wilderness Area (Salt Creek) are above the adjusted
URP. However, as detailed in our May 2025 Proposed Rule and in section
V.B of the RTC Document, EPA conducted an additional analysis for Salt
Creek.\15\ As part of that analysis, we showed that the most recent
IMPROVE monitoring network data available at the time of our proposal
indicated that visibility conditions are improving at a faster rate
than the modeling projected and extrapolating monitoring data suggests
that Salt Creek will likely be below the adjusted glidepath in 2028. To
support this conclusion, we explained how conservative assumptions and
approaches utilized in Texas's modeling resulted in both a smaller
adjustment to its URP as well as less modeled visibility improvement
projected in 2028. Had Texas used similar modeling assumptions and
approaches to those used by the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP)
and the EPA, the modeled result would have likely shown greater
projected visibility improvement during the course of the planning
period and a higher adjustment to the URP glidepath. Based on this
information, visibility conditions in 2028 at Salt Creek are
anticipated to be below the adjusted glidepath.\16\ 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.'' \17\ While Texas's modeling indicated that the 2028
projected visibility conditions at Salt Creek may be above the adjusted
URP, at the time Texas submitted the SIP in 2021, New Mexico had not
established an RPG for the Salt Creek Class I area. Thus, Texas had no
way of knowing whether a robust demonstration would be required at the
time it submitted its SIP. Texas highlighted as much in its 2021 Plan
and during its consultation with New Mexico. To date, New Mexico has
not finalized its second planning period SIP revision, and thus, the
State has not finalized its long-term strategy, established a final
visibility projection (the reasonable progress goal) for Salt Creek, or
calculated the adjusted URP for 2028 for Salt Creek. New Mexico has
gone out for public comment on its draft regional haze plan for the
second planning period and is working towards a final plan to submit to
EPA.\18\ Additionally, as described in section V.B.1.c of the RTC
Document, even if Salt Creek is assumed to be above the 2028 adjusted
URP, we find, consistent with 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B), that Texas's
four-factor analyses adequately satisfied the requirement to conduct a
robust analysis. Therefore, because all of the Class I areas that Texas
contributes to are likely to be below the 2028 URP, and because Texas
meets the rule requirements for a robust analysis, we find that Texas's
conclusion that no additional measures were necessary to include in its
own long-term strategy was reasonable. Thus, the EPA has determined
that Texas's 2021 Plan is fully approvable under the CAA, the RHR, and
the Agency's recently adopted policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 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).
\15\ Additional information as to Salt Creek can also be found
in EPA's Salt Creek Supplemental Analysis Memorandum entitled ``EPA
analysis of Salt Creek National Wildlife Refuge Modeling and
Monitoring Data related to 2028 Uniform Rate of Progress in Review
of Texas Second Regional Haze SIP,'' available in the docket for
this action at document ID 2025-0197-0031.
\16\ Additional details of our analysis of visibility conditions
at Salt Creek can be found in Response V.B.1.c in our associated
RTC, and in the Salt Creek Memo available in the docket for this
action.
\17\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B).
\18\ Information on the status of New Mexico's Second Planning
Period SIP Revision can be found at https://www.env.nm.gov/air-quality/reg-haze/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Action and Responses to
Comments
The EPA's May 2025 Proposed Rule provided a 30-day public comment
period that was then extended to July 23, 2025.\19\ The EPA received 15
sets of comments during the comment period. Two of these sets of
comments (-0042 and -0049) were submitted in the form of mass comment
campaigns.\20\ During the public notice-and-comment period, the EPA
received five sets of generally supportive comments from various state
entities, specific utility companies, and coalitions and councils
representing utilities. Specifically, the commenters included the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality (-0052), NRG Texas Power LLC (-
0053); \21\ Luminant Generation Company LLC, Coleto Creek Power LLC,
and Oak Grove Management Company LLC (-0054); Power Generators Air
Coalition (PGen) (-0055); and Ameren Missouri, American Electric Power,
Nebraska Public Power District as Utilities for Reasonable Progress (-
0043). Commenters specifically supported the EPA's new URP policy and
explained how the policy is based on a proper understanding of the CAA.
Commenters also offered additional rationales and reasons to support
EPA's proposed approvals as well as suggestions for
[[Page 56005]]
ways to revise the Regional Haze Rule (RHR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 90 FR 26232 (June 20, 2025).
\20\ Document number-0042 is a compilation of 247 comments
submitted through the Sierra Club collected through a mass mailer
campaign. Similarly, document number -0049 is a compilation of 1,028
comments collected by the Sierra Club in a mass mailer campaign. All
of these individual comments are available in the docket for this
action (EPA-R06-OAR-2025-0197).
\21\ We note that NRG submitted a separate a version of its
comments, which contained additional attachment marked as CBI. The
attachment was a Sargent and Lundy Report on costs associated with
upgrading the FGD at NRG Limestone Units 1 and 2. In accordance with
40 CFR part 2 that document is not available for public viewing in
EPA's docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA acknowledges these supportive comments, which are included
in full in the docket for this action. The EPA is finalizing its
proposed approval of the remaining portions of Texas's 2009 Plan and
Oklahoma's 2010 Plan, Texas's 2014 first planning period progress
report, and Texas's 2021 Plan for the reasons laid out in our May 2025
Proposed Rule, this preamble, and the associated RTC Document. To the
extent commenters identify suggestions or ideas for ways to amend the
RHR for future planning periods, those comments are beyond the scope of
this rule.
We respond to the issues raised in the remaining comment letters
received on our May 2025 Proposed Rule in this preamble and the
associated RTC Document, which is included in the docket for this rule.
A. Comments Related to the First Planning Period and First Planning
Period Progress Report
We briefly address in this section comments raised in opposition to
our May 2025 proposed approval of portions of Texas's 2009 Plan,
Texas's 2014 Plan, and portions of Oklahoma's 2010 Plan. Generally, the
commenters in opposition asserted that the EPA is arbitrary and
capricious in approving portions of Texas's 2009 Plan, Texas's 2014
Plan, and portions of Oklahoma's 2010 Plan. In so asserting, the
commenters noted the EPA's prior statements in various rulemakings \22\
regarding the following issues: the Fifth Circuit's 2016 Stay Opinion;
previously proposed reasons for disapproval; Texas's determination of
natural visibility conditions; the Texas and Oklahoma RPGs and
consultation; impacts from international emissions; and the Texas
SO2 Trading Program. The commenters argue, based on the
EPA's prior statements supporting disapproval of portions of Texas's
2009 Plan and Oklahoma's 2010 Plan, that the EPA is arbitrary and
capricious in now approving those portions of the plans. Additionally,
the commenters assert that the EPA's reliance on the Fifth Circuit's
2016 Stay Opinion is arbitrary and capricious.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Notably, the commenters quote extensively from the EPA's
2014 Proposed Rule, 2016 Final Rule, 2017 RHR Revisions, and 2023
Proposed Rules to address first planning period requirements for
Texas (and Oklahoma).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As detailed in section IV of the RTC Document associated with this
rule, the EPA explained its bases for approving portions of Texas's
2009 Plan, Texas's 2014 Plan, and portions of Oklahoma's 2010 Plan in
our May 2025 Proposed Rule and reiterated those bases in responding to
the comments. As explained in the May 2025 Proposed Rule, the SIP
disapprovals and FIPs contained in the 2016 Final Rule were vacated by
the Fifth Circuit on December 17, 2024. As such, the EPA was put in a
position to act anew on these portions of the Texas and Oklahoma first
planning period plans. We articulate our reasoning for approving the
plans in both the May 2025 Proposed Rule and the RTC Document. Finally,
while we were informed by and took into account the 2016 Stay Opinion
in our decision, we are finalizing approval of the relevant portions of
Texas's 2009 Plan and Oklahoma's 2010 Plan, based on the requirements
of the CAA and RHR, which provide the states with considerable
flexibility in crafting their regional haze plans.
As discussed in our May 2025 Proposed Rule and RTC Document
associated with this rule, because Texas adequately considered the four
statutory factors and otherwise met the outstanding first planning
period rule requirements contained in 40 CFR 51.308(d), we are
approving the remaining outstanding portions of Texas's 2009 Plan. As
previously discussed, the RHR provides states with flexibility in the
sources they select for further evaluation and how states consider the
four factors. As permitted by the RHR, Texas relied on the technical
information and analyses from the RPO it participated in at the time,
CENRAP, as a starting point for its analyses. We reviewed the source
selection, four factor analysis and reasonable progress determination
in the SIP and find it to meet the applicable requirements. The source
selection methodology identified a reasonable number of sources. Texas
considered the costs and emission reductions associated with potential
controls, along with the other statutory factors, weighed the estimated
visibility benefits that would result from those controls and
determined that no additional reductions were necessary beyond those
accounted for in the CENRAP modeling, which included the emission
reductions which were anticipated under the CAIR, or its replacement.
As discussed in detail in the May 2025 Proposed Rule and RTC Document,
the Texas SO2 Trading Program and the Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR) NOX Program serve as replacements for
the reductions anticipated from the CAIR program such that we can
approve the outstanding portions of Texas's 2009 Plan.
We are also finalizing our approval of Texas's 2014 Plan as it
satisfied the applicable requirements of the RHR.
B. Comments Related to the Second Planning Period
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
EPA's approval of Texas's 2021 Plan is based on a determination of
nationwide scope and effect; (4) whether EPA's approval of Texas's 2021
Plan departs from national policy without complying with the EPA's
consistency regulations at 40 CFR part 56; and (5) whether the 2021
Plan meets the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements in
accordance with the new policy.
As detailed at length in section V.A of the RTC Document associated
with this rule, 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, the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of
compliance, and the remaining useful life of any existing source
subject to such requirement.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 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,\24\ 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
[[Page 56006]]
be better, and ``show[s] that there are good reasons for the new
policy.'' \25\ In section VII.A of our May 2025 Proposed Rule, we
stated our reasons for implementing this new policy.\26\ In sum, the
EPA's proposal sufficiently justifies the change in policy under FCC v.
Fox.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 90 FR 29737, 29738 (July 7, 2025).
\25\ 556 U.S. 502, 515.
\26\ 90 FR 22166, 22185-22186 (May 23, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.'' \27\ 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.'' \28\ 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.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 556 U.S. at 517.
\28\ 90 FR 22166, 22185 (May 23, 2025). See also, 90 FR 16478,
16483 (April 18, 2025); 90 FR 29737, 29738 (July 7, 2025).
\29\ 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 \30\ and in section
V.A of the RTC Document associated with this rule, 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 our approval of Texas's 2021
Plan accounts for the lack of materials related to compliance with the
Regional Consistency process in the docket for this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ 90 FR 29737, 29740 (July 7, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the West Virginia final action \31\ and section V.A
of the RTC Document associated with this rule, comments that claim that
the EPA ``must'' publish a finding that our approval of Texas's 2021
Plan is ``based on a determination of nationwide scope [or] effect''
are also unsupported and incorrect.\32\ 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.'' \33\ 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.'' \34\ The Administrator
has not made and published a finding that our approval of Texas's 2021
Plan is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect.
Accordingly, any petition for review of our approval of Texas's 2021
Plan must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate regional circuit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 90 FR 29737, 29740 (July 7, 2025).
\32\ While commenters did not specifically raise this issue, we
note that the EPA's approval of Texas's 2021 Plan is also a
``locally or regionally applicable'' action under CAA section
307(b)(1). See Oklahoma v. EPA, 145 S. Ct. 1720, 1731 (2025) (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).
\33\ 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).
\34\ 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 sections V and VI of the RTC Document,
the 2021 Plan meets the applicable statutory and regulatory
requirements. 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,\35\ 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.'' \36\
However, there is no specific statutory or regulatory requirement to
identify the precise set of Class I areas that are affected by
emissions from Texas, and there is no requirement to establish a source
contribution threshold in identifying those areas. In this case, Texas
appropriately identified affected out-of-state Class I areas, as we
explain in section V.B of the RTC Document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
\36\ CAA section 169A(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A discussed in more detail in section V.B of the RTC Document,
Texas selected a reasonable number of sources for which it evaluated
potential control measures through consideration of the four statutory
factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1). Texas then weighed the total
aggregate annualized costs of controls \37\ from all the identified
controls that fell below their $5,000 cost-effectiveness threshold
along with the visibility benefits that would result from the
implementation of all the identified controls. As Texas explained in
its response to comments on its draft 2021 Plan, the overall analysis
in the SIP showed that Texas is making emissions reductions and
demonstrating a downward trend in emissions of NOX and
SO2 such that Texas is making overall reasonable progress
toward the goal of natural visibility conditions.\38\ Weighing the
costs and the maximum amount of visibility benefit from the controls,
Texas determined that additional reductions are not needed to make
reasonable progress for the second planning period.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Texas determined that the total aggregate annualized cost
of controls exceeded $200 million. 2021 Plan, pg. 7-14.
\38\ 2021 Plan, Response to Comments pg. 3, 21 of 38 (PDF pg.
451, 469 of 653).
\39\ 2021 Plan pgs. 7-14 to 7-17; 2021 Plan, Response to
Comments pg. 3, 21 of 38 (PDF pg. 451, 469 of 653).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As required by the statute, Texas 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. Texas therefore concluded that it was not
necessary to incorporate any new emissions limitations, schedules of
compliance, or other measures for stationary sources into its 2021
Plan. Thus, Texas did not ignore the results of its consideration of
the four statutory factors. Rather, consistent with the CAA, RHR, and
EPA's new policy, Texas considered the four factors, and because the
affected Class I areas are below the glidepath with the possible
[[Page 56007]]
exception of Salt Creek (discussed in section II.B of this preamble,
Response V.B.1.c in the associated RTC document, and in our proposal),
the state is presumed to be making reasonable progress. Thus, the
state's final decisions as to the measures necessary to make reasonable
progress in the second planning period are reasonable, and EPA
concludes that Texas's 2021 Plan satisfied the applicable requirements
of the CAA and the RHR.
The full text of comments received is included in the publicly
posted docket associated with this rule at www.regulations.gov. The RTC
Document, which is also included in the docket associated with this
rule, 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. Impact on Areas of Indian Country
The following information applies only to the portions of
Oklahoma's SIP which are approved in this rule. No portions of the
Texas SIP which we are approving in this rule 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.
Following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in McGirt v Oklahoma, 140
S. Ct. 2452 (2020), the Governor of the State of Oklahoma requested
approval under section 10211(a) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005: A Legacy for Users, Public
Law 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1937 (August 10, 2005) (``SAFETEA''), to
administer in certain areas of Indian country (as defined at 18 U.S.C.
1151) the State's environmental regulatory programs that were
previously approved by the EPA outside of Indian country. The State's
request excluded certain areas of Indian country further described
below. In addition, the State only sought approval to the extent that
such approval is necessary for the State to administer a program in
light of Oklahoma Dept. of Environmental Quality v. EPA, 740 F.3d 185
(D.C. Cir. 2014).\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ In ODEQ v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit held that under the CAA,
states have the authority to implement a SIP in non-reservation
areas of Indian country in the state, unless there has been a
demonstration of tribal jurisdiction. Under the D.C. Circuit's
decision, the CAA does not provide authority to states to implement
SIPs in Indian reservations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has approved Oklahoma's SAFETEA request to administer all
of the State's EPA-approved environmental regulatory programs in the
requested areas of Indian country. As requested by Oklahoma, the EPA's
approval under SAFETEA does not include Indian country lands, including
rights-of-way running through the same, that: (1) qualify as Indian
allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished,
under 18 U.S.C. 1151(c); (2) are held in trust by the United States on
behalf of an individual Indian or Tribe; or (3) are owned in fee by a
Tribe, if the Tribe (a) acquired that fee title to such land, or an
area that included such land, in accordance with a treaty with the
United States to which such Tribe was a party, and (b) never allotted
the land to a member or citizen of the Tribe (collectively ``excluded
Indian country lands'').
The EPA's approval under SAFETEA expressly provided that to the
extent the EPA's prior approvals of Oklahoma's environmental programs
excluded Indian country, any such exclusions are superseded for the
geographic areas of Indian country covered by the EPA's approval of
Oklahoma's SAFETEA request.\41\ The approval also provided that future
revisions or amendments to Oklahoma's approved environmental regulatory
programs would extend to the covered areas of Indian country (without
any further need for additional requests under SAFETEA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ The EPA's prior approvals relating to Oklahoma's SIP
frequently noted that the SIP was not approved to apply in areas of
Indian country (except as explained in the D.C. Circuit's decision
in ODEQ v. EPA) located in the State. See, e.g., 85 FR 20178, 20180
(April 10, 2020). Such prior expressed limitations are superseded by
the EPA's approval of Oklahoma's SAFETEA request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in earlier in this preamble and in our May 2025
Proposed Rule, the EPA is approving the portion of Oklahoma's 2010 Plan
addressing 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) \42\ which we previously disapproved,
and which will apply statewide in Oklahoma. Consistent with the D.C.
Circuit's decision in ODEQ v. EPA and with the EPA's SAFETEA approval,
the portion of Oklahoma's 2010 Plan that we are approving will apply to
areas of Indian country as follows: (1) pursuant to the SAFETEA the
portion of Oklahoma's Plan that we are approving will apply to all
Indian country in the State of Oklahoma other than the excluded Indian
country lands as described above; and (2) pursuant to the D.C.
Circuit's decision in ODEQ v. EPA, the portion of Oklahoma's 2010 Plan
that we are approving will also apply to any Indian allotments or
dependent Indian communities that are located outside of any Indian
reservation over which there has been no demonstration of tribal
authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Excluding the portion addressing 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(vi),
which we previously approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Final Action
For the reasons set forth in the May 2025 Proposed Rule, the RTC
Document, and in this final rule, the EPA is approving Texas's regional
haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted on July 20,
2021, as satisfying the applicable regional haze requirements for the
second planning period contained in 40 CFR 51.308(f) and (i). For the
reasons set forth in the May 2025 Proposed Rule, the RTC Document, and
in this final rule, the EPA is approving Texas's regional haze State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted March 20, 2014, as
satisfying the applicable regional haze requirements for the first
planning period progress report contained in 40 CFR 51.308(g), (h), and
(i). Additionally, the EPA is approving portions of the 2009 Texas
Regional Haze SIP submission and portions of the 2010 Oklahoma Regional
Haze SIP submission that relate to reasonable progress requirements for
the first planning period from 2007 through 2018 as satisfying
applicable requirements contained in 40 CFR 51.308(d).
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this final rule merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by State law. For that reason, this final rule:
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);
Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065,
February 6, 2025) because SIP actions are exempt from review under
Executive Order 12866:
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
[[Page 56008]]
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 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
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, the portions of this final rule that apply to the
Texas SIP are 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). The portion
of Oklahoma's 2010 Plan addressing 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) \43\ that we are
approving as part of this final rule will apply to certain areas of
Indian country throughout Oklahoma as discussed in the preamble, and
therefore, has tribal implications as specified in E.O. 13175 (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000). However, our approval will neither impose
substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal
governments, nor preempt tribal law. Our approval of portions of
Oklahoma's 2010 Plan will not impose substantial direct compliance
costs on federally recognized tribal governments because no actions
will be required of tribal governments. Our approval of portions of
Oklahoma's 2010 will also not preempt tribal law as no Oklahoma tribe
implements a regulatory program under the CAA, and thus does not have
applicable or related tribal laws. Consistent with the EPA Policy on
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes (December 7, 2023),
the EPA offered consultation to tribal governments that may be affected
by our approval of portions of Oklahoma's 2010 Plan in a letter dated
May 27, 2025. The EPA held a meeting with tribal governments on June 5,
2025, where we provided information about our May 2025 Proposed Rule.
No tribes accepted EPA's offer to engage in consultation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Excluding the portion addressing 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(vi),
which we previously approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This final rule 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 final rule 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 rule must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 3, 2026. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule 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 rule 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, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: November 18, 2025.
Walter Mason,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
For the reasons stated 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 LL--Oklahoma
0
2. In Sec. 52.1920(e), amend the table entitled ``EPA-Approved
Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Oklahoma
SIP'' by:
0
a. Removing the entry for ``Regional Haze SIP: (a) Determination of
baseline and natural visibility conditions (b) Coordinating regional
haze and reasonably attributable visibility impairment (c) Monitoring
strategy and other implementation requirements (d) Coordination with
States and Federal Land Managers (e) BART determinations except for the
following SO2 BART determinations: Units 4 and 5 of the
Oklahoma Gas and Electric (OG&E) Muskogee plant; and Units 1 and 2 of
the OG&E Sooner plant''; and
0
b. Adding an entry for ``Oklahoma Regional Haze SIP for the First
Planning Period'' immediately after the entry for ``Interstate
transport for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS
(Noninterference with measures required to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility in any other
State)''.
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 52.1920 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
[[Page 56009]]
EPA-Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Oklahoma SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable geographic State
Name of SIP provision or nonattainment area submittal date EPA approval date Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Oklahoma Regional Haze SIP for Statewide............. 2/17/2010 3/7/2014, 79 FR Core requirements of
the First Planning Period. 12953; 12/5/ 40 CFR 51.308.
2025, 90 FR Initial approval 12/
[INSERT FEDERAL 28/2011, 76 FR
REGISTER PAGE 81728. Approval for
WHERE THE Sec.
DOCUMENT BEGINS]. 51.308(d)(1)(vi) 1/5/
2016, 81 FR 349.
Approval for Sec.
51.308(d)(1)(i),
(ii), (iii), (iv),
(v) 12/5/2025, 90 FR
[INSERT FEDERAL
REGISTER PAGE WHERE
THE DOCUMENT
BEGINS].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Sec. 52.1928 [Amended]
0
3. Section 52.1928 is amended by removing paragraph (a)(5).
Subpart SS--Texas
0
4. In Sec. 52.2270, the second table in paragraph (e), entitled ``EPA
Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the
Texas SIP'' is amended by:
0
a. Revising the entry for ``Texas Regional Haze SIP''; and
0
b. Adding two entries, ``Texas Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report for
the First Planning Period'' and ``Texas Regional Haze SIP for the
Second Planning Period'', at the end of the table.
The revision and additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.2270 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
EPA-Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable geographic State submittal/ EPA approval
Name of SIP provision or nonattainment area effective date date Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Texas Regional Haze SIP....... Statewide............ 3/19/2009....... 1/15/2016, 81 FR Texas Regional Haze
350; 12/5/2025, Plan for the First
90 FR [INSERT Planning Period.
FEDERAL Approval for
REGISTER PAGE elements of 40 CFR
WHERE THE 51.308(d)(1), (2),
DOCUMENT (3)(i), (3)(ii),
BEGINS]. (3)(iii), (3)(iv),
(3)(v), (d)(4).
* * * * * * *
Texas Regional Haze 5-Year Statewide............ 3/24/2014, 12/5/2025, 90 FR .....................
Progress Report for the First submittal date. [INSERT FEDERAL
Planning Period. REGISTER PAGE
WHERE THE
DOCUMENT
BEGINS].
Texas Regional Haze SIP for Statewide............ 7/20/2021, 12/5/2025, 90 FR .....................
the Second Planning Period. submittal date. [INSERT FEDERAL
REGISTER PAGE
WHERE THE
DOCUMENT
BEGINS].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Sec. 52.2304 [Amended]
0
5. Section 52.2304 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (e).
[FR Doc. 2025-22002 Filed 12-4-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P