103734 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

1Throughout this document, we refer to the 1979 

1-hour ozone NAAQS as the ‘‘1-hour ozone 

NAAQS’’ and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS as the 

‘‘1997 ozone NAAQS.’’ 

2The EPA revoked both the 1-hour and 1997 

ozone NAAQS along with associated designations 

and classifications (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004; 

and 80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015). 

3The following elements of the November 27, 

2018 submission were approved as an equivalent 

alternative 185 fee program to address CAA section 

185: 30 TAC sections 101.100–101.102, 101.104, 

101.106–101.110, 101.113, 101.116, 101.117, 

101.118(a)(1), 101.118(a)(3), and 101.120–101.122. 

When this approval was subsequently challenged, 

EPA took a voluntary remand without vacatur of 

this approval. See Sierra Club v. EPA, D.C. Circuit 

Docket No. 20–1121 (January 11, 2022). 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2018–0715; FRL–12462– 

01–R6] 

Air Plan Disapproval; Texas; HoustonGalveston-Brazoria Area Section 185 

Fee Program; Cessation of Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean 

Air Act (CAA or the Act), the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

is proposing to disapprove revisions to 

the Texas State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). The revisions were submitted by 

the Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality (TCEQ or State) 

on November 27, 2018, to address CAA 

requirements for the HoustonGalveston-Brazoria (HGB) area relevant 

to the 1979 1-hour ozone national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or 

standard). The EPA approved most 

portions of this submission on February 

14, 2020. In this current action, we are 

proposing to disapprove the remaining 

portions not addressed in the February 

14, 2020 action. This submission, titled 

‘‘Severe Ozone Nonattainment Area 

Failure to Attain Fee,’’ addresses the 

CAA section 185 requirement for fee 

collection programs, which applies to 

ozone nonattainment areas classified as 

Severe or Extreme that fail to attain by 

the required attainment date. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before January 21, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2018–0715, at https://

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

riley.jeffrey@epa.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit electronically any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact Jeff Riley, 214–665–8542, 

riley.jeffrey@epa.gov. For the full EPA 

public comment policy, information 

about CBI or multimedia submissions, 

and general guidance on making 

effective comments, please visit https:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may not be 

publicly available due to docket file size 

restrictions or content (e.g., CBI). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff 

Riley, EPA Region 6 Office, 

Infrastructure & Ozone Section, 214– 

665–8542, riley.jeffrey@epa.gov. We 

encourage the public to submit 

comments via https://

www.regulations.gov. Please call or 

email the contact listed above if you 

need alternative access to material 

indexed but not provided in the docket. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. 

I. Background 

The background for this proposed 

action is discussed in detail in two 

preceding EPA rulemaking actions: our 

May 16, 2019 Proposed Rule (84 FR 

22093) and our February 14, 2020 Final 

Rule (85 FR 8411, ‘‘Final Rule’’) to 

approve revisions to the Texas SIP 

pertaining to the HGB area and the 

revoked 1979 1-hour and 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS.1 2 In EPA’s Final rule, 

we: (1) Approved the State’s December 

14, 2018 maintenance plan for 

maintaining both the 1-hour and 1997 

ozone NAAQS through the year 2032 in 

the HGB area; (2) Determined that the 

HGB area continues to attain both the 1- 

hour and 1997 ozone NAAQS; (3) 

Determined that the HGB area met the 

five criteria in CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) 

for redesignation with respect to both 

the 1-hour and 1997 ozone NAAQS; (4) 

Terminated the anti-backsliding 

obligations for the HGB area with 

respect to the revoked 1-hour and 1997 

ozone NAAQS; and, (5) Approved 

sufficient provisions of the State’s 

November 27, 2018 SIP submission 

titled ‘‘Severe Ozone Nonattainment 

Area Failure to Attain Fee’’ such that 

there was as an equivalent alternative 

185 fee program to address CAA section 

185 requirements for the HGB 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS nonattainment area.3

In our February 14, 2020 Final Rule, 

EPA did not act on two provisions of the 

State’s submitted 185 fee program for 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for the HGB 

area: Title 30 of the Texas 

Administrative Code (30 TAC) sections 

101.118(a)(2) and 101.118(b). The Final 

Rule stated that the provisions that were 

approved at the time were sufficient to 

fulfill the requirement to have an 

equivalent alternative section 185 fee 

program for the HGB nonattainment 

area with respect to the 1-hour ozone 

standard. However, the two not actedupon provisions have not been 

withdrawn by Texas, and therefore 

remain pending before the Agency for 

consideration as SIP submissions. These 

two outstanding 185 fee program 

provisions are the focus of this proposed 

rule. 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation 

1. Statutory and Regulatory 

Requirements 

CAA section 185 (Enforcement for 

Severe and Extreme ozone 

nonattainment areas for failure to attain) 

requirements apply to ozone 

nonattainment areas classified as Severe 

or Extreme that fail to attain by the 

required attainment date. It requires 

each major stationary source of Volatile 

Organic Compounds (VOC) located in 

an area that fails to attain by its 

attainment date to pay a fee to the State 

for each ton of VOC the source emits in 

excess of 80 percent of a baseline 

amount. CAA section 182(f) extends the 

application of this provision to major 

stationary sources of nitrogen oxides 

(NOX). States with ozone nonattainment 

areas classified as Severe or Extreme 

must submit a SIP revision that includes 

procedures for assessment and 

collection of such fees should the area 

fail to attain the standard by its 

attainment date. Under the 1-hour ozone 

standard, the HGB area, consisting of 

Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, 

Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery, 

and Waller Counties, was designated as 

nonattainment and classified as Severe– 

17 with an attainment deadline of 

November 15, 2007 (56 FR 56694, 

November 6, 1991). Because the HGB 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 103735 

4See ‘‘Guidance on Developing Fee Programs 

Required by Clean Air Act Section 185 for the 1- 

hour Ozone NAAQS.’’ https://www.epa.gov/sites/ 

production/files/2015-09/documents/1hour_ozone_

nonattainment_guidance.pdf. Although the 2010 

guidance was vacated and remanded by the D.C. 

Circuit on procedural grounds, the court did not 

prohibit alternative programs, stating ‘‘neither the 

statute nor our case law obviously precludes that 

alternative.’’ NRDC v. EPA, 643 F.3d 311 (D.C. Cir. 

2011). 

5 In 2008, we revised the primary and secondary 

ozone NAAQS to 0.075 parts per million (ppm), 

averaged over an 8-hour period (73 FR 16436, 

March 27, 2008). In 2015, we again revised the 

primary and secondary ozone NAAQS to 0.070 

ppm, averaged over an 8-hour period (80 FR 65292, 

October 26, 2015). However, EPA has not revoked 

the 2008 standard, so section 172(e) would not 

apply to requirements under this standard. On 

November 7, 2022, the HGB area and the Dallas-Fort 

Worth (DFW) area were reclassified from Serious to 

Severe–15 nonattainment for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS (87 FR 60926). As such, Texas is subject 

to a requirement to provide a new CAA section 185 

failure to attain fee program for both the DFW and 

HGB areas. 

area was classified as a Severe area, 

Texas was required to submit a SIP 

revision addressing the CAA section 185 

requirement. The HGB area 

subsequently failed to attain the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment deadline of November 15, 

2007 (77 FR 36400, June 19, 2012). 

Since 2010,4 the EPA has taken the 

position that the Agency can approve 

SIPs that include an equivalent 

alternative program to the section 185 

fee program specified in the CAA when 

addressing anti-backsliding for a 

revoked ozone standard under the 

principles of section 172(e). Section 

172(e) requires EPA to develop 

regulations to ensure that controls in a 

nonattainment area are ‘‘not less 

stringent’’ than those that applied to the 

area before EPA revised a NAAQS to 

make it less stringent. Although section 

172(e) does not directly apply where 

EPA has strengthened the NAAQS, as it 

did in 1997, 2008, and 2015, EPA has 

applied the principles in section 172(e) 

when revoking less stringent ozone 

standards.5 EPA allows a State to adopt 

an alternative to CAA section 185 if the 

State demonstrates that the proposed 

alternative program is ‘‘not less 

stringent’’ than the direct application of 

CAA section 185. EPA has previously 

stated that one way to demonstrate this 

is to show that the alternative program 

provides equivalent or greater fees and/ 

or emissions reductions than those 

directly attributable to the application of 

CAA section 185. EPA has approved 

equivalent alternative 185 fee equivalent 

programs in addition to the Final Rule. 

See 84 FR 12511 (April 2, 2019) 

(approving an equivalent alternative 185 

fee program in New York), 77 FR 74372 

(Dec. 14, 2012) (approving an equivalent 

alternative program for South Coast Air 

Quality Management District). 

The TCEQ adopted the Severe Ozone 

Nonattainment Area Failure to Attain 

Fee program for the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS (alternative section 185 fee 

equivalent program) on May 22, 2013 

(38 Tex. Reg. 3610, June 7, 2013). 

However, the program was not 

submitted to EPA as a SIP revision until 

November 27, 2018. EPA’s May 16, 2019 

Proposed Rule evaluated the State’s 

alternative section 185 fee equivalent 

program against the language of CAA 

sections 172(e) and 185 to determine 

whether the State had demonstrated that 

the proposed alternative program was 

‘‘not less stringent’’ than the direct 

application of CAA section 185. EPA’s 

February 14, 2020 Final Rule approved 

sufficient provisions of the SIP 

submission to determine that the State 

had met applicable requirements to 

have a section 185 fee program, or 

equivalent. 

2. Summary of the State’s Submission 

The November 27, 2018 alternative 

section 185 fee equivalent program SIP 

revision for the 1-hour ozone standard 

included Subchapter B (Failure to 

Attain Fee) in Chapter 101 (General Air 

Quality Rule) of 30 TAC. The two 

remaining provisions that EPA has not 

yet acted on in this submission are 30 

TAC sections 101.118(a)(2) and 

101.118(b). Under 30 TAC section 

101.118 (Cessation of Program), the 

State’s 185 fee equivalent program 

would be terminated following EPA 

action to: redesignate the area to 

attainment (101.118(a)(1)); make a 

finding of attainment (101.118(a)(2)); or 

otherwise end the Failure to Attain fee 

(101.118(a)(3)). 30 TAC section 

101.118(b) provides that fees would be 

calculated but not invoiced, and fee 

collection may be placed in abeyance by 

the TCEQ, pending EPA action on 

quality-assured data showing the area’s 

design value meets the 1-hour ozone 

standard, or a demonstration indicating 

that the area would have attained by the 

attainment date but for emissions 

emanating from outside the United 

States. 

3. The EPA’s Review of the State’s 

Submission 

EPA’s February 14, 2020 Final Rule 

approved sufficient provisions of the 

SIP submittal to determine that there 

was an operative alternative section 185 

fee equivalent program for the HGB 

area. This prior approval included 30 

TAC sections 101.118(a)(1) and 

101.118(a)(3). EPA determined these 

provisions provided mechanisms for 

terminating the program, through either 

EPA action to redesignate the area to 

attainment or other EPA action to 

terminate the anti-backsliding 

requirements, that are consistent with 

section 185 equivalent programs as 

allowed through the anti-backsliding 

principles of CAA section 172(e). 

30 TAC section 101.118(a)(2), 

however, allows for the alternative 

section 185 fee equivalent program to be 

terminated upon an EPA finding of 

attainment. The language of CAA 

section 185(a) clearly specifies 

redesignation as an attainment area as 

the only means by which an area’s fee 

program obligation may be terminated. 

Allowing for cessation of the fee 

program through a finding of attainment 

by EPA is therefore contrary to the 

statutory requirement. While the 1-hour 

ozone standard has been revoked, as 

explained earlier EPA can only approve 

alternative 185 programs that are 

equivalent to a statutory 185 program. 

Texas has provided no explanation as to 

how 185 program termination upon a 

finding of attainment could be 

equivalent to the statutory language in 

section 185, and EPA has not identified 

any such explanation either. Here, the 

equivalent mechanism is a functional 

redesignation, which terminates an 

area’s anti-backsliding requirements for 

a revoked standard. As explained 

earlier, the Final Rule approved a 

mechanism to terminate the HGB 

equivalent alternative program upon 

EPA terminating the area’s antibacksliding requirements. EPA has 

identified no basis to propose approval 

of the remaining SIP provisions. EPA 

accordingly proposes to disapprove 30 

TAC section 101.118(a)(2). 

30 section TAC 101.118(b) allows for 

placing fee payment into abeyance if the 

State submits to EPA three consecutive 

years of quality-assured data resulting in 

a design value that does not exceed the 

1-hour ozone standard, or a 

demonstration indicating that the area 

would have attained by the attainment 

date but for emissions emanating from 

outside the United States. Under CAA 

section 185(a), the relevant sources shall 

‘‘pay a fee to the state . . . for each 

calendar year beginning after the 

attainment date, until the area is 

redesignated as an attainment area for 

ozone’’ by EPA. As noted previously, 

the language of CAA section 185(a) 

clearly specifies redesignation as an 

attainment area as the only means by 

which an area’s fee program obligation 

may be terminated. Thus, provisions 

that allow the fee obligation to be 

terminated prior to an EPA 

redesignation of the area as attainment 

are inconsistent with the relevant 

statutory language, and EPA has not 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
103736 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

6The United States Court of Appeals for the 5th 

Circuit dismissed the case on December 1, 2022 (see 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 5th Circuit docket no. 20– 

60303). 

identified any basis to say that such 

provisions are equivalent to the 

statutory language. EPA accordingly 

proposes to disapprove 30 section TAC 

101.118(b). 

EPA is proposing to disapprove 30 

sections TAC 101.118(a)(2) and 

101.118(b), as discussed. However, EPA 

notes that our February 14, 2020 Final 

Rule terminated anti-backsliding 

requirements with respect to the 1-hour 

standard ozone standard for the HGB 

area. While that action was challenged, 

the case was ultimately dismissed,6 and 

the termination of those anti-backsliding 

requirements was effective. As such, the 

State is no longer required to have a 

section 185 fee program in place for the 

HGB area with respect to the 1-hour 

ozone standard. Therefore, while we are 

proposing to disapprove the relevant 

provisions of the State’s alternative 

section 185 fee equivalent program for 

the reasons discussed in this notice, 

EPA is also proposing to find that these 

provisions are part of a SIP submission 

that is no longer required. Accordingly, 

we are proposing to find that the State 

does not have an obligation to correct 

the deficiencies identified in this 

proposed disapproval, and that this 

disapproval, if finalized, would not 

trigger mandatory sanctions under CAA 

section 179(b), or the EPA’s obligation 

to promulgate a Federal Implementation 

Plan under CAA section 110(c). 

III. Proposed Action 

We are proposing to disapprove the 

30 TAC sections 101.118(a)(2) and 

101.118(b) of Texas’s alternative section 

185 fee equivalent program with respect 

to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for the HGB 

area as submitted in the State’s 

November 27, 2018 SIP revision. EPA 

proposes this disapproval with respect 

to the failure to attain fee program 

requirements under CAA sections 182 

and 185 for the reasons discussed above. 

The effect of this proposal, if finalized, 

is that 30 sections TAC 101.118(a)(2) 

and 101.118(b) will not become part of 

Texas’s State Implementation Plan. As 

our February 14, 2020 Final Rule 

terminated the anti-backsliding 

requirements with respect to the 1-hour 

standard for the HGB area, Texas has no 

obligation to have this alternative 

section 185 fee program in place. 

Accordingly, we are proposing to find 

that Texas does not have an obligation 

to correct these deficiencies in its rules, 

and that this proposed disapproval, if 

finalized, would not trigger mandatory 

sanctions under CAA section 179(b). As 

previously noted, Texas is required to 

provide a CAA section 185 failure to 

attain fee program for both the DFW and 

HGB areas with respect to the 2008 

ozone standard, and this proposed 

action does not impact that requirement. 

IV. Environmental Justice 

Considerations 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 (Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) directs Federal 

agencies to identify and address 

‘‘disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects’’ 

of their actions on communities with 

environmental justice (EJ) concerns to 

the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law. Executive Order 

14096 (Revitalizing Our Nation’s 

Commitment to Environmental Justice 

for All, 88 FR 25251, April 26, 2023) 

builds on and supplements E.O. 12898 

and defines EJ as, among other things, 

‘‘the just treatment and meaningful 

involvement of all people, regardless of 

income, race, color, national origin, or 

Tribal affiliation, or disability in agency 

decision-making and other Federal 

activities that affect human health and 

the environment.’’ 

The air agency did not evaluate EJ 

considerations as part of its SIP 

submittal; the CAA and applicable 

implementing regulations neither 

prohibit nor require such an evaluation. 

EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and 

did not consider EJ in this action. Due 

to the nature of the action being taken 

here, this action is expected to have a 

neutral to positive impact on the air 

quality of the affected area. 

Consideration of EJ is not required as 

part of this action, and there is no 

information in the record inconsistent 

with the stated goal of E.O. 12898/14096 

of achieving EJ for communities with EJ 

concerns. 

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 

CAA 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 review State choices, 

and approve those choices if they meet 

the minimum criteria of the CAA. 

Accordingly, this proposed action to 

disapprove the remaining provisions of 

Texas’ 185 fee program for 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS for the HGB area submitted to 

EPA on November 27, 2018, 

disapproves State law as not meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by State law. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action as defined in 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993), as amended by E.O. 

14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023), 

and was therefore not submitted to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) because it 

does not contain any information 

collection activities. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). 

This action will not impose any 

requirements on small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. This action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any State, local, or 

Tribal governments or the private sector. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in E.O. 13132 

(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). It will 

not have substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This proposed action has no Tribal 

implications as specified in E.O. 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action will neither impose substantial 

direct compliance costs on Federally 

recognized Tribal governments, nor 

preempt Tribal law. This action will not 

impose substantial direct compliance 

costs on Federally recognized Tribal 

governments because no actions will be 

required of Tribal governments. This 

action will also not preempt Tribal law 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 103737 

as it does not have applicable or related 

Tribal laws. 

G. Executive Order: 13045 Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health & 

Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets E.O. 13045 as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern environmental 

health or safety risks that the EPA has 

reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. Therefore, this action 

is not subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it merely proposes to 

disapprove SIP revisions. Furthermore, 

the EPA’s Policy on Children’s Health 

does not apply to this action. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not subject to E.O. 

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

because it is not a significant regulatory 

action under E.O. 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs 

the EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. This action is not subject to 

the requirements of section 12(d) of the 

NTTAA (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) directs Federal 

agencies to identify and address 

‘‘disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects’’ 

of their actions on communities with 

environmental justice (EJ) concerns to 

the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law. Executive Order 

14096 (Revitalizing Our Nation’s 

Commitment to Environmental Justice 

for All, 88 FR 25251, April 26, 2023) 

builds on and supplements E.O. 12898 

and defines EJ as, among other things, 

‘‘the just treatment and meaningful 

involvement of all people, regardless of 

income, race, color, national origin, or 

Tribal affiliation, or disability in agency 

decision-making and other Federal 

activities that affect human health and 

the environment.’’ 

The air agency did not evaluate EJ 

considerations as part of its SIP 

submittal; the CAA and applicable 

implementing regulations neither 

prohibit nor require such an evaluation. 

EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and 

did not consider EJ in this action. Due 

to the nature of the action being taken 

here, this action is expected to have a 

neutral to positive impact on the air 

quality of the affected area. 

Consideration of EJ is not required as 

part of this action, and there is no 

information in the record inconsistent 

with the stated goal of E.O. 12898/14096 

of achieving EJ for communities with EJ 

concerns. 

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, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: December 12, 2024. 

Earthea Nance, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2024–29935 Filed 12–18–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2024–0459; FRL–12287– 

01–R9] 

Partial Approval and Partial 

Disapproval of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; California; 

Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan for the Second Implementation 

Period 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to partially 

approve and partially disapprove 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 for the program’s second 

implementation period. California’s SIP 

submission 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 SIP 

submission 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: Written comments must be 

received on or before February 3, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2024–0459 at https://

www.regulations.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish 

any comment received to its public 

docket. Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

confidential business information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. If you need 

assistance in a language other than 

English or if you are a person with a 

disability who needs a reasonable 

accommodation at no cost to you, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laura Lawrence, Planning Section 

(ARD–2–1), Planning & Analysis 

Branch, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, 415– 

972–3407, or by email at 

lawrence.laura@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is the EPA proposing? 

II. Background and Requirements for 

Regional Haze Plans 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1