107012 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

21.3.4 Combining USPS Marketing 

Mail, Parcel Select, and Package 

Services Parcels (Not APPSMachinable) 

* * * * * 

[Revise the column of the table in 

21.3.4 titled ‘‘ADC/RPDC’’ to read as 

‘‘ADC’’] 

[Revise the column of the table in 

21.3.4 titled ‘‘Mixed ADC/RPDC’’ to 

read as ‘‘Mixed ADC’’] 

* * * * * 

Kevin Rayburn, 

Attorney, Ethics and Legal Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2024–31225 Filed 12–30–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2023–0649; FRL–11647– 

02–R9] 

Air Plan Revisions; California; Feather 

River Air Quality Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve a revision to the Feather River 

Air Quality Management District 

(FRAQMD) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). This 

revision concerns a rule submitted to 

address section 185 of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or ‘‘Act’’). 

DATES: This rule is effective January 30, 

2025. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R09–OAR–2023–0649. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://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 

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 https://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. 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: Mae 

Wang, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

St., San Francisco, CA 94105; phone: 

(415) 947–4137; email: wang.mae@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On February 12, 2024 (89 FR 9813), 

the EPA proposed to approve the 

following rule into the California SIP. 

Local 

agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted 

FRAQMD 7.15 Clean Air Act Nonattainment Fees .................................................................................... 04/04/2022 07/05/2022 

We proposed to approve this rule 

because we determined that it complies 

with the relevant CAA requirements. 

Our proposed action contains more 

information on the rule and our 

evaluation. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

The EPA’s proposed action provided 

a 30-day public comment period. During 

this period, we received five comments. 

Three of these comments were 

supportive of our proposed action, one 

was not germane to the action, and one 

stated that the rule submittal is not 

approvable. All the comments can be 

found in the docket for this rulemaking. 

We thank the commenters for their 

input. One of these commenters in 

support of the proposed action asked 

why there was no mention of California 

and COVID–19. FRAQMD Rule 7.15 was 

adopted and submitted to address the 

CAA section 185 fee program for 

Federal ozone nonattainment areas. 

Because COVID–19 does not bear on 

whether or not the submitted rule 

fulfills the requirements of section 185 

of the CAA, we do not consider COVID– 

19 relevant to this rulemaking. 

The comment in opposition to our 

proposed action was submitted from Air 

Law for All, Ltd., on behalf of the Center 

for Biological Diversity (the commenter 

from here on referred to as ‘‘ALFA’’ or 

‘‘the commenter’’). We have 

summarized below the substance of the 

comments from ALFA, identifying 

discrete points made by the commenter, 

and responding to each in turn. 

Before responding to the issues raised 

by the commenter, we will first correct 

two factual misstatements in the 

comment letter. In the Background 

section of ALFA’s comment letter, the 

commenter states that ‘‘In 2012, EPA 

determined that the area had met the 1- 

hour standards by the applicable 

attainment date for those standards.’’ 

The reference cited was an EPA action 

on October 18, 2012 (77 FR 64036). In 

that action, the EPA determined that 

complete, quality-assured, and certified 

air quality data for the Sacramento 

Metro 1-hour ozone nonattainment area 

show continuous attainment for the 1- 

hour ozone national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) since 2009. We 

would like to clarify that this clean data 

finding was not a determination that the 

area had attained the NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date, but instead 

a finding that the area had achieved 

attaining levels of air quality for the 

2009–2011 period, which was after the 

applicable attainment date. The 

commenter also incorrectly stated, ‘‘For 

the 2008 8-hour standards, the 

applicable attainment date is December 

31, 2027.’’ The applicable attainment 

date for the Sacramento Metro ozone 

nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS is July 20, 2027. See 40 

CFR 51.1103(a) Table 1, 77 FR 30160 

(May 21, 2012) and 80 FR 12264 (March 

6, 2015). 

Comment #1: The commenter states 

that the EPA has not carried out its duty 

to determine whether the Sacramento 

Metro nonattainment area has attained 

the 1997 8-hour NAAQS by the June 15, 

2019 attainment date. The commenter 

states that ‘‘[t]his information is 

germane to EPA’s action, as the failure 

to attain would trigger the ozone fee 

requirement, for which the public and 

the regulated community must receive 

notice.’’ Therefore, the commenter 

claims that ‘‘EPA’s proposal notice is 

insufficient, because it gives no notice 

of the legal consequences of EPA’s 

approval.’’ 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 107013 

1See, e.g., 76 FR 82133, December 30, 2011 

(finding that the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin 

Area and the San Joaquin Valley Area did not attain 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date); 77 FR 50021, August 20, 2012 

(approving the section 185 rule for the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS applicable to the San Joaquin Valley Area); 

and 77 FR 74372, December 14, 2012 (approving the 

section 185 rule for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

applicable to the South Coast Air Basin). 

2See, e.g., 69 FR 77909, December 29, 2004 

(approving the section 185 rule for the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS applicable to the Virginia portion of the 

Metropolitan Washington DC Severe Ozone 

Nonattainment Area); and 73 FR 43360, July 25, 

2008 (determining that the Metropolitan 

Washington DC nonattainment area attained the 1- 

hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment 

date). 

3The staff report for FRAQMD Rule 7.15 confirms 

that ‘‘There were no major sources in the SFNA 

portion of Sutter County when the Rule 7.15 was 

adopted in 2010 and there have been no new 

sources since that date.’’ The submitted staff report, 

dated March 4, 2022, also states, ‘‘The District has 

reviewed all current and pending permit 

applications and has determined that there are no 

applicable sources in the Sutter County portion of 

the SFNA. Therefore, Rule 7.15 does not apply to 

any current or anticipated sources in the District.’’ 

The EPA’s review of available facilities databases 

and permit applications shows no new major 

sources have begun operating in the relevant area 

since that time. 

4Because the fee obligation in Rule 7.15 becomes 

applicable the year after the effective date of an EPA 

finding of failure to attain, but applies to emissions 

from ‘‘the previous calendar year,’’ the rule would 

collect fees for emissions occurring in the year the 

EPA’s finding became effective. 

Response #1: It is not clear in what 

manner the commenter is alleging that 

the proposal notice is insufficient 

regarding the lack of notice of the ‘‘legal 

consequences’’ of the EPA’s approval. 

As an initial matter, the commenter is 

correct that, as of the time of this action, 

the EPA has not made a determination 

as to whether the Sacramento Metro 

ozone nonattainment area attained the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date. The 

commenter appears to be asserting that 

the approvability of a CAA section 185 

rule submission depends in some way 

on whether or not the EPA has made 

such a finding, and because the EPA has 

not yet done so, the proposed rule did 

not sufficiently detail the legal 

consequences of approving Rule 7.15 

into the SIP. The approvability of a 

section 185 rule submission does not 

depend on whether or not the EPA has 

previously made a finding that the area 

has failed to attain the relevant NAAQS. 

In some instances, the EPA has 

approved section 185 programs after 

making a finding that the area has failed 

to attain by the applicable attainment 

date.1 In other instances, the EPA has 

approved a section 185 program prior to 

determining whether an area has 

attained the standard by the applicable 

attainment date.2 The legal 

consequences of approving FRAQMD 

Rule 7.15 into the SIP are clear. Rule 

7.15 section C.1 provides that fees will 

be assessed for emissions in the 

previous calendar year, beginning the 

year after the effective date of an EPA 

finding published in the Federal 

Register that the area has not attained 

an ozone NAAQS by the attainment 

date. The fact that the EPA has not made 

such a finding at the time the rule was 

adopted, submitted, or approved into 

the SIP is not relevant to the 

approvability of Rule 7.15. If the EPA in 

a future rulemaking proposes to find 

that the area failed to attain the 1997 

ozone NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date, or that it did attain the 

1997 ozone NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date, such finding would 

itself be subject to notice and comment 

via a separate Federal Register notice at 

that time. Should the EPA finalize a 

finding that the area failed to attain by 

the applicable attainment date, then 

pursuant to Rule 7.15 section C.1, fees 

would be assessed for emissions in the 

previous calendar year. Accordingly, the 

EPA disagrees with the commenters’ 

assertion that the EPA’s notice does not 

give sufficient notice of the legal 

consequences of approving Rule 7.15 

into the California SIP. 

Comment #2: The commenter claims 

that ozone emission fees are imposed 

upon a nonattainment area’s failure to 

attain an ozone NAAQS, regardless of 

the timing of an EPA determination that 

the area failed to attain. The commenter 

states that CAA section 185(a) provides 

that emission fees must be paid for 

‘‘each calendar year beginning after the 

attainment date, until the area is 

redesignated as an attainment area for 

ozone.’’ Thus, the commenter 

specifically objects to the language in 

FRAQMD Rule 7.15 section C.1 that 

states, ‘‘beginning in the year after the 

effective date of a final determination 

published in the Federal Register that 

the area has not attained the standard by 

the attainment date, the Air Pollution 

Control Officer shall assess the Clean 

Air Act Fees for emissions in the 

previous calendar year.’’ The 

commenter claims that even though the 

EPA is overdue in making a 

determination that the Sacramento 

Metro ozone nonattainment area failed 

to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS, CAA 

section 185(a) requires fees to be 

collected for the years 2020, 2021, 2022, 

and 2023. 

Response #2: The EPA notes as an 

initial matter that there are no major 

stationary sources in the portion of the 

Sacramento Metro ozone nonattainment 

area regulated by the FRAQMD, nor 

have there been at any point since the 

2005 attainment date for the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS.3 Thus, there were no 

sources in the area subject to the rule in 

the years 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023, 

and the commenter’s statement that the 

rule must require fees be collected for 

those years is without any practical 

import because no fees would be owed 

or collected in any case. 

Notwithstanding this fact, the EPA 

acknowledges that the hypothetical 

scenario raised by the commenter could 

potentially become relevant if all of the 

three following conditions were met: (1) 

the Sacramento Metro nonattainment 

area failed to attain a particular ozone 

NAAQS by the applicable attainment 

date for that NAAQS, (2) the EPA 

finalized a finding of failure to attain for 

that NAAQS two or more calendar years 

following the attainment year for that 

NAAQS, and (3) a new major stationary 

source had begun operating in the 

portion of the Sacramento Metro ozone 

nonattainment area regulated by the 

FRAQMD prior to the year in which the 

EPA issued its finding of failure to 

attain.4 In that hypothetical scenario, 

Rule 7.15 would require such a source 

to begin paying fees in the year 

following the effective date of the EPA’s 

finding of failure to attain for emissions 

in the previous calendar year (that is, for 

emissions occurring in the calendar year 

of the effective date of the EPA’s finding 

of failure to attain), but not for any 

emissions in prior years. 

The EPA has not established a 

comprehensive approach to section 185 

fees that may be due retroactively for 

emissions in years prior to the EPA 

issuing a finding of failure to attain. The 

EPA does not believe that the present 

rulemaking, for which the question is 

only theoretical and for which there are 

no identifiable parties at interest, is the 

proper forum for establishing a position 

on section 185 fees that may be due 

retroactively. The EPA believes that 

addressing this question in a future 

notice and comment rulemaking would 

provide a more appropriate forum for a 

range of impacted parties to provide 

input on this question. We do not 

believe that the hypothetical scenario 

above precludes our approval of Rule 

7.15, which will require fees be paid by 

any potential future major stationary 

sources for all ozone NAAQS. Even if 

that hypothetical scenario comes to pass 

for a particular NAAQS in the future, 

the EPA could address any potential 

deficiencies under its section 185(d) 

authority (which is discussed in further 

detail in the response to Comment #4). 

As a result, the EPA finds that the 

timing of the rule’s applicability 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
107014 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

5Although the imposition of sanctions due to the 

January 5, 2010 finding was deferred on May 18, 

2011 (76 FR 28661), and was permanently stopped 

with our October 28, 2022 completeness letter, 

there remained an obligation for the EPA to 

promulgate a FIP associated with the January 5, 

2010 action. 

provisions does not preclude our final 

approval of Rule 7.15. 

Comment #3: The commenter claims 

that ‘‘an emissions fee program must 

collect separate emissions fees for each 

ozone standard for which an area is 

classified as Severe or Extreme.’’ The 

commenter further states, ‘‘For the 

Feather River rule to be fully 

approvable, it must make clear that two 

separate fees are to be paid if the area 

fails to attain both standards. In 

addition, the baseline appropriate for 

each particular standard must be used 

for each fee. However, the rule text does 

not explicitly address this requirement.’’ 

Response #3: The EPA agrees with the 

commenter’s claim that CAA section 

185 fees must be calculated and 

collected separately for each ozone 

NAAQS. However, the EPA disagrees 

with the commenter’s claim that Rule 

7.15 is not sufficiently clear on this 

point, because Rule 7.15 does require 

fees to be calculated and paid for each 

applicable standard. As stated in the 

FRAQMD staff report for Rule 7.15, the 

rule was amended to include the 8-hour 

ozone standards because the originally 

adopted version of the rule only applied 

to the 1-hour ozone standard. The staff 

report says, ‘‘The amendments would 

apply to the existing 8-hour standards 

that were amended in 1997, 2008, and 

2015 and any future 8-hour standards.’’ 

Additionally, the rule itself in 

sections A.2 and A.4 refers to multiple 

standards. When discussing the 

cessation of fees, section A.4 states that 

fees ‘‘for any ozone standard will cease 

on the effective date of the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency final 

action redesignating the nonattainment 

area to attainment for that standard’’ 

(italics added), which indicates that the 

fee obligation would continue for each 

other applicable NAAQS for which the 

area is still designated nonattainment 

and classified as Severe or Extreme. The 

rule’s definition for the term 

‘‘Attainment Year’’ in section B.1 also 

refers to multiple standards, which is 

consistent with the conclusion that the 

rule addresses the CAA section 185 fee 

requirement for each individual 

standard. Although the EPA notes that 

the rule language could be more explicit 

to state that the fees for each individual 

NAAQS are assessed separately, we 

conclude that the rule is sufficiently 

clear on this point. 

Comment #4: The commenter states 

that ‘‘EPA must immediately 

promulgate procedures for collecting 

emissions fees.’’ The commenter claims 

that the EPA has an independent 

obligation under CAA section 185(d) to 

promulgate these procedures regardless 

of whether a federal implementation 

plan obligation is triggered. The 

commenter also claims that CAA 

‘‘section 185(d) requires the EPA to 

collect ‘unpaid fees’ if the state has not 

done so.’’ Additionally, the commenter 

states that the EPA has a ‘‘mandatory 

duty’’ under the Act to collect section 

185 fees for ‘‘the Sacramento 

metropolitan ozone area for the years 

2020 through 2023, and possibly other 

nonattainment areas as well.’’ The 

commenter also notes that ‘‘section 

301(a) of the Act requires EPA to 

promulgate procedures ensuring 

‘fairness and uniformity’ in 

implementing and enforcing the Act 

across EPA’s regional offices’’ and 

suggests that ‘‘a uniform set of 

procedures for collections of emissions 

fees’’ is the best approach to do so. 

Response #4: The issues raised in this 

comment are outside the scope of the 

current rulemaking. Section 185(d) 

provides in part: 

‘‘If the Administrator has found that 

the fee provisions of the implementation 

plan do not meet the requirements of 

this section, or if the Administrator 

makes a finding that the State is not 

administering and enforcing the fee 

required under this section, the 

Administrator shall, in addition to any 

other action authorized under this 

subchapter, collect, in accordance with 

procedures promulgated by the 

Administrator, the unpaid fees required 

under subsection (a) of this section.’’ 

According to this provision, the EPA 

shall collect ‘‘unpaid fees’’ required 

under subsection (a) if either (1) the 

Administrator has found that the fee 

provisions of the SIP do not meet the 

requirements of section 185, or (2) the 

Administrator makes a finding that the 

State is not administering and enforcing 

the section 185 fee obligation. As 

explained in the response to Comment 

#2, there are currently no major 

stationary sources in the area regulated 

by Rule 7.15, nor were there any major 

stationary sources in the applicable area 

in the years 2020 through 2023. As a 

result, there are no ‘‘unpaid fees’’ for the 

EPA to collect in the area at issue in this 

rulemaking. Should the EPA in the 

future make either of the aboveenumerated findings, and outstanding 

unpaid fees exist at that time, the EPA 

could at that time exercise its authority 

under section 185(d) to collect such 

fees. However, the EPA is under no 

obligation to promulgate procedures for 

doing so in the FRAQMD at this time, 

nor are the EPA’s potential obligations 

under section 185(d) relevant to the 

approvability of Rule 7.15. Additionally, 

any potential section 185 fee obligations 

for areas outside of the FRAQMD have 

no relevance to the approvability of the 

present rule submission from the 

FRAQMD. 

Accordingly, the commenter’s 

assertion that the EPA has a ‘‘mandatory 

duty’’ to collect fees for ‘‘the 

Sacramento metropolitan ozone area for 

the years 2020 through 2023, and 

possibly other nonattainment areas as 

well’’ is outside the scope of this action. 

With respect to the commenter’s 

statement that the section 301(a) 

requirement for ‘‘fairness and 

uniformity’’ in the criteria, procedures, 

and policies applied by the regional 

offices suggests that ‘‘a uniform set of 

procedures for collections of emissions 

fees’’ is the best approach, this is also 

outside the scope of the current 

rulemaking. As noted, the EPA does not 

have any duty to exercise its section 

185(d) authority in the FRAQMD at this 

time. 

III. EPA Action 

No comments were submitted that 

change our assessment of the rule as 

described in our proposed action. 

Therefore, as authorized in section 

110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is 

approving FRAQMD Rule 7.15 into the 

California SIP. This final approval 

action also removes the EPA’s obligation 

to promulgate a Federal Implementation 

Plan (FIP) for the FRAQMD portion of 

the Sacramento Metro ozone 

nonattainment area by permanently 

stopping the FIP clock associated with 

the January 5, 2010 (75 FR 232) finding 

of failure to submit.5

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, the EPA is finalizing the 

incorporation by reference of FRAQMD 

Rule 7.15, ‘‘Clean Air Act 

Nonattainment Fees,’’ amended on 

April 4, 2022, which addresses the CAA 

section 185 fee program requirements. 

The EPA has made, and will continue 

to make, these documents available 

through www.regulations.gov and at the 

EPA Region IX Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 107015 

V. 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 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 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: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 

21879, April 11, 2023); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.S. 3501 et seq.); 

• 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 SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where the EPA or 

an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

Tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on Tribal 

governments or preempt Tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

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 minority populations 

and low-income populations 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 environmental justice (EJ) 

as, among other things, ‘‘the just 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of all people, regardless of income, race, 

color, national origin, Tribal affiliation, 

or disability, in agency decision-making 

and other Federal activities that affect 

human health and the environment.’’ 

The State did not evaluate EJ 

considerations as part of its SIP 

submittal; the CAA and applicable 

implementing regulations neither 

prohibit nor require such an evaluation. 

The EPA did not perform an EJ analysis 

and did not consider EJ in this action. 

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 Executive Orders 

12898 and 14096 of achieving EJ for 

communities with EJ concerns. 

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 March 3, 2025. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: December 23, 2024. 

Martha Guzman Aceves, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Environmental Protection 

Agency amends part 52, chapter I, title 

40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(607)(i)(C) to read 

as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan—in part. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(607) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(C) Feather River Air Quality 

Management District. 

(1) Rule 7.15, ‘‘Clean Air Act 

Nonattainment Fees,’’ amended on 

April 4, 2022. 

(2) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2024–31396 Filed 12–30–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Administration for Children and 

Families 

45 CFR Parts 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 

307, 308, 309, and 310 

RIN 0970–AD06 

Name Change From Office of Child 

Support Enforcement to Office of Child 

Support Services 

AGENCY: Office of Child Support 

Services (OCSS), Administration for 

Children and Families (ACF), 

Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS or the Department). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: In an effort to make child 

support regulations consistent with 

recent rulemaking and updated Tribal 

child support processes and reporting, 

this direct final rule (DFR) makes 

technical updates reflect the current 

name of the child support program, 

Office of Child Support Services 

(OCSS). This is a conforming update to 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES