Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 5651 

PART 233—INSPECTION SERVICE 

AUTHORITY 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 233 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 39 U.S.C. 101, 102, 202, 204, 

401, 402, 403, 404, 406, 410, 411, 1003, 

3005(e)(1), 3012, 3017, 3018; 12 U.S.C. 3401– 

3422; 18 U.S.C. 981, 983, 1956, 1957, 2254, 

3061; 21 U.S.C. 881; Pub. L. 101–410, 104 

Stat. 890 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); Pub. L. 104– 

208, 110 Stat. 3009; Secs. 106 and 108, Pub. 

L. 106–168, 113 Stat. 1806 (39 U.S.C. 3012, 

3017); Pub. L. 114–74, 129 Stat. 584. 

§ 233.12 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 233.12: 

■ a. In paragraph (a), remove ‘‘$88,412’’ 

and add in its place ‘‘$90,709’’, remove 

‘‘$176,820’’ and add in its place 

‘‘$181,414’’, remove ‘‘$17,683’’ and add 

in its place ‘‘$18,142’’, and remove 

‘‘$3,536,422’’ and add in its place 

‘‘$3,628,298’’. 

■ b. In paragraph (b), remove ‘‘$44,206’’ 

and add in its place ‘‘$45,354’’, remove 

‘‘$88,412’’ and add in its place 

‘‘$90,709’’, remove ‘‘$8,842’’ and add in 

its place ‘‘$9,072’’, and remove 

‘‘$1,768,212’’ and add in its place 

‘‘$1,814,150’’. 

■ c. In paragraph (c)(4), remove 

‘‘$17,683’’ and add in its place 

‘‘$18,142’’. 

■ d. In paragraph (d), remove 

‘‘$3,536,422’’ and add in its place 

‘‘$3,628,298’’. 

■ e. In paragraph (e), remove ‘‘$17,683’’ 

and add in its place ‘‘$18,142’’. 

■ f. In paragraph (f), remove ‘‘$383’’ and 

add in its place ‘‘$393’’ and remove 

‘‘$152,461’’ and add in its place 

‘‘$156,422’’. 

PART 273—ADMINISTRATION OF 

PROGRAM FRAUD CIVIL REMEDIES 

ACT 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 273 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 31 U.S.C. Chapter 38; 39 U.S.C. 

401. 

■ 4. In § 273.3: 

■ a. In paragraph (a)(1)(iv), remove 

‘‘$13,946’’ and add in its place 

‘‘$14,308’’. 

■ b. In paragraph (b)(1)(ii), remove ‘‘As 

adjusted under Public Law 114–74, the 

penalty is $13,946 per claim.’’ 

■ c. In paragraph (b)(1)(iii), add at the 

end of the paragraph ‘‘As adjusted 

under Public Law 114–74, the penalty is 

$14,308 for each such statement.’’ 

Colleen Hibbert-Kapler, 

Attorney, Ethics & Legal Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2025–01062 Filed 1–16–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 51 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2024–0333; FRL–11817–02– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AW25 

State Implementation Plan Submittal 

Deadlines and Implementation 

Requirements for Reclassified 

Nonattainment Areas Under the Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is finalizing deadlines for 

submission of state implementation 

plan (SIP) revisions and implementation 

of the relevant control requirements that 

will apply for nonattainment areas 

reclassified as Moderate, Serious, and 

Severe under the current and any future 

ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) as a result of either 

failing to attain the standard by the 

applicable classification attainment date 

or the EPA granting a voluntary 

reclassification request. This final rule 

articulates the implementation 

requirements and timeframes that will 

apply for all such areas once 

reclassified. The EPA is also finalizing 

regulatory revisions to codify its 

existing interpretation that following 

reclassification, a state is no longer 

required to submit SIP revisions 

addressing certain, but not all, 

requirements related to the prior 

classification level for an ozone 

nonattainment area. 

DATES: This rule is effective on February 

18, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA established Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2024–0333 for 

this action. All documents on the docket 

are listed at https://

www.regulations.gov. Although listed in 

the docket index, some information may 

not be publicly available, e.g., 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information for which 

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. 

Docket materials are available 

electronically to the public through 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information about this final rule, contact 

Erin Lowder, U.S. EPA, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, Air 

Quality Policy Division, C535–A 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; 

telephone number: (919) 541–5421; 

email address: lowder.erin@epa.gov; or 

Robert Lingard, U.S. EPA, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, Air 

Quality Policy Division, C539–01 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; by 

telephone number: (919) 541–5272; 

email address: lingard.robert@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

or ‘‘our’’ means the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

II. Overview and Basis of Final Rule 

A. Background and Summary of Final Rule 

B. Statutory Authority for Final Rule 

III. Final Actions 

A. Default Deadlines for Reclassified 

Nonattainment Areas Under the Ozone 

NAAQS 

1. Summary of Proposal 

2. Final Rule 

3. Comments and Responses 

a. Default Deadlines Generally 

b. SIP Submittal Deadline for All Elements, 

Except for the CAA Section 185 Fee 

Program Element 

c. SIP Submittal Deadline for the CAA 

section 185 Fee Program Element 

d. Deadline for RACT Implementation 

e. Deadline for I/M Implementation 

B. Status of Certain Requirements of 

Former Classification 

1. Summary of Proposal 

2. Final Rule 

3. Comments and Responses 

C. Serious Area SIP Revisions for the 2015 

Ozone NAAQS 

1. Summary of Proposal 

2. Final Rule 

3. Comments and Responses 

a. Due Date for Serious Area SIP Revisions 

and RACT Implementation 

b. Deadline for Serious Area I/M 

Implementation 

IV. Environmental Justice Considerations 

V. Judicial Review 

VI. Severability 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory 

Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
5652 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

1CAA section 182(i) specifically provides 

authority to the EPA to adjust applicable deadlines, 

other than attainment dates, for areas that are 

reclassified as a result of failure to attain under 

CAA section 182(b)(2), to the extent such 

adjustment is necessary or appropriate to assure 

consistency among the required submissions. The 

provision does not specifically reference areas that 

are voluntarily reclassified under CAA section 

181(b)(3); the EPA is therefore adjusting deadlines 

for such areas under its general rulemaking 

authority in CAA section 301(a), consistent with 

CAA section 182(i). 

2 89 FR 80833 (October 4, 2024). 

3Each commenter discussed in this preamble is 

identified by the docket identification number 

associated with the comment submission. The 

Response to Comments (RTC) document in this 

docket for this final rule contains a table identifying 

each commenter and their associated docket 

identification number. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations and Executive Order 14096: 

Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment 

to Environmental Justice for All 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Entities potentially affected directly 

by this final rule include state, local, 

and tribal governments and air pollution 

control agencies (‘‘air agencies’’) 

responsible for attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. Entities 

potentially affected indirectly by this 

final rule as regulated sources include 

owners and operators of sources of 

emissions of volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) that contribute to ground-level 

ozone formation. 

B. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this 

Federal Register document will be 

posted at https://www.epa.gov/groundlevel-ozone-pollution/ozoneimplementation-regulatory-actions. 

II. Overview and Basis of Final Rule 

A. Background and Summary of Final 

Rule 

The EPA is finalizing in this action 

default SIP submittal and 

implementation deadlines for areas 

reclassified as Moderate, Serious, and 

Severe by operation of law pursuant to 

Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) section 

181(b)(2) and voluntary reclassification 

requests pursuant to CAA section 

181(b)(3). These default deadlines are 

applicable for all current and future 

ozone NAAQS. 

States responsible for areas initially 

designated as nonattainment under an 

ozone NAAQS are required to prepare 

and submit SIP revisions by deadlines 

relative to the effective date of the rule 

establishing area designations and 

classifications, and the submission 

deadlines vary depending on the SIP 

element required (e.g., the statute 

provides 3 or 4 years from initial 

nonattainment designation to submit 

SIPs for some requirements and 2 years 

for others). Areas initially designated as 

nonattainment are also required to 

implement reasonably available control 

technology (RACT) as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than January 1 

of the 5th year after the effective date of 

designations. 

The EPA recognizes that upon 

reclassification to a higher 

classification, especially when under 

CAA section 181(b)(2), a state can be 

faced with limited time to submit and 

implement required SIP revisions prior 

to the next attainment date. In addition, 

in some cases, the SIP submission and 

implementation deadlines associated 

with areas formerly classified at a 

particular level may have already 

passed at the time of reclassification, 

making it impossible to apply those 

original SIP submission and 

implementation deadlines to areas that 

are reclassified to that classification 

level upon failure to attain by a lower 

classification attainment date or by 

voluntary request. In light of these 

considerations, the EPA has historically 

adjusted deadlines pursuant to the 

general rulemaking authority granted 

under CAA section 301(a) to prescribe 

regulations as are necessary to carry out 

the functions of the Act, and the specific 

authority granted by CAA section 

182(i).1 The EPA has promulgated these 

adjustments of SIP submission and 

implementation deadlines that apply to 

reclassified areas with the intent to 

assure consistency amongst 

submissions, encourage meaningful 

reductions towards expeditious 

attainment of the NAAQS—mindful of 

newly applicable attainment dates—and 

promote planning flexibility where 

possible. 

On October 4, 2024, through a notice 

of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), the 

EPA solicited public comment on 

proposed regulatory text codifying 

default SIP requirements, including 

submittal and implementation 

deadlines, that would apply to any 

nonattainment areas reclassified as 

Moderate, Serious, and Severe under the 

current and any future ozone NAAQS. 

Refer to the proposal for a description 

of the requirements that were proposed 

to apply to areas reclassified as 

Moderate, Serious or Severe.2 The 

public comment period for the NPRM 

ran from October 4, 2024, to November 

4, 2024. The EPA received a total of 16 

comment submissions on the NPRM. 

The preamble to this final rule discusses 

significant comments received on the 

NPRM and how those comments were 

considered by the EPA.3 The comments 

and the EPA’s responses are organized 

in this final rule under subject titles, 

and in the same order as they appear in 

the NPRM. The Response to Comments 

document associated with this final rule 

contains our responses to comments 

that are general in nature or outside the 

scope of the final rule. The public 

comments received on the NPRM are 

posted in the docket at https://

www.regulations.gov (Docket ID No. 

EPA–OAR–HQ–2024–0333). 

We are finalizing default SIP 

requirements, including submittal and 

implementation deadlines, for all ozone 

nonattainment areas reclassified as 

Moderate, Serious, and Severe under the 

current and any future ozone NAAQS. 

This final rule articulates the 

implementation requirements and 

timeframes that will apply for all such 

areas once reclassified, either as a result 

of failing to attain the standard by the 

applicable classification attainment date 

pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(2) or the 

EPA granting a voluntary 

reclassification request pursuant to CAA 

section 181(b)(3). For any 

nonattainment areas reclassified as 

Moderate, Serious, and Severe under the 

ozone NAAQS, we are finalizing 

regulatory text codifying default SIP 

submission and implementation 

deadlines that will apply upon the 

effective date of reclassification. The 

EPA is also finalizing regulatory 

revisions codifying its existing 

interpretation that following 

reclassification, a state is no longer 

required to submit SIP revisions 

addressing certain, but not all, 

requirements related to the prior 

classification level for an ozone 

nonattainment area. 

B. Statutory Authority for Final Rule 

The statutory authority for the actions 

being finalized in this document is 

provided by the CAA, as amended (42 

U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). Relevant portions 

of the CAA include, but are not 

necessarily limited to, CAA sections 

172, 181, 182, and 301(a). 

CAA section 107(d) provides that 

when the EPA establishes or revises a 

NAAQS, the agency must designate 

areas of the country as nonattainment, 

attainment, or unclassifiable based on 

whether an area is not meeting (or is 

contributing to air quality in a nearby 

area that is not meeting) the NAAQS, 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 5653 

4CAA section 172(c)(1). 

5CAA section 181(a)(1). 

6See, e.g., CAA section 172(c)(6) (‘‘Such plan 

provisions shall include enforceable emission 

limitations . . . as well as schedules and timetables 

for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate 

to provide for attainment of such standard in such 

area by the applicable attainment date specified in 

this part.’’); CAA section 182(b)(1)(A)(i) (‘‘Such plan 

shall provide for such specific annual reductions in 

emissions of volatile organic compounds and 

oxides of nitrogen as necessary to attain the 

[NAAQS] of for ozone by the attainment date 

applicable under this chapter.’’); CAA section 

182(b)(2) (requiring control measures on major 

stationary sources of VOCs or sources of VOCs 

covered by a CTG to be implemented as 

expeditiously as practicable but no later than the 

beginning of the ozone season of the attainment 

year). 

meeting the NAAQS, or cannot be 

classified as meeting or not meeting the 

NAAQS, respectively. Part D of title I of 

the CAA establishes the plan 

requirements that apply to all areas 

designated nonattainment. The purpose 

of these plan requirements is ensuring 

that these areas achieve attainment of 

the applicable NAAQS by the applicable 

area attainment date. Subpart 1 of part 

D sets out the plan requirements for 

nonattainment areas in general, and 

subpart 2 of part D of title I of the CAA 

governs the classification, state 

planning, and emissions control 

requirements for any areas designated as 

nonattainment for a revised primary 

ozone NAAQS. In particular, CAA 

section 181(a)(1) requires each area 

designated as nonattainment for a 

revised ozone NAAQS to be classified at 

the same time as the area is designated 

based on the extent of the ozone 

problem in the area (as determined 

based on the area’s design value (DV)). 

Classifications for ozone nonattainment 

areas range from Marginal to Extreme. 

CAA section 172 (in subpart 1) covers 

nonattainment area plan provisions in 

general, and CAA section 182 (in 

subpart 2) provides the specific 

attainment planning and additional 

requirements that apply to each ozone 

nonattainment area based on its 

classification. Subparts 1 and 2 also 

establish the timeframes by which air 

agencies must submit and implement 

SIP revisions to satisfy the applicable 

attainment planning elements, and 

require that such plans ‘‘shall provide 

for attainment of the NAAQS,’’ 4 and 

that the ‘‘primary standard attainment 

date for ozone shall be as expeditiously 

as practicable’’ but not later than a 

maximum attainment date measured 

from the effective date of the area’s 

designation.5 The EPA has also 

promulgated regulations interpreting 

these requirements for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS and the 2015 ozone NAAQS at 

40 CFR part 51, subparts X and CC, 

respectively. 

CAA section 182(i) governs the Act’s 

requirements for areas reclassified by 

operation of law. Specifically, CAA 

section 182(i) states that areas that are 

reclassified due to failure to timely 

attain by the attainment date ‘‘shall 

meet such requirements of subsections 

(b) through (d) of this section as may be 

applicable to the area as reclassified, 

according to the schedules prescribed in 

connection with such requirements, 

except that the Administrator may 

adjust any applicable deadlines (other 

than attainment dates) to the extent 

such adjustment is necessary or 

appropriate to assure consistency among 

the submissions.’’ Subsections (b) 

through (d) of CAA section 182 cover 

the required SIP revisions for Moderate 

(182(b)), Serious (182(c)), and Severe 

(182(d)), and those requirements are 

generally cumulative. See, e.g., CAA 

section 182(b) (requiring Moderate areas 

to make submissions relating to 

Marginal areas in addition to the 

revisions for the Moderate 

classification). The SIP revisions, 

control measures, and timing of such 

submissions and controls are intended 

to, among other things, ensure that areas 

will attain the NAAQS as expeditiously 

as practicable, but no later than the 

applicable attainment date. As 

discussed in more detail later in this 

document, most SIP requirements are 

not dependent on the attainment date 

itself, but certain SIP requirements are 

inherently tied to the applicable 

attainment date and therefore are no 

longer required for the lower 

classification after the area is 

reclassified. 

As noted, CAA section 182(i) also 

provides the Administrator with 

authority to adjust applicable deadlines 

(other than attainment dates) for areas 

that are reclassified as a result of failure 

to attain the NAAQS under CAA section 

182(b)(2), ‘‘to the extent such 

adjustment is necessary or appropriate 

to assure consistency among the 

required submissions.’’ In finalizing the 

adjustment of applicable deadlines for 

reclassified areas, the EPA considered 

the timeframes provided under the 

statute for the submission and 

implementation of requirements for 

initial area designations and 

classifications. Unsurprisingly, many of 

the nonattainment plan requirements in 

subparts 1 and 2 establish timing of the 

submission and implementation of 

controls such that those plans and 

controls will influence attainment of the 

NAAQS within the area by the 

attainment date.6 The EPA’s submission 

and implementation schedules for 

reclassified areas in this final rule are 

consistent with the overall schedule of 

the submission of substantive 

requirements that are associated with a 

classification, but adjusts those 

schedules to fit the abbreviated 

timeframe available to reclassified areas, 

in nearly all cases before the next 

applicable attainment date. In 

particular, the EPA’s deadlines for 

implementation of controls and SIP 

submissions are informed by the need to 

ensure that the reductions resulting 

from the Act’s requirements are 

consistently due in time to influence an 

area’s attainment by the attainment date, 

to the extent the applicable controls are 

necessary to achieve attainment by that 

date. 

While some areas are reclassified due 

to failure to attain by the attainment 

date, others may be reclassified as a 

result of a state’s request. CAA section 

181(b)(3) states that ‘‘[t]he 

Administrator shall grant the request of 

any State to reclassify a nonattainment 

area in that State . . . to a higher 

classification.’’ In some cases, states 

may seek voluntary reclassification to a 

higher classification early in the 

planning cycle, and in those cases, the 

existing SIP submittal and 

implementation deadlines for the higher 

classification would continue to apply. 

In other instances, states may request a 

voluntary reclassification under CAA 

section 181(b)(3) where the SIP 

submittal and implementation deadlines 

have already passed or will occur in the 

near future. CAA section 182(i) 

specifically provides authority to the 

EPA to adjust applicable deadlines, 

other than attainment dates, for areas 

that are reclassified as a result of a 

failure to attain under CAA section 

181(b)(2), but section 182(i) does not 

specifically reference areas that are 

voluntarily reclassified under CAA 

section 181(b)(3). Per CAA section 

301(a)(1), in the context of 

implementing subpart 2 planning 

requirements, the EPA has determined 

that regulations are necessary to 

prescribe the SIP submittal and 

implementation deadlines for such 

voluntarily reclassified areas, where the 

deadlines associated with the requested 

higher classification have already 

passed or will occur in the near future 

(i.e., less than 18 months from the 

effective date of the reclassification). 

The EPA’s default deadlines being 

finalized in this document were also 

informed by the amount of time that the 

CAA prescribes when new 

implementation plans are required to be 

submitted under various circumstances. 

See, e.g., CAA section 110(k)(5) 

(allowing the EPA to ‘‘establish 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
5654 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

reasonable deadlines (not to exceed 18 

months)’’ after notification that a SIP is 

inadequate); CAA section 179(d) 

(subpart 1 requirement that within 1 

year of a finding that a nonattainment 

area has failed to attain by its attainment 

date, States must submit a new SIP 

revision addressing nonattainment plan 

requirements). As discussed in more 

detail in response to comments received 

on the proposed rulemaking, in section 

III.A.3. of this preamble, these other 

CAA provisions are not directly 

applicable to the EPA’s adjustment of 

deadlines for reclassified areas and do 

not explicitly constrain the Agency’s 

exercise of discretion and judgment 

under CAA sections 182(i) and 301(a). 

CAA sections 110(k)(5) and 179(d) are 

informative, but not prescriptive, to the 

EPA’s final action. 

III. Final Actions 

A. Default Deadlines for Reclassified 

Nonattainment Areas Under the Ozone 

NAAQS 

1. Summary of Proposal 

The EPA proposed to establish a 

general default SIP submittal deadline 

for areas reclassified as Moderate, 

Serious, or Severe as the sooner of 18 

months from the effective date of the 

reclassification notice or January 1 of 

the new classification attainment year, 

except for SIP revisions addressing CAA 

section 185. For the CAA section 185 fee 

program SIP submittals required for 

areas that are reclassified as Severe, the 

EPA proposed a default deadline of the 

sooner of 36 months after the effective 

date of reclassification to Severe or 

January 1 of the Severe area attainment 

year. The EPA also proposed that the 

default SIP submission deadlines could 

be adjusted where such adjustment is 

appropriate or necessary, through future 

notice-and-comment rulemaking in 

specific EPA actions. 

The EPA also proposed default 

deadlines for implementation of 

emissions control measures for areas 

reclassified as Moderate, Serious, or 

Severe. For reasonably available control 

technology (RACT), the EPA proposed a 

default control implementation deadline 

of the sooner of 18 months after the 

proposed SIP submittal deadline or the 

beginning of the relevant attainment 

year ozone season. For vehicle 

emissions inspection and maintenance 

(I/M), the EPA proposed an 

implementation deadline of no later 

than 4 years after the effective date of 

reclassification (unless needed for 

attainment by the attainment date or to 

demonstrate reasonable further progress 

(RFP)). Similar to the SIP submittal 

deadlines, the EPA proposed that these 

default control measure implementation 

deadlines could be adjusted where such 

adjustment is appropriate or necessary. 

2. Final Rule 

The EPA is finalizing regulatory text 

in line with the EPA’s position as 

described in the proposal. The default 

SIP submittal deadline for all elements, 

except for the CAA section 185 fee 

program element, for areas reclassified 

as Moderate, Serious, or Severe will be 

the sooner of 18 months from the 

effective date of the reclassification or 

January 1 of the new classification 

attainment year. For the CAA section 

185 fee program SIP submittals required 

for areas that are reclassified as Severe, 

the default deadline will be the sooner 

of 36 months after the effective date of 

reclassification to Severe or January 1 of 

the Severe area attainment year. The 

default control implementation deadline 

for RACT will be as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than the sooner 

of 18 months after the proposed SIP 

submittal deadline or the beginning of 

the relevant attainment year ozone 

season. For I/M not needed for 

attainment by the attainment date or to 

demonstrate RFP, the default 

implementation deadline will be as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later 

than 4 years after the effective date of 

reclassification. The EPA retains the 

authority under the CAA to deviate from 

these default deadlines for all ozone 

NAAQS, consistent with the CAA 

through future notice-and-comment 

rulemaking. 

3. Comments and Responses 

a. Default Deadlines Generally 

Comment: Three commenters (0030, 

0031, 0036) express general support for 

the proposed default SIP submittal and 

implementation deadlines, noting that 

the rulemaking is an effective way to 

streamline deadlines for ozone 

nonattainment areas and ensure 

successful SIP submission and control 

implementation. One commenter (0036) 

specifically notes that the EPA should 

finalize the default deadlines as 

proposed for the following reasons: (1) 

these deadlines are legally supported 

and offer air agencies advanced notice 

as to when SIPs must be submitted and 

implemented; (2) it is critical that 

programs needed to address attainment 

are implemented no later than the start 

of the attainment year ozone season; (3) 

these proposed deadlines offer air 

agencies some implementation 

flexibility while acknowledging the 

constraints of statutorily fixed 

attainment dates; (4) this proposal 

would still allow the EPA to set 

different submittal and implementation 

deadlines on a case-by-case basis in the 

future, as necessary. The commenter 

believes that, at a minimum, the EPA 

should finalize these deadlines as they 

apply to any 2015 ozone NAAQS areas 

reclassified to Serious. It is critical for 

nonattainment areas needing to meet the 

2015 ozone NAAQS Serious area 

attainment date of August 3, 2027, to 

understand the requirements sooner 

rather than later, given the short time 

available to plan for and implement 

those requirements. 

Response: The EPA agrees with the 

commenters and is finalizing the 

deadlines as proposed with minor 

clarifications as discussed elsewhere in 

this document. 

Comment: One commenter (0036) 

requests that, for any deadlines 

established by the EPA that are tied to 

the start of an area’s ozone season, the 

EPA should clarify that the applicable 

ozone season is the ozone season as 

modified by an EPA-approved ozone 

season waiver. The EPA has proposed a 

general deadline for certain 

nonattainment area planning and 

control requirements as the sooner of 18 

months after the attainment SIP due 

date or the start of the attainment year 

ozone season as listed in appendix D to 

40 CFR part 58. However, 40 CFR part 

58, appendix D, section 4.1(i) allows the 

EPA regional administrators to grant 

case-by-case deviations from the 

otherwise applicable ozone monitoring 

seasons listed in appendix D. Due to 

approved ozone season deviations, it is 

possible, therefore, for the effective 

ozone season in a state to differ from the 

dates listed in the appendix. To account 

for these situations, the EPA should 

clarify that any deadlines associated 

with the attainment year ozone season 

is the ozone season as promulgated by 

appendix D to 40 CFR part 58 or the 

ozone season as modified by an EPAapproved ozone season waiver. 

Response: While the EPA 

acknowledges that ozone monitoring 

seasons may be modified with approved 

waiver requests under 40 CFR part 58, 

appendix D, section 4.1(i), we note that 

these waivers are specific to individual 

monitoring sites and do not otherwise 

modify the statewide ozone monitoring 

seasons listed in table D–3 to appendix 

D of part 58. While it is possible that the 

ozone monitoring season could be 

modified for an individual ozone 

nonattainment area, this would require 

an approved waiver for all monitoring 

sites within the area. We are not aware 

of any nonattainment areas meeting this 

condition under the 2008 or 2015 ozone 

NAAQS, and consider it unlikely to 

occur in the future. Thus, the EPA is 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 5655 

finalizing default control 

implementation deadlines that align 

with the attainment year ozone season 

as promulgated by appendix D to 40 

CFR part 58, as proposed. 

Comment: One commenter (0030) 

recommends that the EPA should not 

allow flexibility in the proposed default 

deadlines. The commenter notes that 

allowing deadline extensions 

reintroduces inconsistencies and 

undermines the predictability of default 

deadlines, which is contradictory to the 

goal of the proposed rule. Furthermore, 

allowing flexible deadlines can lead to 

delays in implementing control 

measures and allowing one state to 

extend deadlines can set a precedent for 

others. On the other hand, default 

deadlines create a sense of urgency and 

accountability, forcing states to 

prioritize the NAAQS. 

Other commenters (0039, 0042) 

recommend that the EPA should 

maximize states’ flexibility when 

implementing ozone NAAQS in 

reclassified areas. One commenter 

(0039) notes that retaining the option of 

adjusting timing of SIP submittals and 

implementation of controls on a caseby-case basis, while ensuring the 

timeline is consistent with meeting the 

NAAQS by the prescribed attainment 

date, helps to preserve the flexibility 

contemplated by the CAA and its air 

quality goals. 

Another commenter (0043) requests 

that the EPA clarify when it is necessary 

or appropriate to adjust the default 

deadlines. The commenter notes that 

the EPA fails to define how it will 

determine when such an extension is 

‘‘necessary or appropriate’’ and requests 

that the EPA outline the factors a state 

must show to obtain such an adjustment 

in deadlines. The commenter feels that 

while the EPA has the authority under 

the CAA to adopt modified timeframes, 

there is far too much ambiguity in the 

term ‘‘as appropriate or necessary’’ to 

ensure that this ‘‘standard’’ will be 

properly and uniformly applied if a 

state submits a request. 

Response: We are finalizing as 

proposed the default deadlines for 

reclassified areas that acknowledge that 

such deadlines may be further adjusted 

via a notice-and-comment rulemaking 

per CAA section 182(i). However, we 

agree with those commenters who note 

that any flexibility to set deadlines 

under CAA section 182(i) is constrained 

by the Act’s requirement that the EPA 

ensure areas expeditiously attain the 

NAAQS no later than the attainment 

date. As an initial matter, the EPA is 

finalizing as proposed the overall 

limitation of when an adjustment of 

deadlines is triggered. Where otherwise 

applicable deadlines that apply to areas 

initially designated nonattainment have 

not yet passed or are more than 18 

months from the effective date of the 

reclassification, those deadlines will 

continue to apply to reclassified areas. 

Therefore, the default SIP submittal and 

implementation deadlines finalized in 

this action, and any adjustment thereof, 

only apply where those otherwise 

applicable deadlines have either passed 

or are less than 18 months in the future 

from the effective date of the 

reclassification. 

We also note that the deadlines in the 

EPA’s final action inherently already 

cover much of the available flexibility 

for reclassified areas. By structuring the 

default deadlines as ‘‘the earlier of’’ an 

outside timeframe (e.g., 18 months) or a 

specific date (e.g., January 1 of the 

attainment year), the EPA is maximizing 

available time for SIP development, 

adoption, and submission, while still 

ensuring that controls are adopted into 

the SIP and implemented in time to 

influence attainment of the NAAQS by 

the attainment date. We anticipate any 

remaining flexibility on adjustment of 

deadlines, which again must be adopted 

through rulemaking after public noticeand-comment, to be minimal. As noted 

in the proposal, the EPA has in certain 

historical instances established a SIP 

submission deadline for reclassified 

areas as the beginning of the ozone 

season attainment year (e.g., in March, 

April, or May) rather than January 1 of 

the attainment year. We think such 

flexibility, for example, is permissible 

under the Act’s requirements. But as we 

stated in the proposal, there are outer 

boundaries to establishing reasonable 

deadlines under CAA section 182(i); 

namely that we cannot establish SIP 

submission deadlines for a control 

subsequent to a date when those 

controls are required under the CAA to 

be implemented. 89 FR 80839 (October 

4, 2024). 

Given the limited nature of the 

anticipated further adjustment of 

deadlines, we decline at this time to 

adopt a strict standard or to enumerate 

factors that must be considered. Rather, 

we will issue any such adjustments to 

the finalized default deadlines in 

accordance with the statutory text of 

CAA section 182(i), which allows the 

Administrator to ‘‘adjust any applicable 

deadlines (other than attainment dates) 

to the extent such adjustment is 

necessary or appropriate to assure 

consistency among the required 

submissions.’’ Those adjustments will 

be subject to notice-and-comment 

rulemaking, providing the public the 

opportunity to provide input on the 

EPA’s application of the statute in those 

specific circumstances. 

Comment: Several commenters 

provided input regarding the proposal’s 

establishment of 18 months from the 

effective date of reclassification as the 

outer bound of the proposed general 

default deadline for SIP submissions for 

reclassified areas. Three commenters 

(0032, 0040, 0042) assert that the EPA’s 

rationale for relying on CAA section 

110(k)(5) to establish the proposed 

default deadlines is flawed, and that 18 

months does not provide sufficient time 

to develop revisions to a SIP for an area 

that has been reclassified. Two of these 

commenters (0032, 0042) note that the 

EPA uses the CAA section 110(k)(5) 18- 

month timeframe for states to submit 

SIP revisions as indication that Congress 

judged this timeframe to be sufficient 

for states to identify and develop control 

measures, draft revisions to address 

attainment plans and other 

requirements, and complete the 

required public notice process, adopt 

such revisions, and submit them to the 

EPA. These two commenters claim that 

this is not an acceptable comparison to 

starting a SIP from the beginning 

because CAA section 110(k)(5) only 

applies when an existing SIP requires a 

revision. These commenters further 

provide that, in relying on CAA section 

110(k)(5) in the proposal, the EPA 

underestimates the efforts developing a 

new SIP takes. In addition, one of the 

commenters (0042) states that CAA 

section 110(a)(1) provides states with up 

to 3 years to submit SIP revisions after 

a NAAQS promulgation or revision and 

notes that the statute allows the EPA to 

prescribe a shorter timeframe for such 

submissions, but the EPA must consider 

all relevant factors and provide a 

rational justification for such shorter 

timeframe. The commenter believes that 

the EPA’s argument that 18 months is 

the outer bound of reasonableness fails 

to consider the technical complexity 

and unique challenges in achieving 

attainment of the ozone NAAQS facing 

states, which the commenter claims is 

particularly true in the case of areas 

reclassified as Severe. Another 

commenter (0040) provides that the EPA 

has not cited to any authority where the 

EPA is required to abide by the 

deadlines found in CAA sections 

110(k)(5) and 179(d) when setting 

deadlines for areas that have requested 

voluntary reclassification. The 

commenter notes that, in a prior action 

(see, 89 FR 51829, June 20, 2024), the 

EPA explicitly noted that CAA sections 

110(k)(5) and 179(d) do not directly 

apply to areas that are voluntarily 

reclassified, rather they are just 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
5656 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

7See also schedules for plan submissions for 

areas designated nonattainment for particulate 

matter in CAA section 189(a)(2)(B) (providing a 

maximum of 18 months to submit a nonattainment 

plan after initial designation to nonattainment) and 

section 189(b)(2) (providing a maximum of 18 

months to submit a revised nonattainment plan for 

particulate matter areas reclassified as a result of 

failure to attain by the attainment date). 

informative of what a potentially 

appropriate deadline may be. 

Another commenter (0045) claims 

that the CAA explicitly provides an 18- 

month period to states to submit their 

SIPs to the EPA and to implement those 

SIPs. This commenter asserts that 

Congress has provided an overt 

prescription of 18 months as an 

adequate standard for SIP development, 

submittal, and implementation, and that 

the EPA has distorted Congress’ 

intention in the proposal by interpreting 

‘‘this clause’’ as a mere 

recommendation. Other commenters 

(0037, 0043) assert that a default SIP 

submission deadline of less than 18 

months is contrary to the Act, which 

they allege establishes that 18 months as 

the sufficient timeframe. These 

commenters assert that any amount of 

time less than 18 months is not 

reasonable, cannot be justified, and 

imposes unfair and arbitrary burdens on 

the state that are contrary to the Act. 

Conversely, one commenter (0044) 

claims that it is unlawful and 

unnecessary for the EPA to provide 

states up to 18 months to make a SIP 

submittal following reclassification, and 

the EPA’s reliance on CAA section 

110(k)(5) is flawed. The commenter 

asserts that CAA section 179(d), which 

establishes a 12-month deadline for 

nonattainment SIP submittals for areas 

that fail to timely attain, is the more 

relevant CAA deadline. The commenter 

states that because nothing more 

specific supplants or overrides CAA 

section 179(d), that ‘‘generally 

applicable nonattainment SIP 

requirement dictates the outer bound of 

the EPA’s authority to extend SIP 

submittal deadlines following ozone 

reclassifications.’’ The commenter 

points to the EPA’s rule regarding 

reclassifications of areas designated 

Marginal under the 2015 ozone NAAQS 

to illustrate that the EPA has previously 

determined that 12 months provides 

adequate time for nonattainment SIP 

submittals. 

Response: As noted in the proposal, 

neither CAA section 179(d) nor section 

110(k)(5) are directly applicable to 

reclassified ozone areas, and the EPA 

therefore disagrees with all commenters 

that have suggested that either of these 

two provisions dictate how the EPA 

should adjust deadlines for reclassified 

areas under CAA section 182(i). 

CAA section 179(d)(1) requires the 

state containing a nonattainment area to 

submit within 12 months of the CAA 

section 179(c) determination that the 

area failed to attain by its attainment 

date, a revision to their SIP that meets 

the requirements of CAA section 110 

and CAA section 172 and any additional 

measures that the Administrator may 

reasonably prescribe. This final action 

establishes deadlines for states 

containing areas for which the EPA has 

made a determination that an area failed 

to attain under CAA section 181(b)(2), 

not CAA section 179(c). We therefore do 

not agree with commenters who allege 

that CAA section 179(d) ‘‘dictates the 

outer bound of the EPA’s authority’’ to 

establish deadlines for the SIP revisions 

that are required pursuant to ozone 

determinations and reclassifications 

made under CAA section 181(b)(2). 

Rather, the authority to establish 

subpart 2 deadlines for areas reclassified 

pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(2) is 

explicitly granted in CAA section 182(i), 

which contains no reference to CAA 

section 179(d) as establishing an outside 

limit to the EPA’s authority. 

CAA section 110(k)(5) states that 

‘‘[w]henever the Administrator finds 

that the applicable implementation plan 

for any area is substantially inadequate 

to attain or maintain the relevant 

[NAAQS], to mitigate adequately the 

interstate pollutant transport described 

in section 7506a of . . . or section 7511c 

of [the CAA], or to otherwise comply 

with any requirement of this chapter, 

the Administrator shall require the State 

to revise the plan as necessary to correct 

such inadequacies.’’ The CAA section 

181(b)(2) determinations that ozone 

nonattainment areas have failed to 

attain by their attainment dates are not, 

unless otherwise specified, the findings 

of inadequacy that the EPA issues under 

CAA section 110(k)(5). Therefore the 

authority to establish deadlines for SIP 

revisions to address SIP inadequacies 

identified under CAA section 

110(k)(5)—i.e., the authority that 

provides that the EPA ‘‘may establish 

reasonable deadlines (not to exceed 18 

months after the date of such notice) for 

the submission of such plan 

revisions’’—does not apply to the SIP 

revisions that are required as a result of 

the EPA’s determinations under CAA 

section 181(b)(2) that ozone 

nonattainment areas have failed to 

attain or the EPA’s reclassifications of 

areas voluntarily requested by air 

agencies under CAA section 181(b)(3). 

The commenter who asserted that the 

18-month timeframe is an ‘‘overt 

prescription’’ that dictates what the EPA 

must finalize as a deadline in this rule 

is therefore plainly incorrect. 

Rather, as the EPA stated in the 

proposal, the Agency’s choice to refer to 

CAA sections 179(d) and 110(k)(5) were 

for the purpose of informing its exercise 

of discretion under CAA section 182(i). 

We do not agree with commenters who 

assert that Congress’ establishment of 

deadlines in those two provisions 

somehow created substantive thresholds 

for the EPA’s adjustment of deadlines 

under CAA section 182(i) such that the 

EPA must ‘‘justify’’ divergence from 

either. We continue to think it is a 

permissible exercise of the EPA’s 

discretion under CAA section 182(i) to 

adjust deadlines to establish a default 

deadline of no more than 18 months, 

where the available time before the next 

attainment deadline permits. 

Commenters who assert that 18-months 

should be the minimum timeframe for 

reclassified areas to revise SIPs because 

revising a SIP per CAA section 110(k)(5) 

is not the same as ‘‘starting a SIP from 

the beginning,’’ ignore the fact that any 

reclassified areas subject to the 

deadlines in this rule will have already 

been designated nonattainment for at 

least 3 years, and for classifications 

beyond Marginal, many more than 

three. Because the subpart 2 

requirements are cumulative and build 

on each classification, reclassified areas 

revising their SIPs to address the 

requirements of their new classification 

will also not be starting from scratch. 

States containing these areas will not 

only have been subject to the general 

infrastructure SIP requirements that all 

states are required to submit after 

promulgation of a NAAQS, but they will 

also have been subject to any lower 

subpart 2 classification requirements 

that have applied since areas were 

designated nonattainment. Moreover, 

the assertion that Congress would have 

intended states to be entitled to a 

minimum of 18 months to revise SIPs is 

contrary to the similar provisions the 

EPA alluded to in CAA sections 

110(k)(5) and CAA section 179(d).7 CAA 

section 110(k)(5) on its face defines a 

reasonable deadline as ‘‘not to exceed 

18 months.’’ And CAA section 179(d), 

which as some commenters point out is 

the Act’s default deadline for non-ozone 

areas that have failed to timely attain 

establishes an outer boundary of 12 

months to revise a SIP. So, we do not 

agree that there is statutory support for 

commenters’ contention that a deadline 

of anything less than 18 months is 

unreasonable, unworkable, or contrary 

to the Act, when the Act plainly 

identifies less than 18 months as the 

routine expectation for a SIP revision in 

similar situations. 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 5657 

8Cf. Stephen D. Page, Guidance on Infrastructure 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under 

Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2), 

September 13, 2013, at 52, available at https://

www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-12/ 

documents/guidance_on_infrastructure_sip_

elements_multipollutant_final_sept_2013.pdf 

(explaining that the submission deadline for 

infrastructure SIPs under CAA section 110(a) do not 

apply to nonattainment areas, because SIP 

submissions for designated nonattainment areas 

‘‘are subject to a different submission schedule than 

those for section 110 infrastructure elements’’). 

9CAA section 110(a)(1) (‘‘Each State shall, after 

reasonable notice and public hearings, adopt and 

submit to the Administrator, within 3 years (or such 

shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) 

after the promulgation of a national primary 

ambient air quality standard (or any revision 

thereof) . . .’’) (emphasis added). 

With respect to commenters who 

suggest the EPA should look to CAA 

section 110(a)(1)’s provision of up to 3 

years to submit SIP revisions after a 

NAAQS promulgation or revision as 

guidance for its establishment of subpart 

2 deadlines for reclassified areas, the 

EPA does not agree that this timeframe 

is appropriate. As an initial matter, CAA 

section 110(a)(1)’s provision of 3 years 

after the promulgation of a NAAQS is a 

generally applicable requirement that 

was not directed at nonattainment 

areas.8 That deadline of 3 years, which 

in any case the Administrator is 

permitted to shorten,9 is untethered 

from the more-specific statutory 

purpose of achieving attainment by an 

attainment deadline, and therefore does 

not have direct relevance to the issue 

facing reclassified areas, which are not 

only nonattainment areas, but 

specifically nonattainment areas that 

have either already failed to attain by an 

attainment date or whose states have 

recognized are unlikely to do so and 

have therefore requested to be 

reclassified. 

The EPA also explained at proposal 

why the attainment deadlines and 

stringency of requirements under 

subpart 2 cannot accommodate a long 

deadline such as the 3 years requested 

by the commenter. See 89 FR 80838–39 

(October 4, 2024). CAA section 181(a)(1) 

establishes the timeframes for maximum 

attainment deadlines under the Act, and 

those timeframes are based on the 

number of years from area designations. 

Marginal areas have no more than 3 

years to attain, Moderate areas 6 years, 

Serious areas 9 years, Severe areas 15 

years, and Extreme areas 20 years. For 

many of the reclassified areas to which 

this rule would apply, the time between 

the attainment deadlines is only 3 years 

to begin with. For example, a Marginal 

area that failed to attain by its maximum 

attainment deadline of August 3, 2021, 

and is reclassified to Moderate has only 

until August 3, 2024, to attain. And, as 

discussed in the proposal and elsewhere 

in this final action, per the CAA’s 

explicit language in 181(b)(2), the 

determination of whether that Moderate 

area attains by August 3, 2024, will be 

based on the area’s design value as of 

that date, i.e., monitoring data from 

2021, 2022, and 2023. Even if the EPA 

issued the finding that the area failed to 

attain immediately after the August 3, 

2021, attainment date, providing the 

area 3 years to submit a new SIP for the 

reclassified Moderate requirements, or 

until August 3, 2024, would necessarily 

mean that any new emissions controls 

required by that SIP would have no 

impact on the area’s likelihood of 

attaining by the next attainment date. 

We therefore think that for SIP 

deadlines associated with these 

reclassifications—Marginal to Moderate, 

and Moderate to Serious—the 

commenter’s suggestion that the EPA 

look to section 110(a)’s provision of 3 

years is plainly unworkable. Even for 

areas reclassified as Severe, which will 

likely have a longer interval between 

reclassification to Severe and the Severe 

area attainment date, the EPA explained 

at proposal why for these areas that 

have failed to timely attain multiple 

times, the 18-month deadline for SIP 

submissions would benefit such areas, 

including that control measures 

contributing to attainment could be 

implemented for multiple ozone seasons 

prior to the maximum attainment date. 

See 89 FR 80841(October 4, 2024). The 

commenter has not explained why the 

EPA’s reasoning for maintaining a 

consistent deadline under CAA section 

182(i) for these areas is unreasonable. 

We are finalizing a default SIP 

submission deadline with an outer 

bound of 18 months from the effective 

date of reclassification. We are 

finalizing this more extended timeframe 

for submitting new area requirements 

triggered by reclassification (as opposed 

to 12 months, which was also 

contemplated in the proposal), because 

we acknowledge, as raised by many 

commenters, the general complexity in 

developing and implementing effective 

emission reductions for ozone 

nonattainment areas, and the 

opportunity a longer timeframe provides 

for more attainment demonstration 

plans that are likely to meet applicable 

CAA requirements. 

b. SIP Submittal Deadline for All 

Elements, Except for the CAA Section 

185 Fee Program Element 

Comment: One commenter (0042) 

recommends that the EPA should not 

finalize its proposal for areas that 

request voluntary reclassification with 

existing submittal deadlines that are 18 

months or more from the effective date 

of reclassification. The commenter notes 

that the EPA presumes that existing 

deadlines associated with a higher 

classification that have not passed will 

always be practicable for states to meet 

without adjustment, but provides no 

rationale in support of such assumption. 

The commenter believes that the EPA 

should neither prejudge, nor foreclose, 

longer submission deadlines. 

Response: The EPA’s authority to 

establish deadlines for areas that have 

voluntarily requested reclassification 

under CAA section 181(b)(3) is 

governed by CAA section 301(a). See 89 

FR 80837 (October 4, 2024) n.12. That 

provision states, ‘‘The Administrator is 

authorized to prescribe such regulations 

as are necessary to carry out his 

functions under this chapter.’’ CAA 

section 301(a). In proposing to establish 

default deadlines for areas requesting a 

reclassification, the EPA elected to 

apply such deadlines only where an 

existing deadline has passed or there is 

less than 18 months until the deadline. 

The commenter is therefore incorrect 

that the EPA presumed that any 

deadline associated with a higher 

classification that had not passed would 

be practicable for a state to meet; on the 

contrary, the EPA proposed that if the 

existing deadline was less than 18 

months away, that there was a 

presumption that it would be necessary 

to adjust the deadline. The EPA also 

explained its rationale in support of 

retaining existing deadlines that were 18 

months or more from the 

reclassification. 89 FR 80837(October 4, 

2024) . Where that period of time 

remained prior to an existing deadline, 

we stated that we did not find it 

‘‘necessary’’ under CAA section 301(a) 

to prescribe a different deadline than 

what the statute had provided for 

initially designated and classified areas. 

To make that adjustment, we believed 

we needed to provide a reason for doing 

so—that it would assure expeditious 

attainment of the NAAQS or ensure that 

the required submissions would be 

implemented consistently with the Act’s 

structure—and we did not find a reason 

to do so where a state still had 18 

months before an existing deadline. We 

also pointed out that the CAA’s 

establishment of 18 months as an outer 

boundary for a ‘‘reasonable deadline’’ 

for a SIP revision to address an 

inadequacy (per CAA section 110(k)(5)) 

indicates that Congress judged that this 

timeframe would be sufficient for states 

to identify and develop control 

measures, to draft revisions to address 

attainment plans and other 

requirements, complete the required 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
5658 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

public notice process, adopt such 

revisions, and submit them to the EPA. 

Comment: One commenter (0042) 

urges the EPA to set default SIP 

submittal deadlines no sooner than 

January 1 of the applicable attainment 

year for all classifications. The 

commenter asserts that, in the case of 

voluntary reclassifications, a SIP 

submittal deadline of 18 months may be 

sooner than those given to states that are 

reclassified as a result of failing to 

attain, and the EPA provides no 

rationale to support such earlier 

deadline. The commenter further 

provides that states requesting voluntary 

reclassification do so due to the need for 

additional time to develop and 

implement control measures, and 

reducing the possible additional time 

available ignores the statutory principle 

supporting the need for such additional 

time. In addition, the commenter urges 

the EPA to update the RACT SIP 

submittal deadline in the CFR to reflect 

a general default RACT submittal 

deadline for reclassified areas of no 

sooner than January 1 of the applicable 

attainment year, for all Moderate and 

higher classifications. 

Similarly, another commenter (0039) 

recommends that the proposed default 

submission deadline not apply to areas 

for which a state has voluntarily sought 

reclassification. The commenter notes 

that states asking for voluntary 

reclassification of an area will, in many 

cases, have more time before the 

attainment date to plan and implement 

a SIP than will a state with an area that 

has been involuntarily reclassified upon 

failure to attain. The commenter claims 

that default submission deadlines 

should not unnecessarily constrain the 

planning timeline for areas that states 

have voluntarily reclassified because 

states that voluntarily reclassify an area 

often do so to afford them additional 

time to plan for SIPs and implement the 

associated control measures to bring the 

area into attainment. 

Conversely, one commenter (0044) 

agrees with the EPA that under no 

circumstance should nonattainment SIP 

submittals be due later than January 1 

of the applicable attainment year. 

Response: We do not agree with the 

commenters’ requests to establish SIP 

submittal deadlines as no sooner than 

January 1 of the attainment year or not 

to establish any default deadlines at all 

for areas that voluntarily request to be 

reclassified. With respect to the 

commenter who stated that establishing 

a deadline of 18 months for a 

voluntarily reclassified area might 

render that deadline sooner than the 

deadline that would apply to an area 

that failed to attain and was reclassified, 

the EPA agrees that this might be the 

practical outcome. However, we do not 

agree with commenter’s insinuation that 

there would be anything unreasonable 

or inappropriate about this result. A 

state that early on recognizes that its 

area is unlikely to timely attain and 

seeks additional time for planning and 

development of control measures can 

time its request for voluntary 

reclassification in order to ensure that 

existing deadlines that are further out 

than 18 months apply or that the state 

can at least have the full default 18 

months to develop its SIP. In most 

mandatory reclassifications due to 

failure to timely attain, those states and 

areas will not have the benefit of 18 

months of SIP development time, 

because of how compressed the CAA’s 

attainment deadlines are for the lower 

classifications. So while a voluntary 

reclassification area might have a 

‘‘sooner’’ deadline than an area that is 

mandatorily reclassified, the area that 

requests reclassification early enough to 

obtain the 18 month default deadline (or 

early enough to have more than 18 

months until an existing SIP deadline) 

will ultimately have more time, i.e., 

more months, to develop its SIP than 

the area that is mandatorily classified 

and subject to the January 1 of the 

attainment year default deadline. The 

area that early requests voluntary 

reclassification will also have the 

benefit of having control measures in its 

SIP revisions in place for longer before 

the next attainment date, increasing the 

likelihood that it will expeditiously 

attain the NAAQS by that next date. 

Finally, commenter asserts that there is 

a ‘‘statutory principle supporting the 

need for such additional time’’ for states 

requesting voluntary reclassification, 

but the commenter does not identify any 

statutory provision to support its 

statement. The CAA does not provide 

any explicit authority for the EPA to 

establish new SIP submittal deadlines 

for areas that request to be voluntarily 

reclassified. The EPA has exercised its 

discretion under CAA section 301(a), in 

the context of implementing subpart 2 

requirements, to establish such 

deadlines where it has determined that 

doing so is necessary, but we do not 

agree that there is any statutory support 

for commenter’s request to provide 

states requesting voluntary 

reclassification the absolute latest 

possible deadline to submit a new SIP, 

with the minimum timeframe for 

emission reductions that would 

influence timely attainment. 

The EPA acknowledges, and to some 

extent agrees, with the comments that 

states might request voluntary 

reclassifications due to the need for 

additional time to develop and 

implement control measures than would 

be afforded to them if they were to wait 

to be mandatorily reclassified under 

CAA section 181(b)(2) for failing to 

attain by the applicable attainment date. 

However, as noted in the proposal, for 

any states that seek a voluntary 

reclassification to a higher classification 

early in the planning cycle, the existing 

SIP submittal and implementation 

deadlines for the higher classification 

would apply, which could result in SIP 

submittal deadlines longer than 18 

months. On the other hand, any states 

that seek a voluntary reclassification to 

a higher classification after the original 

deadlines have passed or are in the near 

future (i.e., less than 18 months from the 

effective date of reclassification), they 

will be subject to a SIP submittal 

deadline of 18 months from the effective 

date of reclassification or January 1 of 

the applicable attainment year, 

whichever is sooner. In either case, the 

codification of these default deadlines 

will provide states with advance notice 

and certainty of the applicable SIP 

submittal and implementation deadlines 

for any reclassified ozone areas such 

that they can begin developing, 

adopting, submitting, and implementing 

their SIPs as soon as possible. We 

therefore do not agree with the 

commenter who suggested that areas 

requesting reclassification should not be 

subject to the default deadlines; 

establishing a default framework for 

when and how deadlines will apply to 

such areas will allow states with 

implementation obligations for these 

areas to plan with more certainty than 

under the existing regime, where states 

requesting reclassification have had to 

wait for the EPA’s notice-and-comment 

rulemakings to establish final SIP 

submission deadlines for reclassified 

areas. 

As to the comment about establishing 

a RACT SIP submittal deadline of no 

sooner than January 1 of the applicable 

attainment year for all Moderate and 

higher classifications, the commenter 

did not provide a rationale in support of 

this recommendation. Therefore, the 

EPA declines at this time to establish 

such a deadline for RACT SIP revisions. 

Comment: One commenter (0044) 

asserts that the EPA’s proposal to 

establish default SIP submittal 

deadlines based on the effective date of 

reclassification is legally and practically 

flawed for two reasons: (1) it is arbitrary 

and irrational for the EPA to key dates 

for nonattainment SIP deadlines to the 

effective date of reclassification rather 

than the attainment date; and (2) even 

if the SIP submittal deadline could 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 5659 

lawfully be tethered to the timing of 

final action on the reclassification, the 

EPA has not provided a justification for 

tethering the SIP submittal deadline to 

the effective date (rather than date of 

publication). The commenter 

recommends that the EPA key SIP 

submittal deadlines to attainment dates 

rather than the date by which the EPA 

acts on states’ failure to timely attain 

because states know whether they have 

failed to attain and failed to qualify for 

an extension of the attainment date well 

before the area’s attainment date, let 

alone the date by which the EPA 

finalizes a reclassification or makes it 

effective. This is because attainment is 

based on ozone season monitor data 

from the 3 years preceding the 

attainment year. Because states are on 

notice from before their attainment date 

that they are going to fail to attain and 

be reclassified, it is appropriate for the 

EPA to base SIP submittal deadlines on 

the expectations that states will begin 

working on these submittals prior to the 

EPA’s finalization of reclassifications. 

This commenter points out that the EPA 

has historically failed to timely issue 

determinations that areas failed to attain 

(with the accompanying 

reclassifications), and suggests that 

adding 18 months to those late 

determinations would have resulted in 

SIP submittal deadlines many months 

after all relevant ozone seasons for the 

next applicable attainment date had 

already passed. 

Another commenter (0045) expresses 

that the proposal does not enforce a 

uniform deadline for all nonattainment 

areas and asserts that the deadline for 

SIP submittal is relative to the effective 

date of the rule establishing area 

designations. The proposed relativity of 

the SIP submittal deadline is unclear, 

and the proposal does not include a 

fixed period for nonattainment areas to 

develop and submit SIPs. Congress’ 18- 

month period has been nullified in this 

proposed rulemaking, as states will not 

be entitled to that time, yet there is no 

range of time provided in the proposal 

that reveals how long it should take for 

states to develop and submit SIPs. 

Response: Commenters have 

presented other potential ways of 

structuring the adjustments in deadlines 

for reclassified areas, but we do not 

agree that the EPA’s proposal to require 

new SIP submittals 18 months from the 

effective date of reclassification but in 

any case no later than January 1 of the 

attainment year is either barred by the 

CAA or arbitrary or irrational. CAA 

section 182(i) contains no indication 

that the grant of authority to the EPA to 

adjust deadlines in that provision is 

cabined by a requirement to ‘‘key’’ those 

deadlines to attainment dates, nor that 

the adjusted deadline must be 18 

months, as one commenter suggests. 

With respect to the commenter’s 

argument that it is irrational for the EPA 

to base SIP submittal dates on the 

effective date of reclassification rather 

than attainment dates, it is not clear 

what alternative framework the 

commenter is advocating for. The 

commenter does not explain whether 

they believe that the Act requires the 

EPA’s adjusted deadlines under CAA 

section 182(i) to be a certain number of 

months from the preceding attainment 

date or a certain number of months prior 

to the new attainment date. The 

suggestion of ‘‘keying’’ SIP submittal 

deadlines to attainment dates, with no 

explanation of how to do so, is odd 

given the commenter’s invocation of 

CAA section 179(d) as a model, since 

CAA section 179(d) ‘‘keys’’ new SIP 

submittals to the EPA’s determinations 

that areas failed to timely attain, rather 

than past or future attainment dates. Nor 

does the commenter’s reference to the 

EPA’s historically tardy determinations 

under CAA section 181(b)(2) explain 

how any alternative framework would 

result in more expeditious attainment of 

the NAAQS. The EPA acknowledges 

that its historical determinations under 

CAA section 181(b)(2) have not met the 

statutory deadline. The EPA proposed 

and is finalizing these default SIP 

deadlines that would apply to 

prospective determinations and 

reclassifications, in part to streamline 

the issuance of those mandatory 

attainment determinations by removing 

the need to conduct a new rulemaking 

to adjust applicable deadlines each time 

areas are reclassified as a result of those 

determinations. To the extent the 

commenter is advocating for a system of 

deadlines that encourage states to begin 

working early on attainment planning 

for the next attainment date, we believe 

the default deadlines in this final action 

accomplish this policy goal as 

effectively as the commenter’s 

suggestion. The default schedule for 

reclassified areas creates certainty for 

states regarding when SIP submittals for 

higher classifications will be due, such 

that they can begin to plan for the next 

attainment date. 

We also do not agree with the 

commenter’s hypothetical application of 

the proposed default deadlines to the 

EPA’s past tardy determinations. The 

commenter suggests that under the 

EPA’s proposed default deadlines, the 

SIP submittal deadline would have been 

several ozone seasons after the relevant 

attainment date. But the EPA’s proposal, 

and final action, explicitly accounts for 

the compressed timeframe that can 

occur by establishing SIP submittal 

deadlines that are the earlier of 18 

months from the reclassification action 

or January 1 of the attainment year. In 

the example posited by commenter, 

therefore, the EPA’s proposed default 

deadline framework would result in a 

SIP submittal deadline of January 1 of 

the attainment year, not 18 months from 

the reclassification action. In fact, as 

explained in the proposal, the EPA was 

cognizant that the default deadlines in 

this action are consistent with how it 

has historically established deadlines 

for reclassified areas, i.e., by no later 

than the beginning of the attainment 

year ozone season to ensure that 

emission reductions would influence 

attainment by the attainment date. 89 

FR 80839 (October 4, 2024) n.17, 18. 

Finally, we do not agree that CAA 

section 179(d)’s establishment of a 

deadline triggered off of publication of 

a determination rather than the effective 

date of a determination mandates that 

the EPA’s adjusted deadlines under 

CAA section 182(i) must also be 

structured in the same way, even if the 

EPA could structure its adjusted 

deadlines in that way. Nothing in CAA 

section 182(i) suggests that Congress 

intended to require the EPA’s adjusted 

deadlines to be triggered off of the 

publication of its determination rather 

than the effective date of its 

determination. We also note that the 

practical difference between the 

commenter’s suggestion and the EPA’s 

action is small; the only time a 

difference would come into play is 

where there is sufficient time between 

the EPA’s determination and the next 

attainment date such that the 18-month 

deadline (rather than January 1 of the 

attainment year) would apply. In such 

situations, the difference between 

commenter’s suggested deadlines and 

the EPA’s default deadlines would be 30 

days, i.e., 18 months from publication 

(commenter’s suggestion) and 19 

months (the EPA’s deadlines). As noted 

in the proposal, the EPA has historically 

established deadlines for submission 

and implementation of plan revisions 

based on the effective date of a 

reclassification action, and we do not 

agree that the Agency is prohibited from 

doing so here. For example, in its 

implementation rule for the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS, the EPA finalized a default 

submission deadline for RACT SIP 

revisions of ‘‘no later than 24 months 

after the effective date of 

reclassification, or by an alternative 

deadline established by the 

Administrator as part of the action 

reclassifying an area’’ (emphasis 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
5660 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

10 83 FR 62998, 63013 (December 6, 2018). 

11See, e.g., Clean Air Act Reclassification of the 

San Antonio, Dallas-Fort Worth, and HoustonGalveston-Brazoria Ozone Nonattainment Areas, 

TX, Final Rule, 89 FR 51829 (June 20, 2024). 

12See, e.g., Determinations of Attainment by the 

Attainment Date, Extensions of the Attainment 

Date, and Reclassification of Several Areas for the 

2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards, Finale Rule, 81 FR 26697 (May 4, 2016); 

Determinations of Attainment by the Attainment 

Date, Extensions of the Attainment Date, and 

Reclassification of Areas Classified as Marginal for 

the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards, Final Rule, 87 FR 60897 (October 7, 

2022). 

added).10 The EPA has also, on 

numerous occasions, established SIP 

submittal and implementation deadlines 

triggered by the effective date of 

reclassification as part of actions 

granting voluntary reclassification 

requests 11 and actions making 

determinations of attainment by the 

attainment date.12

We also disagree that the other 

commenter’s assertion that the CAA 

requires the EPA’s adjusted deadlines 

under CAA section 182(i) (or section 

301(a) for voluntarily reclassified areas) 

to be 18 months from the EPA’s 

determination. Nothing in section 182(i) 

or any other provision of the CAA 

suggests that such deadlines must be at 

least 18 months. We also do not agree 

that the Act requires that there be a 

uniform or fixed amount of time for 

states to revise their SIPs after areas are 

reclassified, and the commenter has 

provided no statutory support for its 

contention. 

The EPA is therefore finalizing its 

proposed schedule for states to revise 

their SIPs to address applicable subpart 

2 requirements after ozone 

nonattainment areas are reclassified, 

which is the earlier of 18 months from 

the effective date of reclassification or 

January 1 of the applicable attainment 

year. 

Comment: One commenter (0039) 

recommends that the proposed default 

submission deadlines align with the 

start of the ozone season to provide 

states with ozone seasons that start later 

in the year additional planning 

flexibility. Conversely, one commenter 

(0032) expresses that the EPA’s 

proposed alternative deadline that 

aligns with the beginning of an area’s 

attainment year ozone season is 

inadequate. The commenter notes that, 

historically, the EPA has provided states 

3 years to submit attainment 

demonstration SIPs and modeling, and 

2 years to submit RACT and reasonable 

available control measure (RACM) SIPs. 

The commenter requests that the states 

be afforded this amount of time to 

submit their SIPs. 

Response: We are finalizing a default 

SIP submission deadline of 18 months 

from the effective date of reclassification 

or January 1 of the applicable 

attainment year, whichever is earlier. As 

discussed in the proposal, in some 

historical instances, the EPA has 

established the SIP submittal deadline 

for reclassified areas as the beginning of 

the attainment year ozone season, rather 

than January 1 of the attainment year. 

Given that the beginning of the 

attainment year ozone season is January 

1 for many ozone nonattainment areas, 

we are setting the maximum default SIP 

submission deadline as no later than 

January 1 of the applicable attainment 

year ozone season to assure consistency 

among all SIP submissions for ozone 

nonattainment areas reclassified as 

Moderate, Serious, and Severe as well as 

to promote expeditious attainment of 

the ozone NAAQS. 

The EPA declines the request to 

provide states 3 years to submit 

attainment demonstration SIPs and 

modeling, and 2 years to submit RACT/ 

RACM SIPs. While it is true that the 

CAA provides submission deadlines 

that range between 2 and 4 years for 

some requirements, these schedules are 

based on the effective date of the rule 

establishing initial area designations. In 

the case of reclassifications, these initial 

SIP submittal and implementation 

timelines have already been established 

and, in many cases, are in the past or 

the near future (i.e., less than 18 months 

away) at the time of reclassification. 

Because reclassified nonattainment 

areas typically face limited time to 

submit and implement required SIP 

revisions prior to the next attainment 

date, it is impossible to establish default 

deadlines after an attainment date that 

would afford states 2 or 3 years to 

submit their SIPs, if those SIPs are to 

have any impact on the area’s ability to 

attain by the next attainment date. 

c. SIP Submittal Deadline for the CAA 

Section 185 Fee Program Element 

Comment: One commenter (0037) 

claims that the CAA does not support 

requiring CAA section 185 fee program 

SIP submittals any sooner than 36 

months after the effective date of 

reclassification to Severe. In CAA 

section 185, the attainment year is 

expressly identified as the year in which 

the attainment date falls. When setting 

a deadline in relation to CAA section 

185, it is not necessary or practical that 

there be a submittal more than a year 

before the attainment date. It is entirely 

reasonable that states could submit 

those programs later consistently with 

the implementation of any potential 

CAA section 185 fee program because 

the fee payment does not arise until the 

year after the year in which the 

attainment date falls. 

One commenter (0044) urges the EPA 

to require states to develop CAA section 

185 SIPs on the same timeline as 

contingency measures for failing to 

attain. The commenter believes that, just 

like attainment contingency measures, 

section 185 penalty fees only kick in 

after an area fails to timely attain. The 

EPA properly requires states to submit 

contingency measure SIPs in well under 

3 years and provides no rational 

explanation for treating the two 

submissions differently. The commenter 

notes that a section 185 SIP should be 

fairly straightforward, requiring no 

assessment of control methodologies, 

and states therefore should be able to 

develop it quickly. The commenter 

further provides that, given the EPA’s 

and the states’ history of missing CAA 

deadlines, the 36 months or January 1 

attainment year deadline would very 

likely mean that a final section 185 rule 

would not be in place until after an area 

failed to attain, which is inconsistent 

with the CAA. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the 

comment claiming that the CAA does 

not support a submission deadline any 

sooner than 36 months after the 

effective date of reclassification to 

Severe. We are finalizing the default 

deadline for CAA section 185 fee 

program element as proposed. The CAA 

and the EPA’s implementing regulations 

for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS 

permit states with ozone nonattainment 

areas initially classified as Severe to 

submit a SIP revision that meets the 

requirements of CAA section 185 within 

10 years of the effective date of an area’s 

nonattainment designation. Given that 

nonattainment areas initially classified 

as Severe have 15 years to attain the 

NAAQS after the effective date of 

designation, states with nonattainment 

areas initially classified as Severe must 

submit their CAA section 185 fee 

program SIPs at least 5 years before the 

attainment date. Therefore, the EPA 

disagrees with the comment that it is 

inconsistent with the CAA for states to 

submit these SIPs more than a year 

before the attainment date, and given 

the Act’s structure for initially 

designated and classified areas, which 

requires the section 185 fee SIP to be 

submitted at least 5 years before the 

attainment date, the commenters have 

failed to explain why the EPA’s default 

deadline of 36 months after 

reclassification (but no later than 

January 1 of the attainment year), is not 

practical or necessary. As noted in the 

proposal, the EPA has established a 36- 

month SIP submission deadline for CAA 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 5661 

13See CAA section 182(d)(3). 

14See CAA section 182(d)(3). 15 83 FR 62998, 63009 (December 6, 2018). 16 89 FR 80833, 80839 (October 4, 2024). 

section 185 SIPs in the past. Such an 

extended deadline is supported by the 

fact that the CAA specifically sets a later 

SIP submission deadline for the CAA 

section 185 fee program than for any 

other elements.13 In addition, an 

extended deadline of 36 months after 

the effective date of reclassification will 

still typically be more than 18 months 

before the attainment date, which will 

still ensure that CAA section 185 fee 

programs for reclassified areas will be in 

place ahead of when they are needed. 

The EPA agrees that the development of 

the CAA section 185 program should 

not pose an undue burden on states. 

However, as noted in the proposal, we 

believe that providing states with more 

time for the CAA section 185 fee 

program SIP submission could allow 

more focused attention to be spent on 

other Severe SIP elements in the first 18 

months following reclassification. 

The EPA likewise disagrees with the 

comment suggesting that states must 

develop CAA section 185 SIPs on the 

same timeline as contingency measures 

for failing to attain. The commenter is 

incorrect in claiming that there is no 

difference between contingency 

measures and section 185 fee programs. 

While section 185 fee programs only 

kick in after an area fails to timely 

attain, contingency measures may be 

triggered as a result of an area’s failure 

to meet RFP or a failure to attain by the 

attainment date. See CAA section 

172(c)(9). The later deadline finalized in 

this action for the CAA section 185 SIP 

for areas reclassified to Severe mirrors 

the different, later deadline that CAA 

section 182(d)(3) provides for the 

section 185 fee program element for 

initially designated and classified 

Severe areas, which it does not do for 

any other element, including 

contingency measures.14 To the degree 

that states want to take advantage of the 

administrative efficiency of adopting the 

CAA section 185 fee program element 

along with other required Severe area 

SIP elements, which was a benefit the 

EPA noted at proposal, they would still 

have the option to submit their CAA 

section 185 programs earlier. 

In addition, we have previously stated 

that the EPA retains the ability to set an 

alternative deadline for CAA section 

185 SIP submissions, if appropriate, for 

nonattainment areas reclassified as 

Severe and that such an adjustment 

‘‘could be appropriate in situations 

where the reclassification action occurs 

on a date that is unreasonably near to 

or past the 10-year deadline applicable 

to areas initially designated Severe or 

Extreme.’’ 15 The appropriateness of 

such adjustment applies here. The 

deadlines that we are finalizing as part 

of this rule would be applicable to any 

reclassified Severe areas only if the 

original 10-year deadline established for 

nonattainment areas initially classified 

as Severe has passed or is less than 18 

months away from the effective date of 

reclassification. In either case, a 

deadline of the earlier of 36 months 

after the effective date of reclassification 

or January 1 of the applicable 

attainment year is reasonable because 

either date would provide states with 

adequate time to develop and submit 

their SIP revisions, while still ensuring 

that approved CAA section 185 fee 

programs for reclassified areas will be in 

place ahead of when they are needed. 

Regarding the comment about the 

EPA and states’ history of missing CAA 

deadlines, we disagree that a default 

deadline of the earlier of 36 months or 

January 1 of the attainment year would 

mean that a state’s CAA section 185 

program would not be in place until 

after an area failed to attain. This is 

unlikely because the CAA provides up 

to 6 years between the Serious and 

Severe attainment dates, in contrast to 

the 3-year intervals for Marginal, 

Moderate, and Serious classifications. 

Even with the additional time allowed 

to develop section 185 fee programs, 

there will be sufficient time to get such 

programs in place before the Severe 

attainment date. Moreover, as noted in 

the proposal, the purpose of the default 

deadlines that would apply to 

reclassified Moderate, Serious, and 

Severe nonattainment areas is to 

provide advance notice and certainty to 

any states with nonattainment areas that 

may fail to attain an ozone NAAQS by 

the applicable attainment date as well as 

any nonattainment areas for which a 

state requests a voluntary 

reclassification to a higher 

classification. The default SIP 

submission and implementation 

deadlines that we are finalizing as part 

of this rule will help streamline the 

reclassification process and help the 

EPA, as well as states, meet CAA 

deadlines in the future. As 

acknowledged elsewhere in this 

document, the EPA has routinely 

adjusted SIP submission and 

implementation deadlines as part of 

actions granting voluntary 

reclassification requests and actions 

making determinations of attainment by 

the attainment date. This rule will 

remove that step from the 

reclassification process, thereby 

simplifying and advancing the 

nonattainment planning cycle for states 

and the EPA. We expect that the default 

deadlines finalized as part of this rule 

will promote efficiency, allowing states 

and the EPA to continue working 

towards CAA goals in a timely manner. 

d. Deadline for RACT Implementation 

Comment: Two commenters (0039, 

0042)) recommend that the proposed 

default RACT implementation deadlines 

align with the start of the ozone season. 

One of these commenters (0039) states 

that this will provide states with ozone 

seasons that start later in the year 

additional implementation flexibility. 

The other commenter (0042) notes that 

this will allow affected entities to 

comply with RACT on a timeline that 

considers sources’ ability to control 

emissions based on technological and 

economic feasibility, which are primary 

factors in determining RACT. 

Conversely, one commenter (0032) 

expresses that the EPA’s proposed 

alternative deadline that aligns with the 

beginning of an area’s attainment year 

ozone season is inadequate. The 

commenter notes that the CAA requires 

states to implement RACT as 

expeditiously as practicable but no later 

than January 1 of the 5th year after the 

effective date of designation. The 

commenter requests that the states be 

afforded this amount of time to 

implement RACT. 

Response: We are finalizing the 

default RACT implementation deadlines 

as proposed. While the EPA agrees with 

the comments asserting that aligning the 

RACT implementation deadline with 

the attainment year ozone season will 

provide states with additional 

implementation flexibility, the 

beginning of the attainment year ozone 

season will not always be the most 

expeditious deadline for RACT 

implementation. In those instances, it 

may be more expeditious for RACT to be 

implemented earlier (i.e., EPA’s 

proposed 18 months after the date in 

which RACT SIPs are due). As with 

other RACT implementation deadlines 

that the EPA has established for 

reclassified areas, an underlying 

consideration is that, consistent with 

the CAA, the RACT deadline should, 

where possible, provide at least one full 

ozone season in advance of an area’s 

maximum attainment date for 

implemented controls to achieve 

emission reductions and positively 

influence an area’s monitored design 

value.16 In recognition of this, the EPA 

is finalizing a default RACT 

implementation deadline of as 

expeditiously as practicable but no later 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
5662 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

17To the extent that the commenter is suggesting 

that the EPA establish the default RACT 

implementation deadline as January 1 of the 5th 

year after reclassification, we decline to establish 

the generic default RACT deadline in this manner. 

For further discussion, see the EPA’s response to 

commenter (0044) in this section seeking a default 

RACT implementation deadline beyond the 

attainment deadline. 

18See State Implementation Plans; General 

Preamble for Proposed Rulemaking on Approval of 

Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas— 

Supplement (on Control Techniques Guidelines), 

Proposed Rule, 44 FR 53761, 53762 (September 17, 

1979) (defining RACT as ‘‘The lowest emission 

limitation that a particular source is capable of 

meeting by the applicable of control technology that 

is reasonably available consider technological and 

economic feasibility’’) (citing memorandum from 

Roger Strelow to Regional Administrators, Regions 

I–X, Guidance for Determining Acceptability of SIP 

Regulations in Non-attainment Areas (December 9, 

1976). See also, Keystone-Conemaugh Projects v. 

EPA (3rd Cir.) No. 22–3026, May 2, 2024 (noting 

that ‘‘EPA has repeatedly interpreted [RACT] to 

mean ‘the lowest emission limit that a particular 

source is capable of meeting by the application of 

control technology that is reasonably available 

consider technological and economic feasibility’’). 

than the earlier of 18 months from the 

SIP submittal deadline or the beginning 

of the attainment year ozone season. 

The EPA disagrees with the comment 

that the EPA should establish a RACT 

implementation deadline that requires 

states to implement RACT as 

expeditiously as practicable but no later 

than January 1 of the 5th year after the 

effective date of designation.17 In 

reclassification scenarios, it is often the 

case that the RACT implementation 

deadlines established for areas initially 

classified as Moderate, Serious, and 

Severe have already passed or will 

occur shortly after the effective date of 

reclassification, thereby making it 

impossible or unreasonable for a state to 

comply with the implementation 

schedules that initially classified areas 

must comply with. As such, the EPA is 

finalizing a default RACT 

implementation deadline that 

accommodates the need for additional 

time to develop SIPs and implement 

controls, while also establishing that 

deadline in time to influence attainment 

by the attainment date. In general, this 

deadline would provide states with a 

36-month schedule for SIP submission 

and controls implementation for 

reclassified areas (i.e., 18 months to 

develop and submit required SIP 

revisions and an additional 18 months 

to implement controls). Should factspecific-circumstances arise that would 

necessitate a further adjustment of 

deadlines for a particular nonattainment 

area, the EPA is reserving the right to 

establish different implementation 

deadlines for reclassified areas in 

separate notice-and-comment 

rulemakings. 

Comment: One commenter (0037) 

believes that there is no basis in the 

CAA for the EPA to require 

implementation of controls any sooner 

than 18 months after the proposed SIP 

submittal deadline in any given instance 

of reclassification. The commenter notes 

that the EPA provides no statutory basis 

for triggering obligations in advance of 

a full calendar ‘‘attainment year’’ before 

the year in which the attainment date 

falls. The commenter claims that the 

EPA risks upending a state’s due 

consideration of controls and its overall 

discretion to implement controls to 

attain the NAAQS consistent with the 

state’s overall economic and air quality 

priorities by rushing states to implement 

controls. 

Another commenter (0044) believes 

that the EPA’s proposal impermissibly 

fails to provide states adequate time to 

fully implement RACT, thereby 

undermining long-term attainment and 

maintenance of the ozone NAAQS. This 

commenter urges the EPA to clarify that, 

while interim RACT must be 

implemented as expeditiously as 

practicable, and no later than prior to 

the beginning of the applicable 

attainment year ozone season, RACT 

must nevertheless be fully implemented 

even if this necessitates that some 

components of RACT are implemented 

subsequent to that attainment year date. 

By requiring RACT to be fully 

implemented by deadlines that are 

already only slightly more than a year 

out, the commenter claims that the EPA 

unlawfully precludes states from 

implementing the full suite of controls 

that meet the definition of RACT. 

Similarly, another commenter (0032) 

recommends that the EPA should 

extend the deadline for newly 

implemented RACT, just as it does for 

I/M programs. The commenter asserts 

that the EPA proposed to allow newly 

required Basic and Enhanced I/M 

programs to be fully implemented no 

later than 4 years after the effective date 

of reclassification, so long as states do 

not intend to rely upon emission 

reductions from their newly required 

Basic or Enhanced I/M program in 

attainment or RFP SIPs. The commenter 

believes that this more flexible 

timeframe should also extend to RACT 

because states will not be able to rely on 

RACT for their reclassified 2015 ozone 

Serious areas by including reductions 

from it by January 1, 2026, if they 

cannot practically implement by that 

date. The commenter asserts that states 

will be forced to exclude newly 

implemented RACT from modeling and 

RFP demonstrations when performing 

2026 attainment year modeling and 

projections. 

Response: We are finalizing the 

default RACT implementation deadline 

as proposed. As an initial matter, we 

disagree with the commenter’s 

contention that EPA lacks a statutory 

basis for establishing a default deadline 

for RACT implementation in advance of 

the full calendar ‘‘attainment year’’ (i.e., 

the year before the year in which the 

attainment date falls). CAA section 

182(i) delegates to EPA the authority to 

‘‘adjust any applicable deadlines (other 

than attainment dates) to the extent 

such adjustment is necessary or 

appropriate to assure consistency among 

the required submissions’’ (emphasis 

added). Commenter points to no 

limitation on the EPA’s authority 

contained in the relevant statutory 

language to support the commenter’s 

position. We also disagree with the 

commenter’s contention that the RACT 

implementation deadline fails to 

provide states adequate time to fully 

implement RACT and unlawfully 

precludes states from implementing the 

full suite of controls that meet the 

definition of RACT. Nothing in this rule 

reopens or alters the EPA’s longstanding 

definition of RACT18 as the lowest 

emission limit that a particular source is 

capable of meeting by the application of 

control technology that is reasonably 

available considering technological and 

economic feasibility. The EPA always 

has, and will continue to, evaluate state 

RACT SIP submittals against this 

definition, and states remain obligated 

to implement RACT-level controls in 

nonattainment areas by any applicable 

implementation deadline. We 

acknowledge that timely RACT 

implementation may be difficult. 

However, we note that the 

implementation of controls is intended 

to help states expeditiously attain the 

NAAQS no later than the attainment 

date. If a state adopts new or additional 

control measures as RACT and relies on 

the emission reductions caused by those 

control measures to demonstrate RFP 

and/or attainment, those states must 

implement such RACT as expeditiously 

as practicable, but no later than a date 

by which the state can achieve 

emissions reductions that positively 

influence an area’s monitored design 

value (e.g., the earlier of 18 months from 

the applicable SIP due date or the 

beginning of the attainment year ozone 

season). Further, it is important to 

establish a generic RACT 

implementation deadline to provide 

advance notice and certainty to states so 

that they can undertake preparation and 

advanced planning, as appropriate, to 

timely implement any applicable RACT 

controls. Given these considerations, in 

establishing a generic default timeline 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 5663 

19 89 FR 80833, 80839 (October 4, 2024). 

20 89 FR 80833, 80847 (October 4, 2024). 

21 89 FR 80833, 80840 (October 4, 2024). 

22 40 CFR 51.1308(d) 

in this rule, the EPA is setting the RACT 

implementation deadline to provide at 

least one full ozone season in advance 

of an area’s maximum attainment date 

for implemented controls to achieve 

emission reductions and positively 

influence an area’s monitored design 

value.19 Delays in implementing RACT 

controls associated with reclassification 

would delay related air quality 

improvements and human health 

benefits for residents across reclassified 

areas. However, the regulations being 

finalized here preserve flexibility for the 

EPA in future individual actions to take 

a different approach to the RACT 

implementation deadline for specific 

areas following notice-and-comment 

rulemaking. 

With respect to commenter’s 

suggestion that the EPA establish a 

longer implementation horizon for 

RACT, including beyond the attainment 

date, we appreciate these comments and 

will take them under advisement for 

potential future notice and comment 

rulemaking. As noted in the proposal 

and in other portions of this final action, 

the EPA has long taken the position that 

the statutory requirement for states to 

assess and adopt RACT for sources in 

ozone nonattainment areas classified 

Moderate and higher is independent 

from the attainment demonstration for 

such areas and is not directly linked to 

the attainment date.20 The EPA 

acknowledges that the Agency could, 

where appropriate, afford additional 

flexibility in the timeline for 

implementing RACT. Accordingly, as 

with the other default deadlines 

finalized as part of this rule, the EPA is 

reserving the right to establish a 

different RACT implementation 

deadline for reclassified areas in a 

separate notice-and-comment 

rulemaking, consistent with its 

authority under CAA section 182(i) and 

the CAA’s requirements that areas 

expeditiously attain the NAAQS. 

e. Deadline for I/M Implementation 

Comment: One commenter (0030) 

recommends that the EPA should align 

the deadlines for I/M programs with the 

deadlines for control measure 

implementation, within 18 months of 

SIP submission or before the beginning 

of the ozone season. The commenter 

notes that this will ensure consistent 

submission deadlines, which support 

the goal of the proposed ruling. The 

commenter cited studies asserting that 

mobile sources are a major cause of 

health impacts because they are one of 

the largest contributors to ozoneforming emissions in the U.S., and 

therefore the commenter believes that I/ 

M programs must be integrated in a 

timely manner to reduce negative health 

impacts. They also state that because the 

EPA emphasized that some SIPs rely on 

ozone emission reductions via I/M 

programs, it would be counterintuitive 

to allow I/M programs to be 

implemented up to 4 years after the 

effective date of reclassification despite 

other control measures being 

implemented within 18 months. 

Response: We agree with the 

commenter that, for SIPs that rely on 

emission reductions from I/M programs, 

it would be counterintuitive to allow 

any new or revised I/M programs to be 

fully implemented beyond the 

beginning of the attaining ozone season. 

We explained at proposal that an I/M 

implementation deadline of as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later 

than the beginning of the attainment 

year ozone season applies to reclassified 

areas relying on emission reductions 

from their newly required Basic or 

Enhanced I/M programs for attainment 

or RFP purposes: 

With respect to the default implementation 

deadlines for Basic and Enhanced I/M 

programs required as the result of a 

mandatory reclassification, states wishing to 

use emission reductions from their newly 

required I/M programs for the ozone NAAQS 

would need to have such programs fully 

established and start testing as expeditiously 

as practicable, but no later than the beginning 

of the applicable attainment year ozone 

season, consistent with the CAA principle 

(and logic) that measures that are needed to 

demonstrate attainment by the attainment 

date must be in place early enough to impact 

the air quality design value that will be used 

to determine whether the area attained by 

that date.21

The EPA’s requirement in this action 

that states relying on I/M emission 

reductions in their attainment or RFP 

SIPs is consistent with the 2015 ozone 

implementation rule which requires all 

control measures in the attainment plan 

and demonstration to be implemented 

no later than the beginning of the 

attainment year ozone season.22

However, for states that do not intend to 

rely upon emission reductions from 

their newly required Basic or Enhanced 

I/M programs in attainment or RFP SIPs, 

we maintain, as proposed, that it is 

reasonable to allow these newly 

required Basic or Enhanced I/M 

programs to be fully implemented no 

later than 4 years after the effective date 

of reclassification considering the 

numerous challenges and milestones 

necessary in establishing a new or 

revised I/M program. While mobile 

sources can be a significant source of 

ozone-forming emissions, I/M is not the 

only CAA program that generates 

emission reductions from mobile 

sources. 

Comment: One commenter (0032) 

believes that the EPA is promulgating a 

rule that ensures new I/M programs 

could not be relied on for SIP planning 

because there is no practical way to start 

a new I/M program in the proposed 

timeframe of the beginning of the 

applicable attainment year ozone 

season. 

Response: We respectfully note that 

the commenter offered no evidence to 

support a finding that there is no 

practical way to start a new I/M program 

in the proposed timeframe of the 

beginning of the applicable attainment 

year ozone season. 

In practice, many areas where new 

Basic I/M or Enhanced I/M SIP revisions 

are required as the result of a 

reclassification for a new ozone NAAQS 

may already be operating I/M programs 

for a variety of reasons, including to 

satisfy requirements from designation as 

nonattainment and classification as 

Moderate or above under a prior ozone 

NAAQS. Such areas may use emissions 

reductions from these programs in 

attainment SIPs if they have also 

submitted a new I/M SIP revision for 

such NAAQS that meets the applicable 

Basic or Enhanced I/M requirements for 

the new classification. 

For areas that might need to start a 

new I/M program or revise their existing 

program as the result of a 

reclassification, we realize that 

implementing a new or revised I/M 

program on an accelerated timeline may 

be difficult given the unique nature of 

I/M programs, and many challenges, 

tasks, and milestones that must be met. 

However, as discussed in other 

responses to comments in this 

document, an I/M implementation 

deadline, for reclassified areas intending 

to rely on emission reductions from 

their newly required Basic or Enhanced 

I/M program in attainment or RFP SIPs, 

as expeditiously as practicable but no 

later than the beginning of the 

attainment ozone season is consistent 

with the CAA and is pursuant to the 

existing implementing regulations for 

the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

Comment: One commenter (0044) 

urges the EPA to require states to 

implement I/M programs as 

expeditiously as practicable, and no 

later than a timeline that can influence 

attainment year air quality. The 

commenter asserts that the EPA’s 

proposal to allow I/M program 

implementation after the attainment 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
5664 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

23 John S. Seitz, Memo, Reasonable Further 

Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related 

Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas 

Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard, May 10, 1995, at 4. 

24EPA–HQ–OAR–2024–0333–0044 commenter 

letter at 13. 

25See, e.g., 87 FR 60897 (October 7, 2022) 

(establishing Basic I/M implementation deadlines 

for areas reclassified from Marginal to Moderate for 

the 2015 ozone NAAQS); 89 FR 51829 (June 20, 

2024) (establishing Enhanced I/M implementation 

deadlines for certain Texas areas that were 

voluntarily reclassified from Moderate to Serious 

for the 2015 ozone NAAQS). 

deadline is unlawful and arbitrary. First, 

the commenter asserts that the EPA’s 

proposed timeline is contrary to the 

express indications of Congressional 

intent, which stipulates that pollution 

control requirements for nonattainment 

areas are to take effect before the 

attainment deadline. In the case of 

Enhanced I/M programs, Congress’s 

intent was that they take effect on the 

same timeline as plans for their 

submission. Second, the commenter 

states that the EPA’s reading 

undermines the limits on its discretion 

regarding subpart 2 of the Act, contrary 

to governing precedent. Third, the 

commenter claims that the EPA wrongly 

reads 40 CFR 51.373(d) as allowing 

implementation to take 4 years from the 

date of reclassification. Instead, the 

commenter notes that the regulation 

provides that the required Enhanced I/ 

M Program ‘‘shall be fully implemented 

no later than 4 years after the effective 

date of designation and classification 

under the 8-hour ozone standard.’’ The 

commenter believes that ‘‘the effective 

date of designation and classification’’ is 

not the same as the effective date of 

‘‘reclassification’’ because designation 

and reclassification did not occur on the 

same date. The commenter notes that 

the same is true for Basic I/M. Finally, 

the commenter asserts that it is 

inherently unreasonable, arbitrary, and 

capricious for the EPA to allow an 

implementation deadline for I/M 

Programs that is later than the relevant 

area attainment dates because mobile 

source emission reductions are so 

important for reducing ambient ozone 

levels. 

Response: We agree with the 

commenter that the I/M rule at 40 CFR 

51.373(d) regarding the I/M 

implementation deadline is directly 

applicable only for areas initially 

designated and classified. But we do not 

agree that the EPA cannot consider that 

regulatory timeframe in adjusting 

schedules for implementation of newly 

applicable I/M programs following an 

area reclassification under CAA sections 

182(i) and 301(a). While as a general 

matter, we agree that expeditious 

attainment of the NAAQS is best served 

by implementing control measures in 

advance of area attainment dates, and 

ideally in time to influence attainment 

by the attainment date, we are also 

cognizant that many, if not all, of the 

components of an I/M program permit 

consideration of feasibility within a 

given time frame. A list of these items 

that must be included in an I/M SIP is 

enumerated in 40 CFR 51.372(a). For 

example, establishment of the 

inspection network, the request for 

proposal process to select an inspection 

hardware/software service provider, 

inspector recruitment, training and 

licensing, changes to the state’s vehicle 

registration process, as well as public 

notification, outreach and education are 

components to an I/M program that, 

based on the experience of the EPA and 

implementing states, we know to be 

time-intensive and difficult to feasibly 

accomplish on an accelerated 

timeframe. 

As discussed in the proposal, CAA 

section 182(i) specifically provides 

authority to the EPA to adjust applicable 

deadlines (other than attainment dates) 

for areas that are reclassified as a result 

of failure to attain under CAA section 

182(b)(2), to the extent such adjustment 

is necessary or appropriate to assure 

consistency among the required 

submissions. The EPA is establishing 

the same default I/M implementation 

deadline under its general rulemaking 

authority in CAA section 301(a), in the 

context of implementing subpart 2 

planning requirements, for voluntarily 

reclassified areas. We acknowledge that 

for initially designated and classified 

areas, all of the submission and 

implementation deadlines in subpart 2 

occur prior to the attainment deadline, 

and that ideally, states would similarly 

address all newly applicable subpart 2 

requirements for reclassified areas in 

time to influence an area’s air quality by 

the next attainment date. This is in large 

part why all of the other default 

deadlines for reclassified ozone areas in 

this action have been adjusted 

consistent with that approach. 

We do not agree, however, that CAA 

section 182(i), or subpart 2 generally, 

explicitly prohibits the establishment of 

any deadline beyond the attainment 

date. Section 182(i) states that states 

containing reclassified areas shall meet 

the applicable subpart 2 requirements 

‘‘according to the schedules prescribed 

in connection with such requirements’’ 

in granting the EPA discretion to adjust 

such deadlines other than the 

attainment date. The EPA’s 

establishment of the default I/M 

implementation deadline of no later 

than 4 years after the effective date of 

reclassification is a limited exercise of 

its discretion under CAA section 182(i) 

to provide one deadline that extends 

beyond the attainment date. The Agency 

has a longstanding position that the 

statutory requirement for states to 

implement I/M in ozone nonattainment 

areas classified Moderate and higher 

generally exists independently from the 

attainment planning requirements for 

such areas, and specifically the 

attainment date.23 We note that the 

same commenter taking issue with the 

EPA’s post-attainment date 

implementation deadline for I/M 

elsewhere argues that the EPA should 

establish RACT implementation 

deadlines ‘‘even if compliance 

timeframes extend beyond the 

applicable attainment year ozone 

season.’’ 24

We agree that given section 182(i)’s 

requirement that the EPA assure 

consistency among required 

submissions and the Act’s overall 

emphasis that areas expeditiously attain 

the NAAQS, it would be unlawful for 

the EPA to adjust all submission and 

implementation deadlines for 

reclassified areas such that those 

deadlines fell after the newly applicable 

attainment dates. But the EPA’s action 

here with respect to providing this 

limited I/M implementation extension 

for states that do not intend to rely upon 

emission reductions from their newly 

required Basic or Enhanced I/M 

program in attainment or RFP SIPs is 

not inconsistent with the Act’s goal of 

attainment of the NAAQS; under the 

EPA’s default deadlines, areas must still 

submit and implement all control 

measures necessary to achieve 

attainment by the attainment date no 

later than the beginning of the 

attainment year ozone season. The 

EPA’s final action providing this limited 

extended I/M implementation deadline 

for certain reclassified ozone 

nonattainment areas also aligns with 

past practice for both mandatorily and 

voluntarily reclassified areas.25 We do 

not dispute that mobile source emission 

reductions are an important component 

to reducing ambient ozone levels, but 

we do not agree with commenter that 

this fact necessarily renders the final 

default I/M implementation deadline of 

4 years from the effective date of 

reclassification (for areas not relying on 

I/M reductions in attainment or RFP 

SIPs) to be ‘‘inherently unreasonable, 

arbitrary, and capricious.’’ Emissions 

from mobile sources can be and are 

addressed under the CAA in other 

programs besides I/M, including Federal 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 5665 

26The EPA’s interpretation regarding leftover SIP 

requirements when an area has been reclassified is 

specific to the ozone NAAQS, and as codified in 

this final rule, does not apply to any other NAAQS. 

vehicle standards, and states may also 

seek ways to reduce and mitigate mobile 

source emissions consistent with the 

CAA in their plans to attain by the 

attainment date. 

B. Status of Certain Requirements of 

Former Classification 

1. Summary of Proposal 

The EPA proposed regulations to 

codify its existing interpretation that, 

following reclassification to Moderate, 

Serious, or Severe, certain ozone SIP 

requirements for the lower, former 

classification will still be required. 

Specifically, the EPA restated its 

interpretation that ozone nonattainment 

area planning requirements continue to 

apply following a change in an area’s 

classification level, except where the 

EPA has specifically determined that 

the planning requirement is no longer 

applicable. A state is no longer required 

to submit SIP revisions addressing the 

following requirements related to the 

prior classification level for an ozone 

nonattainment area: (1) for areas that are 

mandatorily or voluntarily reclassified, 

a demonstration of attainment by the 

prior attainment date; (2) for areas that 

are mandatorily or voluntarily 

reclassified, a RACM analysis tied to the 

prior attainment date; and (3) for areas 

that are voluntarily reclassified before 

the lower classification’s attainment 

date, contingency measures specifically 

related to the area’s failure to attain by 

the attainment date associated with the 

prior classification. 

2. Final Rule 

The EPA is finalizing regulatory text 

in line with the Agency’s position as 

described in the proposal. Planning 

requirements applicable to the lower, 

former classification for the ozone 

NAAQS 26 continue to be legally 

required following a change in an area’s 

classification level, except: (1) the 

attainment demonstration; (2) RACM; 

and (3) for areas that are voluntarily 

reclassified, contingency measures to 

address failure to attain by the 

attainment date associated with the 

prior classification. Although the EPA’s 

position is unchanged from proposal, 

the final regulatory text reflects minor 

changes from the proposed text. This 

includes minor changes based on 

comments, as noted in the next section. 

We also made minor revisions to the 

definitions of ‘‘former attainment date’’ 

and ‘‘former classification’’ to ensure 

clarity that former attainment dates and 

former classifications include every 

classification assigned to an area before 

it was reclassified, not exclusively the 

immediately preceding classification 

(e.g., an area initially classified as 

Moderate that was subsequently 

reclassified as Serious and then 

reclassified again as Severe remains 

legally responsible for requirements 

associated with Moderate and Serious 

classifications as outlined in this rule, 

in addition to the new requirements for 

Severe). 

3. Comments and Responses 

Comment: Two commenters (0036, 

0044) generally support the EPA’s 

policy on leftover SIP requirements. 

One of these commenters (0036) 

believes that the EPA should finalize its 

proposal that most SIP requirements 

from an area’s prior classification 

continue to apply following 

reclassification because these 

requirements include important, CAArequired ozone reduction programs, as 

well as requirements to demonstrate 

progress towards attainment. The 

commenter emphasizes that it is critical 

that states implement these programs in 

general, and implement these programs 

on the original deadlines. The other 

commenter (0044) states that the CAA 

does not allow reclassification to result 

in the elimination of unmet SIP 

requirements that do not depend on the 

superseded attainment deadline. The 

commenter believes that the proposed 

approach is not only reasonable, but 

compelled by the CAA’s carefully 

constructed statutory scheme, which 

does not contemplate fewer or different 

requirements for reclassified areas when 

compared to those areas initially given 

that same classification when 

designated nonattainment. To arrive at 

the contrary conclusion would allow 

areas struggling with ozone air pollution 

to skirt otherwise applicable SIP 

requirements, which would be 

unreconcilable with Congress’s 

discretion-limiting intent in enacting 

the ozone nonattainment requirements. 

Response: The EPA agrees with the 

commenters and is finalizing the 

deadlines as proposed with minor 

clarifications as discussed elsewhere in 

this document. 

Comment: Two commenters (0041, 

0042) assert that the EPA’s policy on 

leftover SIP requirements is neither 

required nor supported by statutory 

provisions that the EPA cites in the 

proposed rule, and requests that the 

EPA reconsider the policy. One 

commenter (0041) states that the CAA 

section 182(i) does not give the EPA 

‘‘gap filling’’ authority to specify what 

requirements apply to an area that has 

been reclassified, and legislative history 

indicates that Congress did not intend 

for requirements of a former 

classification to apply upon 

reclassification to a higher 

classification. The commenter notes that 

the reference to submissions under CAA 

sections 182(b) and (c) contained in 

sections 182(c) and (d) make no mention 

of the situation where an area has been 

reclassified (and thus should not be 

interpreted to apply to a 

reclassification). Instead, the commenter 

believes that these provisions should be 

read to mean classifications under 

subpart 2 impose cumulative, but not 

what the commenter considers 

duplicative, requirements. 

Two commenters (0037, 0042) believe 

that all requirements associated with an 

area’s prior classification are 

superseded, and no longer due, with 

more stringent requirements upon 

reclassification to a higher 

classification. One of these commenters 

(0042) claims that requiring a state to 

submit and have the EPA act on 

superseded prior classification elements 

would make no logical or practical 

sense. 

One commenter (0041) believes that 

the EPA’s proposed distinction between 

SIP elements ‘‘inherently tied’’ to an 

attainment date and SIP elements 

‘‘independent’’ of an attainment date is 

not supported by statute. The 

commenter asserts that, under the EPA’s 

proposed statutory interpretation, 

requirements that are tied to attainment 

dates are transitory requirements that 

are supplanted if an area is reclassified 

to a higher level of nonattainment, 

while other requirements in CAA 

section 182 are effectively immutable 

and are not affected by a change in an 

area’s classification. The commenter 

disagrees with the EPA’s assertion that 

the SIP elements associated with an 

area’s CAA section 181 classification are 

‘‘generally cumulative from Marginal up 

to Extreme’’ and that ‘‘[t]he requirement 

to submit such elements remains 

applicable, and the submittal and 

implementation deadlines are 

unchanged.’’ The commenter believes 

that a more rational reading of the 

statute is that reclassification resets not 

only the timing of attainment, but also 

which SIP requirements are applicable 

and the timeframe under which states 

and localities must satisfy such 

requirements. The commenter states 

that it is difficult to reconcile why an 

area initially designated as being in 

Moderate nonattainment (and then 

reclassified to Serious nonattainment) 

would be treated differently from an 

area initially designated as being in 

Serious nonattainment. The commenter 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
5666 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

27The term ‘‘triggered’’ for CMs refers to the EPA 

having made a final determination that requires 

implementation of the CMs, such as a final 

determination that a nonattainment area has failed 

to meet RFP or has failed to attain a NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date. See Joseph Goffman, 

Guidance on the Preparation of State 

Implementation Plan Provisions that Address the 

Nonattainment Area Contingency Measure 

Requirements for Ozone and Particulate Matter, 

December 3, 2024, at 3, available at https://

www.epa.gov/air-quality-implementation-plans/ 

final-contingency-measures-guidance. 

further asserts that a straightforward 

reading of the provision indicates that: 

(1) reclassified areas are only subject to 

requirements that apply to them under 

a new classification (i.e., requirements 

‘‘as may be applicable to the area as 

reclassified’’); and (2) the EPA’s 

Administrator’s authority pursuant to 

CAA section 182(i) is constrained to 

adjusting ‘‘applicable deadlines’’ and 

not ‘‘applicable requirements.’’ The 

commenter asserts that this reading 

gives full force to the increasing burden 

placed on reclassified areas pursuant to 

subpart 2 but CAA section 182(i) does 

not grant the EPA Administrator 

authority to continue to impose 

requirements that have been superseded 

by more stringent requirements. 

Additionally, the commenter asserts 

that because reclassification (voluntary 

or mandatory) effectively increases the 

obligations imposed on states and 

localities to meet RFP and provide 

sufficient contingency measures, the 

commenter believes that the EPA’s 

interpretation adds to that burden 

without appreciable benefit. 

One commenter (0037) urges the EPA 

to conclude that a voluntary 

reclassification moots all leftover SIP 

elements from the previous 

classification and any sanctions, where 

applicable, associated with the failure to 

submit those elements for approval. The 

commenter believes that the CAA 

recognizes that a state can exercise its 

authority to request a voluntary 

reclassification, and therefore moot all 

elements required under the prior 

classification, because the purpose of 

the reclassification is to permit a state 

to take the most effective steps to 

achieve the NAAQS on the timeline laid 

out for the new classification. In 

addition, the commenter states that, 

even if the EPA holds to its position that 

these previous classification elements 

are not tied to the attainment deadline, 

the elements remain tied to the 

classification itself and change 

alongside it. The commenter further 

believes it is arbitrary and contrary to 

the CAA to impose requirements, or to 

continue potential sanctions where 

applicable, when the purported 

elements are associated with deadlines 

that have already passed for an area that 

will be subject to a more stringent 

classification. In addition, the 

commenter asserts that continuing to 

require elements associated with a 

lower classification places unnecessary 

burdens upon states and diverts 

resources from focusing on the 

requirements of the more stringent 

classification. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the 

commenters. The EPA’s interpretation 

of the CAA regarding what SIP 

requirements remain due following 

reclassification is supported by and 

consistent with the relevant statutory 

provisions and is the best interpretation 

of relevant CAA provisions. Subsections 

(b) through (d) of CAA section 182 cover 

the required SIP revisions for Moderate 

(182(b)), Serious (182(c)), and Severe 

(182(d)), and those requirements are 

generally cumulative. See, e.g., CAA 

section 182(b) (requiring Moderate areas 

to make submissions relating to 

Marginal areas in addition to the 

revisions for the Moderate 

classification). In CAA section 182(i), 

the statutory language also indicates 

that the requirements of each 

classification are cumulative. The EPA 

interprets the provision ‘‘shall meet 

such requirements of subsections (b) 

through (d) . . . as may be applicable to 

the area reclassified’’ to require from a 

state any and all of the elements 

contained in subsections (b) through (d) 

that apply, not only the elements from 

subsection (b) or subsection (c) or 

subsection (d) in isolation. The state 

must meet requirements of subsections 

(b) through (d)—i.e., subsection b, 

subsection c, and subsection d rather 

than subsection b, subsection c, or 

subsection d—that apply, and elements 

of multiple classifications may be 

applicable at any given point to the area 

being reclassified. 

The commenter’s characterization of 

the EPA’s action as using section 182(i) 

to justify adjusting the requirements is 

misplaced. The EPA is not adjusting the 

requirements but rather providing 

clarity on what the requirements are. 

The EPA interprets the CAA such that 

when areas are reclassified to a higher 

classification of nonattainment, those 

areas will become responsible for the 

statutory duties imposed under the new 

classification and remain responsible 

for the statutory duties imposed under 

any prior, lower classifications that it 

was classified as, except for such 

elements inherently tied to the 

attainment date of the lower 

classification. The EPA disagrees with 

the commenter’s claim that the CAA 

does not support the EPA’s distinction 

between SIP elements ‘‘inherently tied’’ 

to an attainment date and SIP elements 

‘‘independent’’ of an attainment date. 

To give sensible construction to the 

terms of the CAA and avoid an absurd 

result, common sense necessitates an 

exception for elements inherently tied 

to a date in the past. There is only one 

attainment date that applies at any given 

time to a singular nonattainment area 

for a given ozone NAAQS, and the CAA 

does not require attainment 

demonstrations for attainment dates that 

are not applicable to the area. Because 

the former classification’s attainment 

date is no longer applicable, it is 

therefore no longer relevant—and is 

indeed, impossible—for the area to 

demonstrate attainment with respect to 

it. As explained in more detail in a later 

comment response, this same logic 

applies to RACM. Similarly, there are no 

requirements to have contingency 

measures tied to the prior 

classification’s attainment date in a 

situation where an area can never be 

found to have failed to attain by a no 

longer relevant attainment date. 

The EPA does not entirely disagree 

with the commenter’s characterization 

of the elements inherently tied to the 

attainment date as ‘‘transitory’’ but 

notes that these elements are timebound in a manner unique to them in 

that once the attainment date has 

passed, those elements are, as a matter 

of logic, impossible to fulfill. No reading 

of the statute can alter the practical 

reality that once the attainment date has 

passed and an area has failed to attain, 

no steps can be taken by any State nor 

the EPA to demonstrate that an area 

would meet a factual scenario that did 

not come to pass, i.e., attain the ozone 

NAAQS by the attainment date, when 

the area failed to attain by the 

attainment date. Similarly, after the 

attainment date, a RACM analysis can 

only be a null set of measures because 

it is impossible to advance an area’s 

attainment by a year earlier than the 

attainment date after that attainment 

date has come and gone. With respect to 

voluntary reclassification, there is no 

purpose in requiring a state to have 

contingency measures that could never 

be triggered by failure to attain by an 

attainment date that no longer exists.27

Similarly, a state cannot plan around 

meeting an attainment date that has 

been superseded. It is this 

characteristic—that these elements are 

impossible to fulfill—that distinguishes 

leftover SIP elements from the otherwise 

cumulative set of requirements 

enshrined in the CAA’s ozone 

nonattainment classifications. It is an 

exception to avoid an absurd result. 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 5667 

28CAA section 182(c)(2)(B) for Serious area 

provisions and section 182(b)(1) for Moderate 

provisions. 

29CAA section 110(k) requires that the EPA act 

on any submitted SIP revision, regardless of 

Continued 

The EPA disagrees with the 

commenters that believe that all 

requirements associated with an area’s 

prior classification should be 

superseded, or that by establishing the 

system of increasing levels of 

nonattainment (i.e., classifications), 

Congress meant for the elements of the 

lower classification to become obsolete 

upon reclassification. The CAA 

provides no language suggesting that 

reclassification nullifies the statutory 

obligations imposed on a state under its 

former classification, and commenters 

provide no explanation of their 

perceived statutory argument to support 

a claim that the elements of the former 

classification are no longer required. 

Another commenter’s assertion that 

because the EPA would not require 

elements of classifications lower than 

the area’s initial classification (e.g., for 

an area initially classified as Serious, 

requiring elements of Moderate areas), 

this means that continuing to require 

elements of lower classifications after an 

area has been reclassified imposes 

duplicative rather than cumulative 

requirements is similarly flawed. The 

mere fact that an area is reclassified is 

not a sufficient basis to determine that 

a CAA requirement imposed on the area 

under a prior classification no longer 

applies, and there is no language in the 

statute which necessitates or supports 

such a position. The commenters have 

not identified how the statutory 

language supports a finding that 

elements of each classification are 

additive yet not preserved upon 

reclassification. 

Reclassification to a higher 

classification is not designed to halt 

progress toward achieving the NAAQS 

under the prior classification, but rather 

the opposite. Reclassification is an 

acknowledgment that an area needs 

additional time to attain the NAAQS, 

and that it needs to implement more 

stringent requirements and controls in 

order to attain. The cumulative 

requirements of each classification 

Congress specified in the Act—though 

necessitating a dedication of time and 

resources by states—provide an 

intentional, measurable pathway to 

attainment. The purpose of establishing 

plan requirements for ozone 

nonattainment areas is to establish and 

obligate states to take the most effective 

steps to achieve the NAAQS, which 

include all of those steps outlined in the 

sections of part D applicable to ozone 

from the least stringent associated with 

an area’s initial classification to the 

most stringent associated with its 

highest classification. 

While one commenter claims that 

requiring a state to submit and have the 

EPA act on superseded prior 

classification elements would make no 

logical or practical sense, to the 

contrary, Congress’s choice to identify 

steps guiding states toward achieving 

attainment logically reflects its intent 

for each step to count. This is especially 

true given the requirement that EPA 

must reclassify areas with persistent 

nonattainment problems, with each 

successive reclassification resulting in 

requirements to adopt more rigorous SIP 

elements. Under the commenter’s 

proposed reading, reclassification resets 

not only the timing of attainment and 

the degree of stringency of SIPs 

required, but also interrupts and 

resets—or in some cases cancels—the 

implementation of the requirements of 

the area’s former classification. The 

steps Congress enshrined in the CAA as 

appropriate to achieve attainment 

would be obsolete, and areas that are 

further from achieving the CAA goal of 

maintaining ambient ozone levels below 

the threshold requisite to protect public 

health and welfare (i.e., the primary and 

secondary ozone NAAQS) would be 

able to skip, or at least delay, steps that 

Congress directed them to take. For 

example, the Serious area RFP 

provisions begin in the 6th year after 

designation and establish milestones for 

3 percent annual reductions for each 3- 

year period thereafter.28 But the 

Moderate area RFP provisions require 

15 percent reductions over the first 6 

years after designation. Commenters’ 

logic would make the Moderate 

requirement obsolete upon 

reclassification to Serious, resulting in 

an interpretation that 15% reductions 

were no longer required for the first 6 

years the area was nonattainment; only 

the Serious area requirement would 

apply starting in the 7th year. Clearly 

this is not consistent with the language 

or purpose of the RFP provisions of the 

statute, which are intended to avoid this 

kind of delay in reductions, and this 

example demonstrates how the 

commenter’s assertion that such 

submissions are ‘‘duplicative’’ is flawed. 

Under such a reading, it would be 

fully possible for a state to elude duties 

imposed on them under the CAA by 

waiting until the attainment date has 

nearly passed, requesting a voluntary 

reclassification, and waiting for the next 

attainment date to request an additional 

voluntary reclassification without 

planning for, making, or demonstrating 

meaningful progress toward achieving 

the NAAQS. Congress could not have 

intended to render the NAAQS and the 

steps it prescribed to achieve the 

NAAQS wholly irrelevant with such a 

loophole. Introducing new requirements 

(e.g., requiring an area initially 

classified as Serious to submit elements 

of Moderate areas) is clearly distinct 

from enforcing existing requirements. 

The CAA does not relieve a state of its 

existing requirements upon 

reclassification, with the exception of 

elements inherently tied to the 

attainment date for the reasons 

described elsewhere in this document. 

Under the EPA’s interpretation, states 

remain obligated to address 

requirements associated with the lower 

classifications to which they were 

assigned even following voluntary 

reclassification, with the limited 

exception of elements directly tied to 

the attainment date. The consequences 

associated with failure to submit 

elements of a lower classification 

remain unchanged upon voluntary 

reclassification with the limited 

exception of elements directly tied to 

the attainment date. 

With respect to the comment asserting 

that a voluntary reclassification should 

moot any sanctions associated with a 

failure to submit the SIP elements 

associated with a prior classification, 

the EPA agrees only with respect to the 

leftover SIP elements that we consider 

to no longer be required submissions 

after a voluntary or mandatory 

reclassification, as applicable. Pursuant 

to CAA section 179(a)(1)–(2), a finding 

of failure to submit or final disapproval 

of a SIP submission required under part 

D, title I of the CAA triggers the 

imposition of sanctions under CAA 

section 179(b). See also 40 CFR 52.31. 

Similarly, a finding of failure to submit 

or final disapproval of a required SIP 

submission triggers the EPA’s obligation 

to promulgate a Federal Implementation 

Plan (FIP) under CAA section 

110(c)(1)(B). 

Accordingly, if there is currently a FIP 

and sanctions clock associated with 

either (1) a finding of failure to submit, 

or (2) a prior disapproval of, a SIP 

submission that is no longer considered 

to be a required submission due to an 

intervening reclassification, the EPA 

would consider the reclassification 

action to moot the FIP and sanctions 

clocks. Similarly, if the EPA 

disapproves a SIP submission that is no 

longer considered to be a required 

submission due to an intervening 

reclassification, there would be no FIP 

or sanctions clock associated with a 

disapproval of that submission.29 In 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
5668 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

whether the submission is considered to be 

required to meet applicable CAA requirements. A 

state may withdraw a SIP submission, and then 

EPA considers there to be no remaining obligation 

to act on that SIP revision. 

30State Implementation Plans; General Preamble 

for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air 

Act Amendments of 1990, Proposed Rule, 57 FR 

13507 (April 16, 1992). 

31 44 FR 20372, 20375 (April 4, 1979). 

other words, because a state no longer 

has a legal obligation to submit the 

relevant SIP submissions that are no 

longer required for the reasons 

described in this action, the failure to 

submit or disapproval of such 

submissions would not trigger 

imposition of mandatory sanctions 

under CAA section 179 and 40 CFR 

52.31, or a FIP obligation under CAA 

section 110(c). 

Comment: Four commenters (0036, 

0037, 0038, 0039) agree with the EPA’s 

position on leftover SIP requirements 

regarding attainment demonstrations 

and RACM. However, one commenter 

(0044) disagrees with the EPA’s position 

on leftover SIP requirements related to 

RACM and urges the EPA not to finalize 

its proposal that reclassification of a 

nonattainment area, whether by 

mandatory or voluntary reclassification, 

excuses the states’ obligation to adopt 

all RACM for the previous classification. 

The commenter claims that the plain 

language of the CAA establishes RACM 

as a mandatory part of each 

nonattainment plan, and expressly 

requires that each nonattainment plan 

implement all RACM. In addition, the 

commenter states that the text and 

structure of the CAA make clear that the 

requirement to adopt all RACM is in 

addition to, and independent from, the 

requirement to provide for timely 

attainment and there is nothing in the 

text of the statute suggesting that the 

requirement to impose all RACM is 

predicated on any particular attainment 

deadline. Furthermore, to the extent that 

the EPA believes that RACM is tied to 

an attainment date, or only relevant if 

such measures can ‘‘advance attainment 

date by 1 year,’’ the commenter believes 

that the EPA has failed to articulate how 

that rationale is consistent with the 

plain text of the CAA. Finally, the 

commenter claims that the CAA’s 

paramount purpose of protecting public 

health supports ensuring that 

reclassified areas continue to implement 

all RACM as expeditiously as 

practicable, regardless of any new 

attainment deadline. Excusing 

reclassified areas from the CAA’s RACM 

requirements creates a perverse 

incentive for states to simply request 

reclassification or run out the 

attainment deadline clock, thereby 

avoiding any need to evaluate or impose 

reasonable pollution reduction 

measures. 

Response: The EPA agrees with the 

commenter that the states are required 

to submit SIPs addressing RACM for all 

nonattainment areas classified as 

Moderate and above. See 40 CFR 

51.1312(c). The EPA further agrees that 

this requirement to adopt all RACM is 

in addition to, and independent from, 

the requirement to submit a SIP revision 

that includes a demonstration that the 

SIP will, as revised, provide for 

attainment of the NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date. However, 

the EPA disagrees that there is nothing 

connecting the CAA requirement to 

impose all RACM with the relevant 

attainment deadline. 

As explained in the proposal, in a 

RACM demonstration a state must show 

whether there are any reasonably 

available control measures that could 

advance an area’s attainment date 

beyond the control strategy associated 

with the accompanying attainment 

demonstration. See, e.g., 80 FR 12264, 

12282 (March 6, 2015) (interpreting the 

Clean Air Act ‘‘to require a 

demonstration that the state has adopted 

all reasonable measures . . . to meet 

RFP requirements and to demonstrate 

attainment as expeditiously as 

practicable and thus that no additional 

measures that are reasonable available 

will advance the attainment date of 

contribute to RFP for the area.’’). The 

Clean Air Act mandates that SIP 

submittals must ‘‘provide for the 

implementation of all reasonably 

available control measures as 

expeditiously as practicable . . . and 

shall provide for attainment of the 

[NAAQS].’’ 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(1). Given 

this inextricable link to advancing 

attainment beyond what is included in 

the attainment demonstrations, the 

EPA’s rules require that states address 

RACM as part of their SIP submittal 

demonstrating that the nonattainment 

area at issue will attain the ozone 

NAAQS no later than the applicable 

attainment date. See, e.g., 40 CFR 

51.1312(c) (requiring that ‘‘the state 

shall submit with the attainment 

demonstration a SIP revision 

demonstrating that it has adopted all 

RACM necessary to demonstrate 

attainment as expeditiously as 

practicable and to meet any RFP 

requirements.’’). While the commenter 

possibly disagrees with the EPA’s 

longstanding interpretation of RACM, in 

the current rulemaking, the EPA is not 

reopening its ozone implementation 

regulations or the interpretations of 

nonattainment planning requirements 

contained therein. 

The EPA’s interpretation of RACM is 

longstanding. For example, the EPA 

wrote in the General Preamble, dated 

April 16, 1992, that states should 

consider all candidate measures that are 

potentially available for the particular 

nonattainment area that could advance 

the attainment date by 1 year.30 The 

EPA similarly explained in a 1979 rule 

the interpretation that RACM should be 

implemented ‘‘insofar as necessary to 

assure reasonable further progress and 

attainment by the required date.’’ 31

Thus, when this interpretation of 

RACM is applied to the situation at 

issue in this rule, the outcomes are 

clear. For a mandatory reclassification, 

where the former classification’s 

attainment date is in the past and was 

not met, it is not possible or meaningful 

for a state or the EPA to consider 

whether control measures could 

advance attainment earlier than the 

already past attainment date. Similarly, 

following voluntary reclassification of 

an area, there is no sense in assessing 

whether a former attainment date could 

have been met sooner. In either case, if 

a state were to submit a RACM analysis 

for the lower classification, that analysis 

would be tailored to the already-passed 

or former attainment deadline for the 

lower classification. When a state 

submits a SIP containing an attainment 

demonstration and RACM prior to the 

attainment date, the Act is clear about 

what the EPA must do. The EPA must 

determine whether the state has 

demonstrated that the area will attain by 

the applicable attainment date and 

whether the state has adopted all 

reasonable measures that would 

advance that date. However, this is not 

appropriate when the applicable 

attainment date has already come and 

gone—or has moved following a 

voluntary reclassification. 

In this scenario, states are not 

avoiding being held accountable under 

the Clean Air Act. For areas that fail to 

attain and are mandatorily reclassified, 

states must implement contingency 

measures for failure to attain by the 

attainment date. In all situations, while 

reclassification allows states time to 

submit a RACM analysis with respect to 

the new classification level, the new 

classification imposes added, more 

stringent obligations on the state. 

If the EPA were to require a state to 

submit a RACM analysis for the former 

classification after an area is 

reclassified, it would lead to one of two 

illogical outcomes. One possibility is 

that the state would be required to 

submit a RACM analysis pertaining to 

an already passed or already supplanted 

attainment date. Such submissions 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 5669 

would not support the goals of the Act 

and would have no beneficial impact on 

nonattainment areas’ success in 

attaining by or advancing the no longer 

relevant attainment date. As already 

discussed, a RACM analysis is intended 

to determine what measures can 

reasonably be adopted to advance the 

attainment date, but such an attainment 

date cannot be advanced once an area 

has failed to attain, or the attainment 

date no longer exists. The alternative is 

that a RACM analysis is required for the 

former classification level, but it would 

be an analysis conducted with respect to 

the new applicable attainment date for 

the higher classification level. This 

would then require the state to submit 

a RACM analysis with its lower 

classification plan, due by a lower 

classification deadline, but analyzing a 

brand-new attainment date. States are 

already required to submit a RACM 

analysis with respect to the higher 

classification level and for the higher 

classification attainment date. The EPA 

has declined to follow either of these 

approaches. 

Accordingly, following 

reclassification, a RACM analysis must 

be done with respect to the new and 

currently applicable attainment date. 

The CAA does not require RACM 

analysis for attainment dates associated 

with any classification that is not 

currently applicable to the area. 

Comment: One commenter (0042) 

disagrees with the EPA’s assertion that 

RACT requirements are not tied to the 

attainment date and therefore are not 

mooted for a prior classification upon 

reclassification. The commenter 

contends that because CAA section 

182(b)(2)(A) requires that states 

implement RACT for all categories of 

sources covered by a CTG document 

issued before the date of attainment, 

there is a clear statutory connection of 

the RACT review to the attainment date. 

The commenter argues that because the 

EPA sets RACT implementation 

deadlines based on the attainment year, 

this evidences that that EPA bases 

RACT requirements on the attainment 

deadline. The commenter also notes that 

because higher classification levels have 

a lower major source threshold for 

RACT, RACT SIP submissions for a 

higher classification level would 

necessarily cover RACT determinations 

for a lower classification level, thus 

eliminating the need for a submittal to 

address RACT for the prior 

classification. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the 

commenter. For reclassified areas, the 

RACT requirements at 40 CFR 

51.1312(a)(2)(ii) and (3)(ii) obligate a 

state to conduct a new, individual 

RACT analysis for the new classification 

and implement any identified measures 

as necessary. Reclassification does not 

relieve the RACT obligation for the prior 

classification. The CAA requirement in 

section 182(b)(2) to implement RACT 

for specified categories of sources is 

implemented and assessed based on 

whether the RACT rules are 

implementing what is economically and 

technologically feasible and is not based 

on reductions needed to attain by the 

attainment deadline. 

We disagree that CAA section 

182(b)(2)(A) provides a statutory 

connection of RACT to the attainment 

date. Section 182(b)(2)(A) states that 

RACT requirements apply to each 

category of sources covered by a CTG 

document issued by the Administrator 

between November 15, 1990, ‘‘and the 

date of attainment.’’ This language 

establishes the sources covered by the 

RACT analysis that a Moderate or higher 

area must consider. The reference to the 

attainment date sets an outer bound of 

what CTGs will define the categories of 

sources that fall under the Moderate 

RACT requirement. It does not tie the 

substantive RACT analysis, and the 

level of controls required by the 

application of RACT, to the attainment 

date. 

We also disagree that the stationary 

source threshold set by the classification 

level evidences a connection between 

RACT and the attainment date. Just as 

182(b)(2)(A) defines the categories of 

sources that need to be covered by a 

RACT assessment so too the stationary 

source threshold associated with a 

classification level defines the sources 

that need to be covered in the state’s 

RACT assessment. The stationary source 

threshold establishes the emission 

levels where RACT would be applied 

but does not define the substance or 

content of the RACT analysis. For 

example, for an area reclassified from 

Moderate to Serious, the prior Moderate 

classification would require evaluation 

of any sources in any category subject to 

a CTG and any non-CTG sources with a 

potential to emit more than 100 tons per 

year (tpy) of NOX or VOCs. The 

commenter is correct in that the new 

Serious classification means the state 

needs to address RACT for additional 

sources, namely non-CTG sources with 

a potential to emit 50 tpy or more of 

NOX. But the commenter has failed to 

explain why this fact—that RACT must 

be analyzed and implemented for 

additional smaller sources—should, 

upon reclassification, result in delayed 

implementation of RACT for the original 

set of sources covered by the prior 

classification. If the EPA were to adopt 

such an interpretation, it would delay 

the implementation of RACT for several 

years in an area that is not attaining the 

ozone NAAQS, as each successive 

reclassification halts the submission 

and/or implementation of (as well as 

EPA action on) the RACT requirement 

as it applied to the former classification. 

This would lead to a delay in required 

controls in areas that have air quality 

that exceeds levels protective of human 

health and the environment, 

particularly when compared to an area 

that was initially classified at the higher 

level, where technologically and 

economically feasible controls would be 

implemented by January 1 of the 5th 

year following designation as 

nonattainment. The commenter has not 

identified any language in the CAA that 

necessitates or even supports such a 

result. 

Finally, the commenters point to the 

fact that the EPA has based RACT 

implementation deadlines on the timing 

required to influence attainment of the 

standard by the attainment date. This is 

a correct characterization of several, 

although not all, of the EPA’s actions, 

but also does not inevitably lead to an 

interpretation that required SIP 

revisions and RACT implementation 

should be delayed by several years 

following an area’s reclassification. As 

explained, the substantive analysis 

required in a RACT SIP, namely the 

implementation of controls that are 

economically and technologically 

feasible, does not hinge on what level of 

control is needed for the area’s 

attainment by the attainment date (this 

is in contrast to, e.g., the analysis 

required for RACM). A state’s RACT SIP 

should be based on, and the EPA will 

review it for, imposition of reasonably 

available control technology, even if 

that imposition of reasonably available 

control technology is not nearly enough 

to get the area to attainment by the 

attainment date. At the same time, it is 

also true that implementation of RACTlevel control should aid, at least in part, 

in getting an area to attainment by the 

attainment date. Accordingly, both of 

these things can be true: that RACT is 

not a requirement directly tied to the 

attainment date while also requiring 

that RACT SIPs be due and RACT-level 

controls be implemented in time to 

matter for the overall efforts to get an 

area to attainment. 

Comment: Three commenters (0037, 

0038, 0039) agree with the EPA’s 

position on leftover SIP requirements 

regarding contingency measures for 

failure to attain. However, two 

commenters (0030, 0044) disagree with 

the EPA’s proposal insofar as it does not 

require contingency measures for areas 

that request and receive voluntary 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
5670 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

32See Joseph Goffman, Guidance on the 

Preparation of State Implementation Plan 

Provisions that Address the Nonattainment Area 

Contingency Measure Requirements for Ozone and 

Particulate Matter, December 3, 2024, at 3, available 

at https://www.epa.gov/air-quality-implementationplans/final-contingency-measures-guidance. 

33See, e.g., 87 FR 21825, 21828 (April 13, 2022). 

reclassification before the attainment 

date. They recommend that the EPA 

continue to require contingency 

measures for failure to attain for such 

areas, to be implemented when states 

request voluntary reclassifications prior 

to the attainment date. 

One commenter (0030) notes that 

requiring contingency measures for 

failure to attain for states that request a 

voluntary reclassification will ensure 

they are not just extending their SIP 

submission and implementation 

deadlines, and claims that allowing 

such an extension would promote 

prolonged periods of nonattainment for 

ozone and negatively impact health. 

This commenter also cautions that the 

EPA should be wary of states who 

request a reclassification as a means to 

delay such deadlines. 

Similarly, another commenter (0044) 

disagrees with the EPA’s position that, 

for voluntary reclassifications that are 

effective before the attainment date, 

contingency measures are not triggered 

because the EPA is not required to make 

a determination of whether the area 

attained by its attainment date. The 

commenter asserts that the plain 

language of the CAA provides that 

contingency measures are triggered if 

the area did not attain by the attainment 

date, not whether the EPA made a 

finding of such, and the fact that the 

EPA will not make such a determination 

is not relevant. The commenter further 

asserts that, if a voluntary 

reclassification becomes effective after 

the attainment date, the EPA similarly 

has no authority to remove the 

requirement to have contingency 

measures because CAA sections 

172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) do not say that 

contingency measures are triggered after 

the EPA ‘‘determines’’ or ‘‘makes a 

finding.’’ The commenter also notes that 

if the reclassification occurs before but 

becomes effective after the attainment 

date, then the previous classification 

attainment date applied on the effective 

date because the area was still that 

previous classification on that date. The 

commenter recommends, at a minimum, 

that the EPA should change the word 

‘‘occurred’’ to ‘‘became effective’’ in 

proposed 40 CFR 51.1403(a)(3) because 

before the rule granting the voluntary 

bump up request becomes effective, the 

applicable attainment date is for the 

lower classification. Lastly, the 

commenter takes issue with the EPA’s 

statement in the proposal that 

‘‘Requiring a state to submit or the EPA 

to act on such SIP elements would make 

no logical or practical sense,’’ and 

asserts that it is both practical and 

logical for the EPA to require 

contingency measures to be 

implemented following a 

reclassification. 

On the contrary, one commenter 

(0036) urges the EPA to not require 

contingency measures for failure to 

attain as a leftover SIP requirement after 

any reclassification (voluntary or 

mandatory). The commenter believes 

that the EPA’s justification for requiring 

these contingency measures only for 

mandatory reclassifications by 

attempting to draw a clear distinction 

between two scenarios is flawed. Under 

the first scenario, a state requests a 

voluntary reclassification after its 

attainment year, but before its 

attainment date, and, under the second 

scenario, a state waits to have the EPA 

take its mandatory action to reclassify 

the area, which occurs after the 

attainment date has passed. The 

commenter asserts that while these 

situations would appear to be very 

different, they are both based on the 

recognition that the area’s attainment 

year ozone data shows that the area will 

not attain the NAAQS, which is 

publicly available in uncertified form no 

later than December 31 of the 

attainment year and, in certified form, 

by May 1 of the following year. Both the 

uncertified and certified data are 

available well in advance of the 

attainment dates of the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS. In other words, both situations 

are predicated on the recognition that 

the area will fail to attain the standard 

by its attainment date, whether this 

failure to attain has been officially 

acknowledged by the EPA through a 

mandatory finding, or not. The 

commenter claims that, because these 

situations are identical in practice, there 

should be no difference in how the 

contingency measure requirement for 

failure to attain applies. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the 

commenters’ contention that the Agency 

should implement contingency 

measures for failure to attain when 

states request voluntary reclassifications 

before the prior classification’s 

attainment date has passed. Considering 

the case where the state requests, and 

the EPA approves, a reclassification 

before the attainment date, there would 

be no trigger for the implementation of 

contingency measures where there is no 

finding of failure to attain because the 

applicable attainment date has changed. 

When the area is voluntarily reclassified 

before the attainment date, the EPA is 

no longer required to—and cannot— 

determine whether the area attained by 

the former attainment date. Once 

voluntarily reclassified, the area no 

longer has the attainment date 

associated with the prior classification 

level. Because the EPA would not—and 

could not—issue a finding of failure to 

attain with respect to the prior, no 

longer existing attainment date, 

requiring a state to submit contingency 

measures for failure to attain by the 

attainment date associated with the 

previous classification would no longer 

have logical significance because such 

measures could not be triggered. With 

respect to the commenter’s related 

assertion that contingency measures 

should be triggered by something other 

than the EPA’s issuance of a finding of 

failure to attain (i.e., by the voluntary 

reclassification itself), this is contrary to 

the EPA’s longstanding interpretation of 

what triggers the requirement to 

implement contingency measures.32 As 

articulated in a number of finding of 

failure to attain actions, the EPA’s 

determination of a failure to attain 

triggers the requirement to implement 

contingency measures.33 States have full 

discretion to request voluntary 

reclassification for any reason, and there 

is no statutory basis to require states to 

implement contingency measures based 

on such a request. However, 

reclassification does trigger the 

requirement to submit new contingency 

measures for failure to attain by the new 

classification’s attainment date. States 

are also still required to have 

contingency measures available to 

implement in the event the area fails to 

meet any RFP milestone associated with 

the current of former classification. 

The EPA agrees with the commenter 

that the effective date of the voluntary 

reclassification is governing with 

respect to whether contingency 

measures for failure to attain by the 

previous attainment date are required. If 

a voluntary reclassification becomes 

effective after the attainment date 

associated with the lower classification 

level, the EPA would be obligated to 

determine whether the nonattainment 

area attained by the attainment date 

associated with the prior, lower 

classification. In such a case, states 

would be required to implement 

contingency measures for any failure to 

attain by the attainment date associated 

with the prior classification level. 

Therefore, the EPA has adjusted the 

regulations finalized herein as 

commenter suggested, specifically 

changing the word ‘‘occurred’’ to 

‘‘became effective’’ in 40 CFR 

51.1403(a)(3). 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 5671 

34 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(9). 

35CAA section 171(1) defines RFP as ‘‘such 

annual incremental reductions in emissions of the 

relevant air pollutant as are required by this part or 

may reasonably be required by the Administrator 

for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the 

applicable national ambient air quality standard by 

the applicable date.’’ The words ‘‘this part’’ in the 

statutory definition of RFP refer to part D of title 

I of the CAA, which contains the general 

requirements in subpart 1 and the pollutant-specific 

requirements in subparts 2–5 (including the ozonespecific RFP requirements in CAA sections 

182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2)(B) for Serious areas). 

36 57 FR 13498, 13507 (April 16, 1992). 

37See 57 FR 13498, 13510 (April 16, 1992) (for 

Moderate areas), 13518 (for Serious areas). 38See, e.g., 40 CFR 51.910(a)(1)(ii)(A), 

(b)(2)(ii)(C). 

39Under 40 CFR 51.919 and 51.1119, the 

regulations promulgated in the 2008 ozone SRR 

replaced the regulations promulgated in the Phase 

2 rule, with certain exceptions not relevant here. 

40Compare RFP requirements for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS at 40 CFR 51.910(a)(1)(ii)(A) and 

(b)(2)(ii)(C) with the analogous provisions for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS at 40 CFR 51.1110(a)(2)(i)(B). 

The EPA disagrees with the 

commenter that contingency measures 

for failure to attain should not be 

required for an area that has, in fact, 

failed to attain the ozone NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date and was 

subsequently reclassified. Such a result 

is directly contrary to the plain text of 

the CAA. CAA section 172(c)(9) requires 

that states provide, as part of their SIPs, 

‘‘implementation of specific measures to 

be undertaken if the area fails . . . to 

attain the [primary NAAQS] by the 

attainment date.’’ 34 It is the direct effect 

of the CAA text that states are required 

to have contingency measures that can 

be implemented when an area has failed 

to attain the NAAQS by the area’s 

attainment date. It would be directly 

contrary to the statute to determine that 

such contingency measures are not 

required for an area that meets this exact 

fact pattern. The EPA disagrees with the 

commenter’s premise that voluntary and 

mandatory reclassifications should be 

treated the same because they are 

situated the same factually, specifically 

that voluntary reclassifications are 

always requested based on data that 

shows an area will not attain by the 

applicable attainment date. Voluntary 

reclassifications are provided as a result 

of a state’s request, and the state does 

not need to request reclassification 

based on data indicating an area may 

not attain by the applicable attainment 

date; it has full discretion to request 

such a reclassification at any time, 

including in advance of such data 

becoming available. CAA section 

181(b)(3) states that ‘‘[t]he 

Administrator shall grant the request of 

any State to reclassify a nonattainment 

area in that State . . . to a higher 

classification.’’ The grant of voluntary 

reclassification is not premised upon 

any particular reasoning as to why the 

state may request reclassification, and 

there is no statutory basis for the EPA 

to require contingency measures tied to 

a failure to attain to be triggered based 

on such a request. 

Comment: One commenter (0041) 

recommends that the EPA treat RFP 

requirements and contingency measures 

for RFP in the same manner as RACM 

and contingency measures related to a 

failure to attain because such 

requirements are related to attainment 

of the ozone NAAQS. The commenter 

states that RFP reductions are linked to 

attainment because CAA section 

182(b)(1)(A) refers to RFP reductions as 

being ‘‘necessary to attain the national 

primary ambient air quality standard.’’ 

In addition, the commenter asserts that 

it would be entirely illogical for 

Congress to impose requirements on 

states through subpart 2 that were not, 

in some fashion, directly or indirectly 

linked to attainment of air quality 

standards. 

Response: The EPA agrees that all 

subpart 2 requirements are related, in 

some fashion, to areas’ attainment of the 

ozone NAAQS, but commenters’ 

assertions that RFP is directly tied to the 

attainment date is inconsistent with the 

RFP requirements established in the 

implementing regulations for the 2015 

ozone NAAQS and the EPA’s 

longstanding interpretation of RFP for 

ozone nonattainment areas. 

Moderate and higher ozone 

nonattainment areas are subject to the 

general requirements for nonattainment 

plans in CAA subpart 1 and the specific 

requirements for ozone areas in CAA 

subpart 2, including the requirements 

related to RFP and attainment. While 

CAA section 172(c)(2) of subpart 1 states 

only that nonattainment plans ‘‘shall 

require reasonable further progress,’’ 

CAA sections 182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2)(B) 

of subpart 2 provide specific percent 

reduction targets for ozone 

nonattainment areas to meet the RFP 

requirement. Put another way, subpart 2 

defines RFP for ozone nonattainment 

areas by specifying the incremental 

amount of emissions reduction required 

by set dates for those areas.35

Importantly, these set dates are 

independent of the attainment date. 

Although the dates may coincide with a 

particular attainment date, the required 

RFP date(s) associated with the lower 

classification do not change when the 

attainment date changes as a result of 

reclassification. For Moderate ozone 

nonattainment areas, CAA section 

182(b)(1) defines RFP by setting a 

specific 15 percent VOC reduction 

requirement over the first 6 years of the 

plan. The 15 percent reduction is ‘‘the 

base program that all Moderate and 

above areas must meet. This base 

program is necessary to ensure actual 

progress toward attainment in the face 

of uncertainties inherent with SIP 

planning.’’ 36

For Serious or higher ozone 

nonattainment areas, the 15 percent 

requirement still applies, and section 

182(c)(2)(B) further requires specific 

annual percent reductions for the period 

following the first 6-year period and 

allows averaging over a 3-year period. 

With respect to the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS, the EPA has stated that, by 

meeting the specific percent reduction 

requirements in CAA sections 182(b)(1) 

and 182(c)(2)(B), the state will also 

satisfy the general RFP requirements of 

section 172(c)(2) for the time period 

discussed.37

The EPA has adapted the RFP 

requirements under the CAA to 

implement the three 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS that have been promulgated 

since the 1990 CAA Amendments. In 

the ‘‘Phase 2’’ SIP Requirements Rule 

for the 1997 Ozone NAAQS (Phase 2 

rule), see 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 

2005), the EPA adapted the RFP 

requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(2) 

and 182(b)(1) to require plans to provide 

for the minimum required percent 

reductions and, for certain Moderate 

areas, to provide for the reductions as 

necessary for attainment.38

In 2015, the EPA replaced the 

regulations promulgated through the 

Phase 2 rule with the regulations 

promulgated through the 2008 Ozone 

SIP Requirements Rule (SRR). 80 FR 

12264 (March 6, 2015).39 In the 2008 

Ozone SRR, the EPA established RFP 

requirements for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS that are similar, in most 

respects, to those in the Phase 2 rule for 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS but that do not 

define RFP for certain Moderate areas in 

terms of the reductions needed for 

attainment by the attainment date.40

More explicitly, in the 2008 Ozone SRR, 

the EPA defined RFP as meaning both 

the ‘‘emissions reductions required 

under CAA section 172(c)(2) which the 

EPA interprets to be an average 3 

percent per year emissions reductions of 

either VOC or NOX and CAA sections 

182(c)(2)(B) and (c)(2)(C) and the 15 

percent reductions over the first 6 years 

of the plan and the following three 

percent per year average under 40 CFR 

51.1110.’’ See 40 CFR 51.1100(t). Thus, 

under the 2008 Ozone SRR, the RFP 

emissions reductions required for 

Serious or higher ozone nonattainment 

areas under CAA section 172(c)(2) are 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
5672 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

41See, 40 CFR 51.1300(l), 51.1300(m), 

51.1310(a)(2)(i) and 51.1310(a)(4)(i). 

42The EPA notes that we articulated this position 

in a recent action. See 87 FR 67957, 67960 (October 

3, 2023) (‘‘EPA agrees with TCEQ that there is no 

longer a need for contingency measures triggered by 

failure to meet RFP for the DFW and HGB Serious 

nonattainment plan for purposes of the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, because these areas met RFP for this 

specific classification.’’). 

based on a set annual percentage found 

in the CAA, not on the specific needs 

for the area to attain by the attainment 

date. In this regard, the EPA has been 

even more explicit in our SRR for the 

2015 ozone NAAQS: ‘‘Reasonable 

further progress (RFP) means the 

emissions reductions required under 

CAA sections 172(c)(2), 182(c)(2)(B), 

182(c)(2)(C), and 40 CFR 51.1310. The 

EPA interprets RFP under CAA section 

172(c)(2) to be an average 3 percent per 

year emissions reduction of either VOC 

or NOX 40 CFR 51.1300(l). 

Thus, the SRR for the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS defines RFP in terms of percent 

reduction from the area’s emissions in 

the baseline year, not in terms of the 

reductions necessary for attainment by 

the attainment date. In other words, for 

the 2015 ozone NAAQS, the 

requirement to demonstrate RFP is 

independent of the requirement to 

demonstrate attainment by the 

attainment date. RFP for the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS represents the minimum 

progress that is required under the CAA 

and our regulations, and does not 

necessarily need to provide for the 

reductions necessary to achieve 

attainment of the ozone NAAQS by the 

attainment date, which could vary 

largely from one nonattainment area to 

another. For all of these reasons, the 

EPA disagrees with commenter’s claim 

that RFP should be treated the same as 

the Moderate area attainment 

demonstration, RACM, and contingency 

measures for failure to attain. The EPA’s 

explanation for why those three 

particular SIP elements are no longer 

required following a reclassification 

does not apply to the Moderate area RFP 

SIP element. Unlike the other three SIP 

elements, RFP is not directly tied to the 

applicable attainment deadline as 

explained earlier. 

Moreover, the SRR for the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS lists RFP and ROP as distinct 

provisions for implementation.41 These 

provisions clearly demonstrate the 

necessity for RFP reductions during the 

first 6 years of the plan, regardless of the 

area’s initial classification, or whether it 

was Moderate before being reclassified 

as Serious, whether voluntarily, or 

mandatorily. 

Because it is not appropriate after an 

area reclassification to treat RFP the 

same as the attainment demonstration, 

RACM, and contingency measures for 

failure to attain, it necessarily follows 

that contingency measures for failure to 

make RFP would also still be required 

for a failure to meet an RFP target 

associated with the lower classification 

after reclassification. If it is appropriate 

to still require SIP submissions 

addressing RFP for the prior 

classification, then it follows that the 

EPA will require states to have 

contingency measures in place that 

would be triggered for failure to meet 

those RFP milestones. 

Comment: One commenter (0042) 

urges the EPA to update its proposal to 

note that if states can demonstrate their 

RFP targets have been met for 

reclassified areas, the requirement to 

submit RFP contingency measures for 

the prior classification would be 

unnecessary. 

Response: The EPA acknowledges 

that there may be certain unideal 

situations where the state has not yet 

submitted, or the EPA has not yet 

approved, contingency measures for the 

prior classification, but the state has 

nonetheless demonstrated that all RFP 

milestones associated with the prior 

classification have been met. Where the 

EPA has determined that demonstration 

to be adequate, the question of whether 

the state has adequate contingency 

measures for failure to meet RFP with 

respect to that milestone can be moot. 

This situation is unideal because the 

CAA is not designed to operate this way 

with respect to timing, and these 

situations typically arise because the 

state is overdue for submitting 

approvable contingency measures. 

Under normal CAA timelines, the 

contingency measures submittal and the 

EPA approval should occur before the 

RFP milestone arrives so that the 

contingency measures could be 

triggered if the area fails to meet RFP. 

States should not delay submittal of 

required contingency submittals in the 

hopes that they may become moot at a 

later time. Such an approach 

contravenes the statutory timelines 

established by the CAA, and the intent 

of the contingency measures 

requirement. If this situation arises and 

the RFP milestone is not met, the CAA 

requires implementation of contingency 

measures without further action by the 

state or the EPA. That requirement 

cannot be met on time if the 

contingency measures submittal is 

delayed. 

However, under the unusual 

circumstances in which the EPA 

determines the prior classification’s RFP 

reduction targets were met before the 

state makes its overdue submittal to 

satisfy the prior classification’s 

requirement for contingency measures 

for failure to meet RFP, the EPA believes 

that no submittal of contingency 

measures for a potential failure to meet 

the prior classification’s RFP targets 

would be necessary.42

As discussed elsewhere in this 

document, with a voluntary 

reclassification there will be no 

possibility of failure to attain by the 

attainment date associated with the 

previous classification, and so the 

voluntary reclassification negates the 

need for contingency measures for 

failure to attain. Further, if a state has 

provided any applicable RFP 

demonstration(s) associated with the 

previous classification and the EPA has 

determined those demonstrations to be 

adequate, this would negate the need to 

submit the contingency measures for 

failure to meet the RFP milestones 

associated with the previous 

classification, thus resulting in mooting 

the previous classification’s contingency 

measures requirement entirely. 

Comment: One commenter (0036) 

recommends that the requirement to 

continue to address leftover SIP 

requirements from prior classifications 

should apply no matter if the 

reclassification is voluntary or 

mandatory. The commenter notes that, 

in this context, the method of 

reclassification makes no difference. 

The commenter claims that a state must 

also be prevented from repeatedly 

requesting a voluntary reclassification 

right before each attainment date, a 

strategy that would delay indefinitely, at 

least until Extreme classification is 

reached, the need for the state to submit 

any ozone SIP or implement any ozone 

control program. The commenter claims 

that this outcome is clearly contrary to 

the CAA and undermines the very 

purpose of having defined regulatory 

requirements for nonattainment areas. 

Response: The EPA generally agrees 

with the commenter, and the EPA’s 

interpretation regarding which SIP 

elements remain due related to a prior, 

lower classification level is largely 

consistent for voluntary and mandatory 

reclassifications. The only distinction 

between requirements that remain due 

for a voluntary versus mandatory 

reclassification is with respect to 

contingency measures to failure to 

attain. As explained in more detail in a 

prior response to comments, the EPA’s 

distinction for the contingency measure 

requirement is appropriate given that in 

the context of a mandatory 

reclassification, a nonattainment area 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 5673 

43The EPA did not propose any changes to the 

implementation of any new Basic I/M programs, 

which are still required by the prior rule that 

reclassified certain nonattainment areas as 

Moderate for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. See 87 FR 

60897, October 7, 2022, at 60900. 

has failed to attain by the attainment 

date, thereby triggering contingency 

measures for that failure to attain. This 

is completely distinguishable from a 

voluntary reclassification that becomes 

effective prior to a nonattainment area’s 

attainment date, where that date is 

superseded and replaced by the new 

attainment date related to the new 

classification level. 

The issue of how often and when a 

state may request a voluntary 

reclassification for a nonattainment area 

is beyond the scope of this action. The 

EPA takes separate actions, independent 

from this rule, in response to states’ 

requests for voluntary reclassifications. 

The commenter may look to those 

actions for the EPA’s position on the 

issue, and has the opportunity to seek 

judicial review of those actions if it 

disagrees with the EPA’s approach. 

Comment: One commenter (0042) 

asserts that, in cases where States satisfy 

certain required elements with the 

submittal of certification statements 

noting that the requirements have 

already been addressed (which is 

commonly used for addressing I/M and 

NNSR requirements), it is illogical to 

hold areas under a finding of failure to 

submit for elements that have already 

been submitted and approved under 

previous classifications or standards. 

The commenter feels that submittal of a 

certification statement is not legally 

necessary for the EPA to know that an 

element, upon which the EPA has 

already acted and approved, has been 

addressed, as the EPA’s SIP approval 

actions legally stand on their own merit. 

In addition, the commenter notes that 

the infrastructure SIP submittal 

requirements for each NAAQS already 

provide certification from the state that 

existing regulations are adequate to 

meet the applicable nonattainment area 

planning requirements. 

Response: The EPA understands the 

commenter as arguing that states should 

not be required to provide a SIP 

submission in instances where a state 

has previously provided, and the EPA 

approved, a SIP submittal addressing a 

SIP requirement for a lower 

classification or earlier ozone NAAQS. 

This comment is outside the scope of 

the rulemaking and therefore the 

comment is not substantively adverse to 

the action taken herein. As a result, a 

response to this comment is not 

required. Although this issue was not 

discussed in the proposal for this rule, 

the Agency notes that this issue has 

been addressed at length in previous 

rulemakings, including recently with 

relation to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. See, 

e.g., 83 FR 62998, 63002. The Agency 

further notes that the commenter’s 

characterization that infrastructure SIP 

submittal requirements relate to 

nonattainment area planning 

requirements is incorrect. See Stephen 

D. Page, Guidance on Infrastructure 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 

110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2), September 13, 

2013, at 52, available at https://

www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015- 

12/documents/guidance_on_

infrastructure_sip_elements_

multipollutant_final_sept_2013.pdf 

(explaining that the submission 

deadline for infrastructure SIPs under 

CAA section 110(a) do not apply to 

nonattainment areas, because SIP 

submissions for designated 

nonattainment areas ‘‘are subject to a 

different submission schedule than 

those for section 110 infrastructure 

elements’’). 

Comment: One commenter (0044) 

notes that proposed 40 CFR 51.1403(a) 

mistakenly contains two paragraph 2’s. 

The second, which begins ‘‘If the 

reclassification occurred prior to the 

former attainment date,’’ should be 

adjusted to be paragraph 3. 

Response: The EPA agrees with the 

commenter that the cited proposed 

regulatory text was a mistake, and the 

EPA has modified the final regulations 

to reflect the corrected numbering. 

C. Serious Area SIP Revisions for the 

2015 Ozone NAAQS 

1. Summary of Proposal 

The EPA proposed to apply its default 

deadlines to states with newly 

reclassified Serious areas under the 

2015 ozone NAAQS. Those default 

deadlines, as applied to reclassified 

Serious areas under the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS, require such states to submit 

SIP revisions for those areas, including 

revisions for RACT needed to achieve 

attainment of the standards by the 

attainment date, no later than 18 months 

after the effective date of the relevant 

reclassification notice or January 1, 

2026, whichever is sooner. The EPA 

also proposed that the default 

implementation deadlines for RACT and 

Enhanced I/M would apply to 

reclassified Serious areas under the 

2015 ozone NAAQS. Thus, such areas 

would be required to implement RACT 

by no later than 18 months from the 

RACT submittal deadline or the 

beginning of the 2026 attainment year 

ozone season for that area, whichever is 

earlier. In addition, for states that do not 

intend to rely upon emission reductions 

from their Enhanced I/M program in 

attainment or RFP SIPs, we proposed to 

allow Enhanced I/M programs to be 

fully implemented no later than 4 years 

after the effective date of 

reclassification.43

2. Final Rule 

The EPA is finalizing the default SIP 

submittal and implementation deadlines 

for reclassified ozone nonattainment 

areas as proposed, and thus such 

deadlines would apply to areas 

reclassified as Serious under the 2015 

ozone NAAQS. Below we address 

comments regarding the proposed 

deadlines insofar as they specifically 

concerned the application of those 

deadlines to reclassified Serious areas 

under the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

3. Comments and Responses 

a. Due Date for Serious Area SIP 

Revisions and RACT Implementation 

Comment: One commenter (0032) 

believes that the EPA’s proposed default 

SIP submission deadlines are 

insufficient for nonattainment areas 

reclassified as Serious under the 2015 

ozone NAAQS. The commenter notes 

that rulemaking to lower thresholds 

from 100 tpy to 50 tpy takes a 

substantial amount of time, and it is 

unreasonable to expect that newly 

regulated entities will be able to prepare 

a RACT SIP submittal, install controls, 

and come into compliance by January 1, 

2026. In addition, the commenter 

believes that the proposed RACT 

implementation deadline is not realistic. 

Even if states currently have regulations 

ready, only a reclassification could 

trigger the requirement for RACT 

implementation, which the commenter 

believes will not occur until December 

31, 2024, providing only 1 year to 

prepare a RACT study, install controls, 

and implement RACT. The commenter 

further provides that the EPA has not 

reclassified the areas, and many states 

have no authority to begin the arduous 

process of rulemaking until a Federal 

action triggers that requirement. 

Response: The EPA acknowledges 

that the new Serious source threshold 

may present difficulties for some states 

in developing a RACT SIP submittal by 

January 1, 2026. However, as stated in 

the proposal, a SIP submission deadline 

of the earlier of 18 months from the 

effective date of reclassification or 

January 1, 2026 (January 1 of the 

attainment year) will allow Serious area 

control measures to influence 

attainment by the Serious area 

attainment date while also balancing the 

need for a consistent submission 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
5674 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

44See, 84 FR 44238, 44246 (August 23, 2019); 87 

FR 60897, 60909 (October 7, 2022). 45 89 FR 51829 (June 20, 2024). 

deadline among the various Serious area 

SIP requirements per CAA section 

182(i). The outer boundary of January 1, 

2026, for states to submit their Serious 

area SIP revisions applies equally across 

areas for which an 18-month deadline is 

not possible and ensures that the newly 

applicable subpart 2 requirements will 

be addressed consistent with part D’s 

purpose of achieving expeditious 

attainment by the attainment date. 

To the extent the commenter is 

concerned that regulated entities will 

not be able to install controls and come 

into compliance prior to January 1, 

2026, the EPA notes that we proposed, 

and are finalizing, a RACT 

implementation deadline for any 

nonattainment areas reclassified as 

Serious under the 2015 NAAQS that 

provides for implementation as 

expeditiously as possible, but no later 

than 18 months from the RACT 

submission deadline or the beginning of 

the 2026 ozone season, whichever is 

earlier. For some nonattainment areas 

that will be reclassified as Serious in 

separate actions, the last ozone season 

that can impact air quality before the 

areas’ attainment date begins in January 

of the attainment year and for other 

areas it begins in March of the 

attainment year. See 40 CFR part 58, 

appendix D, section 4.1, table D–3. By 

structuring the default deadlines as ‘‘the 

earlier of’’ an outside timeframe (e.g., 18 

months) or a specific date (e.g., the 

beginning of the 2026 ozone season), the 

EPA is maximizing time for SIP 

development, adoption, and 

submission, while still ensuring that 

controls are adopted into the SIP and 

implemented in time to influence 

attainment of the NAAQS by the 

attainment date. 

We acknowledge again that meeting 

this SIP submission deadline will be 

challenging for many states. However, to 

the extent that commenters suggested 

that states can only initiate SIP 

development activities only after the 

EPA finalizes its area reclassifications, 

we disagree. There are proactive and 

voluntary pathways by which states can 

anticipate and manage the tight 

timeframes to develop required SIP 

revisions for reclassified nonattainment 

areas, including early planning and 

voluntary reclassification. The EPA is 

aware that many states with areas 

affected by this current action may be 

constrained in finalizing rulemakings 

that require additional emissions 

controls unless the state air agency can 

demonstrate such controls were 

mandated by an underlying Federal 

requirement (e.g., required pursuant to a 

mandatory area reclassification). 

However, to our knowledge, most states 

with affected areas are not prohibited 

from starting their SIP development 

activities before the EPA finalizes this 

current action, particularly because all 

of those areas are already required 

under the CAA to attain the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS. As we noted in prior 

attainment determination and 

reclassification actions for the 2008 and 

2015 ozone NAAQS, states with 

nonattainment areas that were proposed 

for reclassification had known with a 

reasonable amount of certainty that 

revised SIPs would be due in the near 

future to provide for expeditious 

attainment of the 2008 and 2015 ozone 

NAAQS, and had the opportunity to 

make progress on plan development 

activities before issuance of the final 

actions.44 That remains true for this 

current action, where states with 

affected Moderate areas have been 

aware of preliminary 2021–2023 DVs 

since at least December 2023 and 

certified 2021–2023 DVs since May 

2024, showing that the areas were not 

going to timely attain and would be 

reclassified under the CAA. These 

states, therefore, could have reasonably 

anticipated that SIP revisions for 

reclassified Serious areas would be due 

in the near future, consistent with the 

CAA and previous EPA determination 

and reclassification actions. 

Nonetheless, the EPA recognizes the 

challenges posed by the SIP submission 

and RACT implementation deadlines 

being finalized as part of this rule, and 

is committed to working closely with 

states to help them as they prepare SIP 

revisions in a timely manner. 

Comment: One commenter (0036) 

recommends that the deadlines and 

requirements set by the EPA for 2015 

ozone NAAQS areas reclassified to 

Serious should be consistent with those 

established by the EPA in its June 2024 

Texas area reclassification rule (89 FR 

51829, June 20, 2024). The commenter 

notes that many of the same issues and 

options in this proposed rule were also 

contemplated in the June 2024 

rulemaking. The commenter further 

provides that aligning SIP deadlines and 

requirements would also benefit state 

attainment planning efforts by 

facilitating the use of area-agnostic 

technical products (such as attainment 

modeling and control measure analyses) 

and encouraging interstate attainment 

planning coordination. 

Response: As commenter notes in its 

letter, the deadlines and requirements 

that the EPA is finalizing are consistent 

with those the EPA finalized in its June 

2024 rule reclassifying three Texas areas 

from Moderate to Serious under the 

2015 ozone NAAQS.45

Comment: One commenter from 

Delaware (0033) requests that the EPA 

finalize a SIP submittal deadline of 

March 1, 2026, for Delaware’s 2015 

ozone NAAQS Serious attainment plan 

SIP. March 1, 2026, marks the beginning 

of Delaware’s attainment year ozone 

season, and establishing a SIP submittal 

deadline that aligns with the attainment 

year ozone season will allow Delaware 

sufficient time to research and prepare 

a thorough and comprehensive SIP 

revision as well as time to complete the 

required SIP revision submittal process. 

The commenter further provides that 

March 1, 2026, is a more reasonable 

time frame because of Delaware’s 

complex and lengthy regulatory process, 

lack of feedback from the EPA on 

contingency measures, and absence of 

resources available for Delaware to 

calculate contingency measure 

reductions. 

Another commenter from Colorado 

(0040) requests that the EPA grant 

Colorado the flexibility to submit its 

Serious SIP revision sometime after 

February 15, 2026, or, in the alternative, 

allow Colorado to submit it as a 

provisional and non-binding submission 

that will automatically be converted to 

a final submission for final approval 

after February 15, 2026. The commenter 

notes that the EPA granted Colorado’s 

request for voluntary reclassification 

from Moderate to Serious on July 24, 

2024. The EPA’s proposed default SIP 

submittal deadlines would require 

Colorado to submit its Serious SIP for 

the 2015 ozone NAAQS to the EPA no 

later than January 24, 2026. However, 

due to Colorado’s legislative process 

and the late timing of the EPA’s rule, the 

commenter will be unable to submit the 

necessary SIP revisions by the EPA’s 

proposed deadline. 

Response: In Section II.A. of the 

proposal, the EPA articulated that, ‘‘if 

these default deadlines are finalized as 

proposed, they will apply to any 

nonattainment areas that are reclassified 

as Serious under the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS for failing to attain the standard 

by the Moderate attainment date of 

August 3, 2024, unless otherwise 

established in a separate notice-andcomment rulemaking’’ (emphasis 

added). 89 FR 80833, 80834 (October 4, 

2024). The EPA did not propose to 

establish different SIP submittal or 

implementation deadlines for any 

specific nonattainment areas. Any such 

adjustment would need to be done in a 

separate notice-and-comment 

rulemaking. Therefore, the SIP 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 5675 

46 40 CFR 51.1308(d). 

47U.S. EPA, EPA Legal Tools to Advance 

Environmental Justice (May 2022). 

48 Id. 

49U.S. EPA, Achieving Health and Environmental 

Protection Through EPA’s Meaningful Engagement 

Policy (August 2024). 

50See U.S. EPA, Public Involvement Policy of the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (May 2003). 

submission deadline that will apply to 

all nonattainment areas reclassified as 

Serious under the 2015 ozone NAAQS, 

including areas within Delaware and 

Colorado, will be the earlier of 18 

months from the effective date of 

reclassification or January 1, 2026, 

unless otherwise established in a future 

notice-and-comment rulemaking. 

In the case of Delaware, the EPA 

granted the state’s request for a 

voluntary reclassification of the 

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, 

Pennsylvania-New Jersey-MarylandDelaware 2015 ozone nonattainment 

area to Serious, which became effective 

on July 30, 2024. In applying the 

‘‘earlier of’’ structure of the default 

deadlines finalized in this rule, January 

1, 2026 (i.e., January 1 of the attainment 

year) will be the SIP submission 

deadline for the states in which the 

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City 

nonattainment area lies because that 

date occurs before the 18-month 

timeframe established by the effective 

date of the reclassification notice (i.e., 

January 30, 2026). 

Likewise, in the case of Colorado, the 

SIP submission deadline will be January 

1, 2026. The EPA granted the state’s 

request for voluntary reclassification of 

the Denver Metro/North Front Range 

2015 ozone nonattainment area to 

Serious, which became effective on July 

24, 2024. In applying the ‘‘earlier of’’ 

structure of the default deadlines 

finalized in this rulemaking, January 1, 

2026 (i.e., January 1 of the attainment 

year) will be the SIP submission 

deadline for Colorado because that date 

occurs before the 18-month timeframe 

established by the effective date of the 

reclassification notice (i.e., January 24, 

2026). 

b. Deadline for Serious Area I/M 

Implementation 

Comment: One commenter (0042) 

disagrees with the EPA’s proposal that 

it is necessary to establish an 

implementation date at the beginning of 

the attainment year ozone season for an 

Enhanced I/M program under the 

Serious classification to use the 

emissions reductions toward meeting 

Serious classification attainment 

demonstration and RFP requirements. 

The commenter believes that the EPA 

has not provided a rationale for why 

newly required Enhanced I/M programs 

for the 2015 ozone standard would have 

to be fully implemented by no later than 

the beginning of the Serious attainment 

year ozone season. The commenter 

asserts that implementation should not 

be required by the start date of the 

attainment year ozone season for the 

area for the reductions to be used, 

particularly since emissions reductions 

from I/M programs are variable, depend 

on the number of vehicles tested in each 

month, as well as the vehicles’ 

emissions profiles and state of repair. 

Response: We disagree with the 

commenter’s position that the EPA has 

not provided a rationale for why 

Enhanced I/M program emission 

reductions that will be relied upon by 

the states for attainment demonstration 

or RFP requirements must be 

implemented by the beginning of the 

attainment year ozone season. For 

Serious areas that intend to rely upon 

emission reductions from their newly 

required Enhanced I/M program for 

attainment and RFP purposes, the 

implementation deadline is already 

prescribed by the 2015 ozone 

implementation rule which requires all 

control measures (including I/M) in the 

attainment plan and demonstration to 

be implemented no later than the 

beginning of the attainment year ozone 

season.46 As the EPA explained in the 

preamble, EPA’s proposal and 

solicitation of comments as to 

reclassified Serious areas was limited to 

the deadline for implementation of 

Enhanced I/M for areas that were not 

intending to rely on reductions from 

those programs in attainment or RFP 

SIPs. See 89 FR 80850 (October 4, 2024). 

IV. Environmental Justice 

Considerations 

In this action, the EPA is stablishing 

default SIP deadlines for submission of 

SIP revisions and implementation of the 

related control requirements for 

nonattainment areas reclassified as 

Moderate, Serious, and Severe for 

current and future ozone NAAQS. In 

addition, the EPA is codifying its 

existing interpretation that following 

reclassification, a state is no longer 

required to submit SIP revisions 

addressing certain requirements related 

to the prior classification level for an 

ozone nonattainment area. The EPA is 

also articulating how the default 

deadlines and codification of applicable 

requirements following reclassification 

would apply to nonattainment areas 

reclassified as Serious under the 2015 

ozone NAAQS. This action is intended 

to comply with the CAA program to 

ensure that affected air agencies comply 

with CAA obligations for the applicable 

nonattainment areas. 

As explained in the proposal, it is 

difficult to assess the environmental 

justice (EJ) implications of this action 

because the EPA cannot geographically 

identify or quantify resulting sourcespecific emission reductions. However, 

due to the nature of this action, the EPA 

believes that it will likely have no 

adverse impact on any existing 

disproportionate and adverse effects on 

communities with EJ concerns. At a 

minimum, the EPA believes that this 

action will not worsen any existing air 

quality and is expected to ensure that 

the areas affected by the rulemaking will 

meet applicable requirements to attain 

and/or maintain national air quality 

standards. 

The EPA reiterates, however, that 

states have flexibility and discretion 

under the CAA in implementing their 

attainment strategies to focus resources 

on controlling those sources of 

emissions that directly and adversely 

affect communities with EJ concerns. As 

stated in the proposal, the EPA strongly 

urges states to consider the EJ aspects of 

any control measures in order to 

provide health protection for 

communities with EJ concerns. In 

addition, the EPA strongly encourages 

states to work with communities 

experiencing EJ concerns to develop 

ozone-related control strategies that 

most effectively reduce emissions 

contributing to elevated ozone levels. 

One way to do this would be for states 

to increase opportunities for meaningful 

involvement of community groups 

during their SIP development processes. 

The EPA has resources available to 

help air agencies consider aspects of EJ 

in their SIP development processes. The 

EPA released EPA Legal Tools to 

Advance Environmental Justice (EJ 

Legal Tools) in 2022 to highlight the 

various environmental and civil rights 

law authorities available to the EPA that 

authorize or address consideration of EJ 

in its decision-making process as it 

pertains to environmental laws, 

including the CAA.47 EJ Legal Tools is 

also intended to promote meaningful 

engagement among the EPA and 

communities.48 In addition, on 

September 5, 2024, the EPA announced 

the release of the final policy, 

‘‘Achieving Health and Environmental 

Protection Through EPA’s Meaningful 

Engagement Policy.’’ 49 This final policy 

updates the EPA’s 2003 Public 

Involvement Policy that guides the 

EPA’s staff to provide meaningful public 

involvement in all its programs and 

regions.50


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
5676 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

51On April 30, 2018, the OMB approved the 

EPA’s request for renewal of the previously 

approved information collection request (ICR). The 

renewed request expired on April 30, 2021, 3 years 

after the approval date (see OMB Control Number 

2060–0695 and ICR Reference Number 201801– 

2060–003 for EPA ICR No. 2347.03). On April 30, 

2021, the OMB published the final 30-day 

document (86 FR 22959) for the ICR renewal titled 

‘‘Implementation of the 8-Hour National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards for Ozone (Renewal)’’ (see 

OMB Control Number 2060–0695 and ICR 

Reference No: 202104–2060–004 for EPA ICR 

Number 2347.04). The ICR renewal was approved 

on February 1, 2022, and the renewed request 

expires on January 31, 2025. 

V. Judicial Review 

The CAA regulations promulgated 

herein may be challenged in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit. Pursuant to section 

307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for 

judicial review of the CAA regulations 

must be filed in that court within 60 

days after the date notice of this final 

action is published in the Federal 

Register. Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA 

provides, in part, that petitions for 

review must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit: (i) When the 

agency action consists of ‘‘nationally 

applicable regulations promulgated, or 

final actions taken, by the 

Administrator,’’ or (ii) when such action 

is locally or regionally applicable, if 

‘‘such action is based on a 

determination of nationwide scope or 

effect.’’ 

The CAA regulations promulgated 

herein are ‘‘nationally applicable 

regulations’’ within the meaning of CAA 

section 307(b)(1). These regulations 

establish regulatory requirements for all 

applicable areas across the entire United 

States to implement provisions of the 

CAA, including regulations establishing 

SIP submission and implementation 

deadlines for all newly reclassified 

ozone nonattainment areas nationwide, 

and. regulations codifying which 

requirements related to the prior 

classification level for an ozone 

nonattainment area are no longer 

applicable after an area’s 

reclassification. Accordingly, under 

section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions 

for judicial review of these CAA 

regulations must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia by March 18, 2025. 

VI. Severability 

This final rule includes new and 

revised requirements for numerous 

provisions under the implementation 

regulations for the national ambient air 

quality standards for ozone, including 

deadlines for revisions of 

implementation plans addressing 

different statutory requirements of the 

CAA, deadlines for implementation of 

different control measures required 

under different provisions of the CAA, 

and regulations clarifying statutory 

provisions associated with an area’s 

former classification that are no longer 

applicable to that area after the effective 

date of an area’s reclassification. 

Therefore, this final rule is a 

multifaceted rule that addresses many 

separate things for independent reasons, 

as detailed in each respective portion of 

this preamble. We intend each portion 

of this rule to be severable from each 

other, though we took the approach of 

including all the parts in one 

rulemaking rather than promulgating 

multiple rules to ensure the changes are 

properly coordinated, even though the 

changes are not interdependent. 

For example, although we address 

both deadlines for newly applicable 

requirements for reclassified areas and 

clarifications regarding which statutory 

requirements are no longer applicable 

for reclassified areas, these two sets of 

regulatory provisions are not 

interdependent and were issued 

concurrently in this action for 

administrative efficiency and clarity to 

impacted jurisdictions (i.e., states) 

because both sets of provisions pertain 

to reclassified ozone nonattainment 

areas. Furthermore, the deadlines 

established under each regulatory 

provision are severable from the others 

because each deadline is set with 

consideration of the separate statutory 

authority governing the applicable 

requirement. Therefore, the EPA’s 

rationale for establishing the deadline 

for revisions addressing a penalty fee 

program for Severe areas is distinct from 

its rationale for establishing the 

deadline for revisions addressing other 

newly applicable requirements. 

Similarly, the considerations of 

particular statutory programs provide 

the foundation for control measure 

implementation deadlines such that 

these deadlines are severable from one 

another. Finally, the provisions 

codifying the EPA’s position regarding 

which requirements remain due 

following a reclassification are 

independent in statutory basis and 

reasoning from all other provisions in 

this rule, and therefore are severable 

from the remaining provisions in this 

rule. Further, the basis upon which the 

EPA determined whether each element 

remained due (e.g., RACT, RFP) or no 

longer due (attainment demonstrations, 

RACM, and some contingency measures 

in some instances) was based on 

reasoning individualized to the SIP 

requirement, and therefore any judicial 

determination of the status of an 

individual SIP requirement is severable 

for a determination of any other 

planning element. 

Thus, the EPA has independently 

considered and adopted each of these 

portions of the final rule and each is 

severable should there be judicial 

review. If a court were to invalidate any 

one of these elements of the final rule, 

we intend the remainder of this action 

to remain effective, as we have designed 

these regulations to function 

concurrently but independently from 

one another even if one or more other 

parts of the rule has been set aside. For 

example, if a reviewing court were to 

invalidate any of the deadlines 

governing newly applicable 

requirements for reclassified ozone 

areas, we intend other regulatory 

amendments, including non-related 

deadlines and clarifications about 

requirements that are no longer 

applicable, to remain effective. 

Moreover, this list is not intended to be 

exhaustive, and should not be viewed as 

an intention by the EPA to consider 

other parts of the rule not explicitly 

listed here as not severable from other 

parts of the rule. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory 

Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action as defined by 

Executive Order 12866, as amended by 

Executive Order 14094, and was 

therefore not subject to a requirement 

for Executive Order 12866 review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This final rule does not impose any 

new information collection burden 

under the PRA not already approved by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). This action establishes 

deadlines for submission of required SIP 

revisions and implementation of the 

related control requirements for newly 

reclassified Moderate, Serious, and 

Severe ozone nonattainment areas. This 

action also codifies the EPA’s existing 

interpretation that following 

reclassification, a state is no longer 

required to submit SIP revisions 

addressing certain requirements related 

to the prior classification level for an 

ozone nonattainment area. Thus, the 

final action does not impose any new 

information collection burden under the 

PRA. OMB has previously approved the 

EPA’s information collection activities 

contained in the existing regulations 

and has assigned OMB control number 

2060–0695.51


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 5677 

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. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities. The SIP submittal and 

implementation deadlines, and the 

policy discussion outlining the EPA’s 

interpretation of the status of certain 

requirements for prior nonattainment 

classifications following reclassification, 

do not in and of themselves create any 

new requirements beyond what is 

mandated by the CAA. Instead, this rule 

is administrative in nature, and does not 

directly regulate any entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain an 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The 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. 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. The division of 

responsibility between the Federal 

Government and the States for purposes 

of implementing the NAAQS is 

established under the CAA. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have Tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. This action will not 

impose substantial direct costs upon the 

Tribes, nor will it preempt Tribal law. 

The CAA requires SIP revisions for all 

nonattainment areas that are reclassified 

from a lower classification to a higher 

classification. For nonattainment areas 

that include portions of Indian 

reservation lands, the implementation 

plan deadlines that apply to States do 

not directly apply to Tribes. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

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 does not directly concern an 

environmental health risk or safety risk. 

Since this action does not directly 

concern human health, the EPA’s policy 

on Children’s Health also does not 

apply. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This rule does not involve technical 

standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations and Executive 

Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation’s 

Commitment to Environmental Justice 

for All 

The EPA believes that the human 

health or environmental conditions that 

exist prior to this action have the 

potential to result in disproportionate 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on communities 

with EJ concerns. The EPA believes that 

this action is not likely to change 

existing disproportionate and adverse 

effects on communities with EJ 

concerns. The areas impacted by this 

action are designated as nonattainment 

for one or more ozone NAAQS and this 

action is intended to comply with the 

CAA program to ensure attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. From a 

programmatic perspective, this action is 

intended to ensure that affected air 

agencies comply with CAA obligations 

for the applicable nonattainment areas. 

The EPA did not perform an EJ 

analysis and did not consider EJ as a 

basis for this action. While it is difficult 

to assess the EJ implications of this 

action because the EPA cannot 

geographically identify or quantify 

resulting source-specific emission 

reductions that are ultimately 

determined by air agencies, the EPA 

believes that this action is likely to have 

no impact on any existing 

disproportionate and adverse effects on 

communities with EJ concerns. Further, 

there is no information in the record 

inconsistent with the stated goals of 

Executive Orders 12898 or 14096. 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

This action is subject to the CRA, 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). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Designations and 

classifications, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, and Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Joseph Goffman, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, 

Office of Air and Radiation. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the EPA is amending Title 40, 

Chapter I of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 

PART 51—REQUIREMENTS FOR 

PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND 

SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION 

PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 51 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401– 

7671q. 

Subpart CC—Provisions for 

Implementation of the 2015 Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

§ 51.1312 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend § 51.1312 by removing and 

reserving paragraphs (a)(2)(ii) and 

(a)(3)(ii). 

■ 3. Add subpart DD consisting of 

§§ 51.1400 through 51.1403 to part 51 to 

read as follows: 

Subpart DD–Requirements for 

Reclassified Ozone Nonattainment 

Areas 

Sec. 

51.1400 Definitions. 

51.1401 Applicability of part 51. 

51.1402 SIP submission and control 

measure implementation deadlines for 

reclassified ozone nonattainment areas. 

51.1403 Applicability of ozone SIP 

requirements for former classification 

after reclassification. 

§ 51.1400 Definitions. 

The following definitions apply for 

purposes of this subpart. Any term not 

defined herein shall have the meaning 

as defined in § 51.100. 

Attainment year means the calendar 

year in which the attainment year ozone 

season occurs. 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
5678 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

Attainment year ozone season means 

the full ozone season immediately 

preceding a nonattainment area’s 

maximum attainment date. 

CAA means the Clean Air Act as 

codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q 

(2010). 

Former attainment date means any 

attainment date associated with the 

classification under subpart 2 of part D 

of title I of the CAA preceding 

reclassification from a lower 

classification to a higher classification. 

Former classification means any 

classification under subpart 2 of part D 

of title I of the CAA preceding 

reclassification from a lower 

classification to a higher classification. 

Higher classification/lower 

classification means for purposes of 

determining which classifications are 

higher or lower, the classifications are 

ranked from lowest to highest as 

follows: Marginal; Moderate; Serious; 

Severe-15; Severe-17; and Extreme. 

I/M refers to the inspection and 

maintenance programs for in-use 

vehicles required under the 1990 CAA 

Amendments and defined by subpart S 

of 40 CFR part 51. 

Initially classified means the first 

nonattainment classification that 

becomes effective for an area for a 

specific ozone NAAQS and does not 

include reclassification to another 

classification for that specific NAAQS. 

Initially designated means the first 

designation to nonattainment that 

becomes effective for an area for a 

specific ozone NAAQS. 

Ozone season means for each state (or 

portion of a state), the ozone monitoring 

season as defined in 40 CFR part 58, 

appendix D, section 4.1(i) for that state 

(or portion of a state). 

§ 51.1401 Applicability of part 51. 

The provisions in subparts A through 

Y, AA, and CC of this part apply to 

reclassified nonattainment areas for 

purposes of the ozone NAAQS to the 

extent they are not inconsistent with the 

provisions of this subpart. 

§ 51.1402 SIP submission and control 

measure implementation deadlines for 

reclassified ozone nonattainment areas. 

(a) Deadlines for applicable 

requirements pursuant to a 

reclassification as Moderate, Serious, or 

Severe that are 18 months or more after 

the effective date of reclassification will 

apply to such reclassified area as though 

the area were initially designated at that 

classification. 

(b) Deadlines for applicable 

requirements pursuant to a 

reclassification as Moderate, Serious, or 

Severe, where the deadline that would 

have applied had the area been initially 

classified at the new classification level 

at the time of initial nonattainment area 

designations is less than 18 months after 

the effective date of reclassification. 

(1) SIP submission deadlines. (i) For 

all SIP revisions required pursuant to 

reclassification (except SIPs addressing 

CAA section 185 fee programs), the SIP 

revision deadline is 18 months after the 

effective date of the relevant 

reclassification or January 1 of the 

attainment year, whichever is earlier, 

unless the Administrator establishes a 

different deadline in a separate action. 

(ii) For SIP revisions addressing CAA 

section 185 fee programs required 

pursuant to reclassification, the SIP 

revision deadline is 36 months after the 

effective date of the relevant 

reclassification or January 1 of the 

attainment year, whichever is earlier, 

unless the Administrator establishes a 

different deadline in a separate action. 

(2) Control measure implementation 

deadlines. (i) For RACT required 

pursuant to reclassification, the state 

shall provide for implementation of 

such RACT as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than 18 months 

after the RACT SIP submittal deadline 

or the beginning of the attainment year 

ozone season associated with the area’s 

new attainment deadline, whichever is 

earlier, unless the Administrator 

establishes a different deadline in a 

separate action. 

(ii) For the required I/M program 

pursuant to reclassification, the state 

shall provide for full implementation of 

such I/M program as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than 4 years 

after the effective date of the relevant 

reclassification, unless the I/M program 

is needed for attainment by the 

attainment date or RFP, in which case 

the state shall provide for full 

implementation of such I/M program no 

later than the beginning of the 

attainment year ozone season. 

§ 51.1403 Applicability of ozone SIP 

requirements for former classification after 

reclassification. 

(a) Upon the effective date of 

reclassification, the requirements of any 

subpart of this part with respect to 

ozone nonattainment planning 

applicable to the area for the former 

classification shall apply as follows: 

(1) Unless specified in paragraph 

(a)(2) or (3) of this section, the 

requirement is unaffected by 

reclassification and continues to be 

required for the former classification. 

(2) The following requirements are no 

longer applicable with respect to the 

former attainment date: 

(i) A SIP revision to demonstrate 

attainment by such date. 

(ii) A SIP revision demonstrating 

adoption of all RACM necessary to 

demonstrate attainment with respect to 

such date. 

(3) If the reclassification became 

effective prior to the former attainment 

date pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(3), 

the plan requirement for contingency 

measures for failure to attain by such 

date is no longer applicable with respect 

to the former attainment date. 

(b) Nothing in this section shall affect 

the requirements applicable to the 

nonattainment area under its currently 

applicable classification and attainment 

date. 

[FR Doc. 2025–00336 Filed 1–16–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2024–0511; FRL–12384– 

01–R10] 

Air Plan Approval; AK; Updates to 

Materials Incorporated by Reference 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule; administrative 

change. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is updating the materials 

that are incorporated by reference (IBR) 

into the Alaska State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). The regulations affected by 

this update have been previously 

submitted by the State of Alaska and 

approved by the EPA. In this final rule, 

the EPA is also notifying the public of 

corrections and clarifying changes in the 

Code of Federal Regulations tables that 

identify the materials incorporated by 

reference into the Alaska SIP. This 

update affects the materials that are 

available for public inspection at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration and the EPA Regional 

Office. 

DATES: Effective January 17, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: The SIP materials for which 

incorporation by reference into 40 CFR 

part 52 is finalized through this action 

are available for inspection at the 

following locations: Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 

Sixth Avenue, Suite 155, Seattle, WA 

98101; and www.regulations.gov. To 

view the materials at the Region 10 

Office, the EPA requests that you email 

the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES