```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 11 (Friday, January 17, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5651-5678]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00336]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: 
[email protected]; 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: [email protected].

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)

[[Page 5652]]

    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/ground-level-ozone-pollution/ozone-implementation-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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 89 FR 80833 (October 4, 2024).
    \3\ Each 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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,

[[Page 5653]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ CAA section 172(c)(1).
    \5\ CAA section 181(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 5654]]

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 EPA-approved 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

[[Page 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 case-by-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 notice-and-
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

[[Page 5656]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 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).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 5657]]

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Cf. 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'').
    \9\ CAA 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 5658]]

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

[[Page 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

[[Page 5660]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 83 FR 62998, 63013 (December 6, 2018).
    \11\ See, e.g., Clean Air Act Reclassification of the San 
Antonio, Dallas-Fort Worth, and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Ozone 
Nonattainment Areas, TX, Final Rule, 89 FR 51829 (June 20, 2024).
    \12\ See, 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 5661]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See CAA section 182(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 83 FR 62998, 63009 (December 6, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 5662]]

than the earlier of 18 months from the SIP submittal deadline or the 
beginning of the attainment year ozone season.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 89 FR 80833, 80839 (October 4, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
fact-specific-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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ To 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 RACT \18\ 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

[[Page 5663]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See 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'').
    \19\ 89 FR 80833, 80839 (October 4, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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 ozone-forming 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 40 CFR 51.1308(d)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 5664]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
    \24\ EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0333-0044 commenter letter at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 5665]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See, 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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, CAA-required 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

[[Page 5666]]

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 time-bound 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The 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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 5667]]

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ CAA section 182(c)(2)(B) for Serious area provisions and 
section 182(b)(1) for Moderate provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 5668]]

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ CAA section 110(k) requires that the EPA act on any 
submitted SIP revision, regardless of 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ State 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 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 RACT-level 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

[[Page 5670]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 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.
    \33\ See, e.g., 87 FR 21825, 21828 (April 13, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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).

[[Page 5671]]

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ CAA 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 ozone-specific RFP requirements in CAA 
sections 182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2)(B) for Serious areas).
    \36\ 57 FR 13498, 13507 (April 16, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See 57 FR 13498, 13510 (April 16, 1992) (for Moderate 
areas), 13518 (for Serious areas).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See, e.g., 40 CFR 51.910(a)(1)(ii)(A), (b)(2)(ii)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 5672]]

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Under 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.
    \40\ Compare 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See, 40 CFR 51.1300(l), 51.1300(m), 51.1310(a)(2)(i) and 
51.1310(a)(4)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ The 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.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 5673]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 5674]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See, 84 FR 44238, 44246 (August 23, 2019); 87 FR 60897, 
60909 (October 7, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 89 FR 51829 (June 20, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-and-comment 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

[[Page 5675]]

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-Maryland-Delaware 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ 40 CFR 51.1308(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 source-specific 
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ U.S. EPA, EPA Legal Tools to Advance Environmental Justice 
(May 2022).
    \48\ Id.
    \49\ U.S. EPA, Achieving Health and Environmental Protection 
Through EPA's Meaningful Engagement Policy (August 2024).
    \50\ See U.S. EPA, Public Involvement Policy of the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (May 2003).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 5676]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ On 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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 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

0
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

Sec.  51.1312   [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  51.1312 by removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(2)(ii) 
and (a)(3)(ii).

0
3. Add subpart DD consisting of Sec. Sec.  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.

Sec.  51.1400   Definitions.

    The following definitions apply for purposes of this subpart. Any 
term not defined herein shall have the meaning as defined in Sec.  
51.100.
    Attainment year means the calendar year in which the attainment 
year ozone season occurs.

[[Page 5678]]

    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).

Sec.  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.

Sec.  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.

Sec.  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
```