6928 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

5Motion of Pitney Bowes Inc. for Issuance of 

Information Request, December 23, 2024 (Motion). 

2.12 percent and 1.53 percent, 

respectively. Id. 

III. Notice and Comment 

The Commission establishes Docket 

No. RM2025–6 for consideration of 

matters raised by the Petition. More 

information on the Petition may be 

accessed via the Commission’s website 

at https://www.prc.gov. Interested 

persons may submit comments on the 

Petition and the proposal by February 

27, 2025. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, 

Almaroof Agoro is designated as an 

officer of the Commission (Public 

Representative) to represent the 

interests of the general public in this 

proceeding. 

IV. Information Request 

On December 23, 2024, Pitney Bowes 

filed a motion seeking issuance of an 

information request to the Postal 

Service.5 Because the response to the 

proposed question is likely to aid 

evaluation of the Petition, the Motion is 

granted. The Postal Service shall 

respond to the following question by 

January 7, 2025: Please provide 

modified versions of Library Reference 

USPS–FY23–24: FY 2023 NonOperation Specific Piggyback Factors 

(Public Portion) and Library Reference 

USPS–FY23–25: FY 2023 Mail 

Processing Piggyback Factors (Operation 

Specific) that incorporate the impact of 

the proposed changes to analytical 

principles. 

V. Ordering Paragraphs 

It is ordered: 

1. The Commission establishes Docket 

No. RM2025–6 for consideration of the 

matters raised by the Petition of the 

United States Postal Service to Initiate 

a Proceeding to Change Analytical 

Principles and Notice of Filing NonPublic Materials, filed December 19, 

2024. 

2. Comments by interested persons in 

this proceeding are due February 27, 

2025. 

3. The Motion of Pitney Bowes Inc. 

for Issuance of Information Request, 

filed December 23, 2024, is granted. 

4. The Postal Service shall respond to 

the following question by January 7, 

2025, and provide modified versions of 

Library Reference USPS–FY23–24: FY 

2023 Non-Operation Specific Piggyback 

Factors (Public Portion) and Library 

Reference USPS–FY23–25: FY 2023 

Mail Processing Piggyback Factors 

(Operation Specific) that incorporate the 

impact of the proposed changes to 

analytical principles. 

5. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the 

Commission appoints Almaroof Agoro 

to serve as an officer of the Commission 

(Public Representative) to represent the 

interests of the general public in this 

docket. 

6. The Secretary shall arrange for the 

publication of this order in the Federal 

Register. 

By the Commission. 

Erica A. Barker, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2025–00153 Filed 1–17–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2024–0627; FRL–12536– 

01–R9] 

Air Plan Revisions; California Air Plan 

Revisions; San Joaquin Valley Unified 

Air Pollution Control District; 

Stationary Source Permits 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing action on 

three permitting rules submitted as a 

revision to the San Joaquin Valley 

Unified Air Pollution Control District 

(SJVUAPCD or ‘‘District’’) portion of the 

California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). These revisions concern the 

District’s New Source Review (NSR) 

permitting program for new and 

modified sources of air pollution under 

section 110(a)(2)(C) and part D of title I 

of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’). 

This action will update the California 

SIP with rules that the District has 

revised to address deficiencies 

identified in a previous limited 

disapproval action and to incorporate 

other revisions related to NSR 

requirements. We are taking comments 

on this proposal and plan to follow with 

a final action. Elsewhere in this Federal 

Register, we are making an interim final 

determination that will defer the 

imposition of CAA sanctions associated 

with our previous limited disapproval 

action. This action also proposes to 

revise regulatory text to clarify that the 

SJVUAPCD is not subject to the federal 

implementation plan related to 

protection of visibility. 

DATES: WComments must be received 

on or before February 20, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2024–0627 at https://

www.regulations.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish 

any comment received to its public 

docket. Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

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

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

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

commenting-epa-dockets. If you need 

assistance in a language other than 

English or if you are a person with a 

disability who needs a reasonable 

accommodation at no cost to you, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Doris Lo, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: 

(415) 972–3959, or by email at lo.doris@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of these rules? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rules? 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules? 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. What are the rule deficiencies? 

D. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rules. 

E. Proposed Action and Public Comment. 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rules addressed by 

this proposal including the date they 

were adopted by the District and 

submitted to the EPA by the California 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules 6929 

1 87 FR 45730. 

2See 40 CFR 81.305 (describing geographic extent 

of San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area for each 

NAAQS). 

Air Resources Board (CARB), which is the governor’s designee for California 

SIP submittals. 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES

Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 

1020 .......... Definitions ................................................................................................................................................ 4/20/23 10/13/23 

2020 .......... Exemptions .............................................................................................................................................. 12/18/14 10/13/23 

2201 .......... New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule ................................................................................. 4/20/23 10/13/23 

On April 13, 2024, the submittal of 

each rule became complete by operation 

of law. 

B. Are there other versions of these 

rules? 

The SIP-approved versions of the 

submitted rules are identified below in 

Table 2. 

TABLE 2—SIP-APPROVED RULES

Rule No. Rule title 

SIP 

approval 

date 

Federal Register 

citation 

1020 ....... Definitions .......................................................................................................... 10/02/14 79 FR 59433. 

2020 ....... Exemptions ........................................................................................................ 9/17/14 79 FR 55637. 

2201 ....... New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule .......................................... 7/10/23 88 FR 43434. 

If the EPA finalizes the action 

proposed herein, these rules will be 

replaced in the SIP by the submitted set 

of rules listed in Table 1. Additionally, 

as described below, the EPA’s final 

approval of these rules will resolve our 

previous limited disapproval of Rule 

2201. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rules? 

The submitted rules constitute part of 

the District’s program for 

preconstruction review and permitting 

of new or modified stationary sources 

under its jurisdiction. The rule revisions 

that are the subject of this action update 

the District’s preconstruction review 

and permitting program and are 

intended to satisfy the NSR program 

requirements under part D of title I of 

the Act (‘‘nonattainment NSR’’ or 

‘‘NNSR’’), the general preconstruction 

review requirements under section 

110(a)(2)(C) of the Act (‘‘minor NSR’’), 

and related EPA regulations. The 

submitted rules are also intended to 

resolve deficiencies identified in our 

July 10, 2023 final action (‘‘2023 NSR 

Action’’),1 which included a limited 

disapproval of a prior version of Rule 

2201. The rules also include other 

assorted revisions, including new and 

revised definitions and applicability 

and compliance provisions. 

The San Joaquin Valley is currently 

designated attainment for the nitrogen 

dioxide, carbon monoxide, particulate 

matter equal to or less than 10 

micrometers (PM10), sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), and lead National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS). The San 

Joaquin Valley is currently designated 

‘‘Extreme’’ nonattainment for the 1997, 

2008, and 2015 ozone NAAQS and 

‘‘Serious’’ nonattainment for the 1997, 

2006, and 2012 particulate matter equal 

to or less than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5) 

NAAQS.2 Therefore, the District is 

required to adopt and implement a SIPapproved NNSR permitting program 

that applies to new or modified major 

stationary sources of ozone precursors, 

PM2.5, and PM2.5 precursors within the 

San Joaquin Valley. 

The SIP submittal evaluated in this 

action includes revisions to Rule 1020, 

‘‘Definitions,’’ Rule 2020, 

‘‘Exemptions,’’ and Rule 2201, ‘‘New 

and Modified Stationary Source Review 

Rule.’’ Rule 1020 provides definitions 

for certain key terms used throughout 

the District’s regulations. Rule 2020 

specifies types of emissions units that 

are not required to obtain an Authority 

to Construct (ATC) or Permit to Operate 

(PTO). The rule also specifies the 

recordkeeping requirements to verify a 

permit exemption and outlines the 

compliance schedule for existing 

emissions units that lose their permit 

exemption. Rule 2201 is intended to 

satisfy the requirements of the NNSR 

program under part D of title I of the 

CAA that are applicable in ozone and 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas and the 

general NSR program permit 

requirements. 

The EPA’s technical support 

document (TSD) for this action, which 

is included in the docket for our 

proposed rulemaking, has more 

information about the purposes of the 

submitted rules and the District’s 

revisions. 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules? 

The EPA has evaluated the submitted 

rules to determine whether they address 

the deficiencies identified in our 2023 

NSR Action. We have also evaluated all 

additional rule revisions for compliance 

with CAA sections 172(c)(5), 173, 

182(e), and 189(b), which establish the 

requirements for stationary source 

preconstruction permitting programs, 

including those specifically applicable 

for an Extreme ozone nonattainment 

area and Serious PM2.5 nonattainment 

area, as well as the federal regulations 

applicable to stationary source 

permitting at 40 CFR 51.160 through 

51.165. Additionally, the EPA reviewed 

the rules for consistency with other 

general CAA requirements for SIP 

submittals, including requirements at 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) regarding rule 

enforceability and requirements at CAA 

sections 110(l) and 193 for SIP 

revisions. We have also considered 

whether the rules meet the federal 

visibility requirements related to state 

NNSR programs as described in 40 CFR 

51.307. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6930 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

3 40 CFR 52.31. 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

With the exceptions noted below, the 

EPA finds that Rules 1020, 2020, and 

2201 generally satisfy the applicable 

CAA and regulatory requirements for 

sources subject to NNSR permit program 

requirements. Below, we discuss our 

evaluation of the submitted rules. The 

TSD for this action contains a more 

detailed analysis. 

The SJVUAPCD revised Rules 1020 

and 2201 to address the deficiencies 

identified in the 2023 NSR action. 

Specifically, the District revised Rules 

1020 and 2201 to address our findings 

that the previous version of Rule 2201 

(1) omitted certain definitions necessary 

for application of the District’s 

permitting program for new and 

modified stationary sources; (2) 

included provisions allowing for 

interprecursor trading (IPT) that are no 

longer permissible due to a 2021 D.C. 

Circuit Court of appeals decision; (3) 

allowed for impermissible exemptions 

for relocated sources; (4) lacked public 

notice requirements for certain minor 

sources; (5) included an offset tracking 

system that failed to ensure equivalency 

with federal offset requirements; (6) did 

not include certain required provisions 

for temporary replacement units and 

routine replacement emission units; and 

(7) included other more minor 

deficiencies. The District addressed all 

these deficiencies in the SIP submission 

that is being evaluated in this action. 

The TSD for this action provides further 

detail on these deficiencies and how 

they were addressed by the District. 

While the District addressed all the 

deficiencies identified in the 2023 NSR 

action, pursuant to sections 110(k)(3) 

and 301(a) of the Act, we are proposing 

a limited approval and limited 

disapproval of Rules 1020, 

‘‘Definitions,’’ 2020, ‘‘Exemptions,’’ and 

2201, ‘‘New and Modified Stationary 

Source Review Rule’’ due to the newly 

identified deficiencies found in each 

rule. These new deficiencies are 

described in Section II.C of this action. 

The submitted rules comply with the 

substantive and procedural 

requirements of CAA section 110(l). 

With respect to the procedural 

requirements, based on our review of 

the public process documentation 

included with the submitted rules, we 

find that the District has provided 

sufficient evidence of public notice and 

opportunity for comment and public 

hearings prior to submittal of this SIP 

revision and has satisfied these 

procedural requirements under CAA 

section 110(l). 

With respect to the substantive 

requirements of CAA section 110(l), we 

have determined that our approval of 

the submitted rules would not interfere 

with the area’s ability to attain or 

maintain the NAAQS or with any other 

applicable requirements of the CAA. 

Similarly, we find that the submitted 

rules are approvable under section 193 

of the Act because they do not modify 

any control requirement in effect before 

November 15, 1990, without ensuring 

equivalent or greater emission 

reductions. The submitted rules are 

otherwise consistent with criteria for the 

EPA’s approval of regulations submitted 

for inclusion in the SIP, including the 

requirement at CAA section 110(c)(2)(A) 

that submitted regulations be clear and 

legally enforceable. 

For the reasons stated above and 

explained further in the TSD for this 

action, we find that the submitted rules 

generally satisfy the applicable CAA 

and regulatory requirements for NSR 

permit programs under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A) and part D of title I of the 

Act and other applicable requirements, 

subject to the exceptions noted below 

where the EPA has identified 

deficiencies. This submittal also 

corrects the deficiencies described in 

our 2023 NSR Action. If we finalize this 

action as proposed, our action will 

resolve the limited disapproval of Rule 

2201 and will be codified through 

revisions to 40 CFR 52.220 

(Identification of plan—in part). 

Because Rules 1020, 2020, and 2201 are 

not fully consistent with these 

requirements, we are proposing a 

limited approval and limited 

disapproval of the rules under CAA 

sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a). The 

specific rule provisions that do not meet 

the evaluation criteria are summarized 

in the following section and described 

in more detail in the TSD included in 

the docket for this proposed action. 

We are concurrently making an 

interim final determination to defer 

CAA section 179 sanctions associated 

with the 2023 NSR Action’s limited 

disapproval of Rule 2201. Consistent 

with our order of sanction regulations,3

this determination is based on this 

proposal to approve SIP revisions from 

the District that resolve the deficiencies 

that were the basis of our prior limited 

disapproval that triggered sanctions 

under section 179 of the CAA. 

C. What are the rule deficiencies? 

The following provisions of Rules 

1020, 2020, and 2201 do not satisfy the 

requirements of section 110 and/or part 

D of title I of the Act and prevent full 

approval of the rules. The District must 

correct the deficiencies identified in this 

section and resubmit the rules for the 

EPA’s approval in a subsequent action. 

The EPA has identified three 

deficiencies in the submitted rules. 

1. Rule 1020—Definitions 

The definition of VOC in Rule 1020 is 

deficient because it does not include 

trans-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluorobut-2-ene 

(also known as HFO–1336mzz(E)), 

which is an exempt compound listed in 

the definition of VOC as found in 40 

CFR 51.100(s)(1). In addition, on 

November 12, 2024, the EPA proposed 

to add (Z)-1-chloro-2,3,3,3- 

tetrafluoropropene (also known as 

HCFO–1224yd(Z)) to the definition of 

VOC as an exempt compound. The 

District must revise the Rule 1020 

definition of VOC to match the federal 

definition at 40 CFR 51.100(s), 

including the exemptions listed at 40 

CFR 51.100(s)(1). 

2. Rule 2020—Exemptions 

Several American Society for Testing 

and Materials (ASTM) test method 

citations provided in Rule 2020 are 

deficient because they do not include 

the revision or reissuance date of the 

specific ASTM methods. 

3. Rule 2201—New and Modified 

Stationary Source Review Rule 

The term ‘‘Emission Reduction 

Credit’’ is used in Rule 2201, but the 

term is not defined in the rule or in Rule 

1020, ‘‘Definitions.’’ We note that the 

term is defined in Rule 2301—Emission 

Reduction Credit Banking, but this rule 

has not been submitted for SIP approval. 

Therefore, we find Rule 2201 deficient 

because it does not provide a definition 

for the term Emission Reduction Credit, 

and the term is a necessary component 

of an approvable NNSR program. 

D. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rules 

The TSD for this action includes 

recommendations for the next time the 

District revises Rule 2201. 

E. Proposed Action and Public 

Comment 

As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) 

and 301(a) of the Act, the EPA is 

proposing a limited approval and 

limited disapproval of Rules 1020, 2020, 

and 2201. We will accept comments 

from the public on this proposal until 

February 20, 2025. If we finalize this 

action as proposed, this action will 

incorporate the submitted rules into the 

SIP, including those provisions 

identified as deficient. This approval is 

limited because the EPA is 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules 6931 

4Memorandum dated July 9, 1992, from John 

Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management 

Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, U.S. EPA, to EPA Regional Air Directors, 

Regions I–X, Subject: ‘‘Processing of State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Submittals.’’ 

simultaneously proposing a limited 

disapproval of the rules under section 

110(k)(3). If finalized as proposed, our 

limited disapproval action would trigger 

an obligation on the EPA to promulgate 

a federal implementation plan (FIP) 

unless the State corrects the 

deficiencies, and the EPA approves the 

related plan revisions, within two years 

of the final action. Additionally, 

because the deficiency relates to NNSR 

requirements under part D of title I of 

the Act, the offset sanction in CAA 

section 179(b)(2) would apply in the 

San Joaquin Valley 18 months after the 

effective date of a final limited 

disapproval, and the highway funding 

sanctions in CAA section 179(b)(1) 

would apply in the area six months after 

the offset sanction is imposed. Neither 

sanction will be imposed under the 

CAA if the State submits and we 

approve, prior to the implementation of 

the sanctions, a SIP revision that 

corrects the deficiencies we identify in 

our final action. The EPA intends to 

work with the District to correct the 

deficiencies in a timely manner. 

This action would also revise the 

regulatory provisions at 40 CFR 

52.281(d) concerning the applicability 

of the visibility FIP at 40 CFR 52.28 as 

it pertains to California, to provide that 

this FIP does not apply to sources 

subject to review under the District’s 

SIP-approved NNSR program. As 

described in more detail in the TSD for 

this action, we are proposing to find that 

Rule 2201 satisfies the visibility 

provisions for sources subject to the 

NNSR program at 40 CFR 51.307. 

Note that the submitted rules have 

been adopted by the District, and the 

EPA’s final limited disapproval would 

not prevent the local agency from 

enforcing them. The limited disapproval 

would also not prevent any portion of 

the rules from being incorporated by 

reference into the federally enforceable 

SIP.4

III. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

the rules listed in Table 1 of this 

preamble. These rules implement the 

District’s nonattainment NSR program. 

The EPA has made, and will continue 

to make, this document available 

electronically through https://

www.regulations.gov and at the EPA 

Region IX Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to review state choices and 

approve those choices if they meet the 

minimum criteria of the Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed action is 

proposing a limited approval and 

limited disapproval of state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA because this action does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. 

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 beyond those imposed by state 

law. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. This action does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

state, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, will result from this 

action. 

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. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175, because the SIP is not 

approved to apply on any Indian 

reservation land or in any other area 

where the EPA or an Indian tribe has 

demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction, and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks 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 is merely proposing a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of 

state law as meeting federal 

requirements. Furthermore, the EPA’s 

Policy on Children’s Health does not 

apply to this action. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs 

the EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. The EPA believes that this 

action is not subject to the requirements 

of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6932 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

1Areas statutorily designated as mandatory Class 

I Federal Areas consist of national parks exceeding 

6,000 acres, wilderness areas and national memorial 

parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international 

parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 

CAA 162(a). There are 156 mandatory Class I Areas. 

The list of areas to which the requirements of the 

visibility protection program apply is in 40 CFR 

part 81, subpart D. 

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 

Executive Order 12898 (Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) directs Federal 

agencies to identify and address 

‘‘disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects’’ 

of their actions on communities with 

environmental justice (EJ) concerns to 

the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law. Executive Order 

14096 (Revitalizing Our Nation’s 

Commitment to Environmental Justice 

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

builds on and supplements Executive 

Order 12898 and defines EJ as, among 

other things, ‘‘the just treatment and 

meaningful involvement of all people, 

regardless of income, race, color, 

national origin, Tribal affiliation, or 

disability, in agency decision-making 

and other Federal activities that affect 

human health and the environment.’’ 

The State did not evaluate EJ 

considerations as part of its SIP 

submittal; the CAA and applicable 

implementing regulations neither 

prohibit nor require such an evaluation. 

The EPA did not perform an EJ analysis 

and did not consider EJ in this action. 

Consideration of EJ is not required as 

part of this action, and there is no 

information in the record inconsistent 

with the stated goal of Executive Orders 

12898 and 14096 of achieving EJ for 

communities with EJ concerns. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: January 13, 2025. 

Martha Guzman Aceves, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2025–01220 Filed 1–17–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2024–0625; FRL–10253– 

01–R3] 

Air Plan Disapproval; West Virginia; 

Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan for the Second Implementation 

Period 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to 

disapprove a revision to West Virginia’s 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submitted by the West Virginia 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(WV DEP) on August 12, 2022. The SIP 

was submitted to satisfy applicable 

requirements under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) and EPA’s Regional Haze Rule 

(RHR) for the program’s second 

planning period. If finalized, 

disapproval does not start a mandatory 

sanctions clock. The EPA is taking this 

action pursuant to sections 110 and 

169A of the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before February 20, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– 

OAR–2024–0625 at 

www.regulations.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, the EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

confidential business information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

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

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Adam Yarina, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 3, 1600 John 

F. Kennedy Boulevard, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania 19103–2852, at (215) 814– 

2108, or by email at yarina.Adam@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

I. What action is the EPA proposing? 

The EPA is proposing to disapprove 

West Virginia’s Regional Haze plan for 

the second planning period. As required 

by sections 169A and 169B of the CAA, 

the Federal RHR at 40 CFR 51.308 calls 

for State and Federal agencies to work 

together to improve visibility in 156 

national parks and wilderness areas. 

The rule requires the States, in 

coordination with the EPA, the U.S. 

National Parks Service (NPS), U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS), the U.S. 

Forest Service (USFS), and other 

interested parties, to develop and 

implement air quality protection plans 

to reduce the pollution that causes 

visibility impairment in mandatory 

Class I Federal areas. Visibility 

impairing pollutants include fine and 

coarse particulate matter (PM) (e.g., 

sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, 

elemental carbon, and soil dust) and 

their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and, in 

some cases, volatile organic compounds 

(VOC) and ammonia (NH3)). As 

discussed in further detail below, the 

EPA is proposing to find that West 

Virginia has submitted a Regional Haze 

plan that does not meet the statutory 

and regulatory Regional Haze 

requirements for the second planning 

period. The State’s 2022 submission can 

be found in the docket for this action. 

II. Background and Requirements for 

Regional Haze Plans 

A. Regional Haze Background 

In the 1977 CAA Amendments, 

Congress created a program for 

protecting visibility in the nation’s 

mandatory Class I Federal areas, which 

include certain national parks and 

wilderness areas.1 CAA section 169A. 

The CAA establishes as a national goal 

the ‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory class I Federal 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1