The EPA proposed to exercise its authority to revoke the 1997 ozone
NAAQS for all purposes upon the publication of the final SIP
Requirements Rule in the Federal Register.\74\ The EPA also proposed
that anti-backsliding provisions would apply to an area in accordance
with its designation and, as applicable, its classification, for the
1997 (and, if applicable, 1-hour) ozone NAAQS at the time of revocation
of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The following sections discuss in detail the
applicable anti-backsliding requirements and how they apply to areas
with various designations and classifications for the 2008 and the soon
to be revoked 1997 and the already revoked 1-hour ozone NAAQS.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ The EPA's Classifications Rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
also provided that the 1997 ozone NAAQS would be revoked 1 year
after the effective date of initial area designations for the 2008
ozone NAAQS for purposes of transportation conformity. The D.C.
Circuit held that the EPA lacked authority for such a partial
revocation, but did not question its authority to revoke a standard
in total. NRDC v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 12-1321, Dec 23, 2014). Today's
revocation of the standard is for all purposes, including
transportation conformity.
    \75\ The 1-hour ozone NAAQS was revoked in the Phase 1 Rule. See
69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004. The D.C. Circuit upheld EPA's authority
to revoke that standard so long as it introduces adequate anti-
backsliding measures. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v.
EPA, 472 F.3d 882, 899 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Final Action
    The EPA is revoking the 1997 ozone NAAQS for all purposes upon the
effective date of this final rule, which will be 30 days after
publication of this rule in the Federal Register. When the 1997 ozone
NAAQS is revoked, the anti-backsliding requirements for that NAAQS, as
detailed in this final rulemaking, become applicable. The

extent of continued implementation efforts for a revoked standard
derives from administration of anti-backsliding requirements for the
revoked standard. After the revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the EPA
will no longer be able to take action to reclassify or to redesignate
areas for that standard.
    After revocation of the 1997 standard, the designations (and the
classifications associated with those designations) for that standard
are no longer in effect, and the sole designations that remain in
effect are those for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. However, the EPA is
retaining the listing of the designated areas for the revoked 1997
ozone NAAQS in 40 CFR part 81, for the sole purpose of identifying the
anti-backsliding requirements that may apply to the areas at the time
of revocation. Accordingly, such references to historical designations
for the revoked standard should not be viewed as current designations
under CAA section 107(d).
3. Rationale
    This approach of establishing anti-backsliding requirements is
consistent with the EPA's practice in the transition from the 1-hour to
the 1997 ozone NAAQS. It is not logical to attach to an area any anti-
backsliding requirements for the revoked 1997 NAAQS until that NAAQS is
revoked because up until revocation, implementation of the 1997 NAAQS
is still adequately governed by the relevant CAA and regulatory
provisions, and the EPA can still take actions to redesignate or
reclassify areas for that standard.76 77 In fact, the status
of many areas with respect to designation and classification for the
1997 ozone NAAQS has already changed since promulgation of the 2008
ozone NAAQS. Thus, the EPA concludes that it is reasonable to establish
the date of revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS as the time for anti-
backsliding requirements for that NAAQS to take effect, which is
consistent with past practice under the Phase 1 Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ Although 40 CFR 51.905(a) specified that the anti-
backsliding requirements ``attached'' at the time of designation for
the 1997 ozone NAAQS, areas were still able to redesignate to
attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS up to the date of revocation
of that standard.
    \77\ See, for example, the redesignations to 1-hour attainment
for Phoenix (June 14, 2005, 70 FR 34362) and Atlanta (June 15, 2005,
70 FR 34660) which occurred right up until the June 15, 2005
effective date of revocation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA believes it is appropriate to revoke rather than retain the
1997 ozone NAAQS for all purposes.\78\ This final action ensures that
only one ozone NAAQS--the more protective 2008 ozone NAAQS--directly
applies, rather than having two standards apply concurrently. In
revoking any standard, the EPA provides adequate anti-backsliding
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ When the EPA revises a NAAQS, the prior NAAQS is not
automatically revoked. Accordingly, both the 1997 ozone NAAQS and
the more stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS are active standards unless and
until the EPA takes action to revoke the previous 1997 ozone NAAQS,
subject to appropriate anti-backsliding requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe that revoking the 1997 ozone NAAQS is appropriate for
all purposes. The EPA believes that the permanent retention of two
standards, differing only in the ozone concentrations they allow,
creates unnecessary complexity and is not necessary to provide for
attainment of the more stringent NAAQS. The EPA's reason for
establishing the new standards of 0.075 ppm as requisite to protect
public health and welfare was its conclusion that the old standard of
0.08 ppm was not adequate. Revoking (with appropriate anti-backsliding
measures) rather than retaining that 1997 ozone NAAQS will facilitate a
more seamless transition to demonstrating compliance with the more
health and welfare protective 2008 ozone NAAQS, and will ensure the
most efficient use of state and local resources in working toward
attainment of that standard. Moreover, we believe that by requiring
adequate anti-backsliding measures we will ensure continued momentum in
states' efforts toward achieving cleaner air.
4. Comments and Responses
    Comment: One commenter recognized the EPA's authority to revoke the
1997 ozone NAAQS, but opposed the revocation because attainment of the
1997 NAAQS would advance progress toward the 2008 standard and ensures
that such progress would be made sooner rather than later. The
commenter indicated that the EPA's proposal to revoke the 1997 ozone
NAAQS would waive key requirements for Extreme nonattainment areas
under the 1997 standard before the deadline comes due. The commenter
also stated that the EPA must explain the specific problems caused by
retaining the 1997 (and 1-hour) ozone NAAQS and tailor the solutions to
address those specific problems, citing several rulings that the
commenter believed that the EPA must provide a rational basis for their
action.
    Response: The anti-backsliding approach that the EPA proposed
retains all applicable control requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS,
while enabling areas, where possible, to focus planning efforts on
meeting the more protective 2008 ozone NAAQS. We believe the strong
anti-backsliding provisions in 40 CFR 51.1105 will ensure that controls
already adopted to attain the previous NAAQS continue to be implemented
until an area attains the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and will also ensure that
there will be no delay in attaining the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Since it is
impossible to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS without also attaining the
1997 ozone NAAQS, retaining the 1997 ozone NAAQS would be largely
superfluous from a health protection standpoint.
    The EPA agrees with the commenter that the adopted revocation
approach means that the 1997 NAAQS would be revoked before the
statutory maximum attainment date for areas classified as Severe and
Extreme for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. We believe that Congress understood
this possibility when it amended the CAA in 1990 to require the EPA to
review each NAAQS every 5 years. Similarly, Congress also recognized
that areas with more significant ozone problems would need more time to
attain the standard, and gave these areas more time to attain the
standard, with timeframes for attainment largely beyond the 5-year
timeframe required for review of the NAAQS. The EPA does not agree with
the commenter's characterization of revoking the NAAQS, while retaining
a retinue of anti-backsliding requirements, as creating perpetual
extensions for attaining old standards. The commenter's argument
ignores the fact that the old standard has been supplanted by a more
protective standard, and that the EPA's anti-backsliding requirements,
combined with the CAA's new obligations to achieve the more stringent
2008 ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, effectively fulfill
the function of the prior attainment date. In addition the EPA notes
that the attainment demonstration for the prior standard is retained as
an anti-backsliding measure.
    The EPA believes that integrating prior requirements with new goals
facilitates coherent, effective and timely planning and controls, and
minimizes the separate potentially duplicative submittal of
requirements left over from obsolete standards. In this time of
diminished resources, the states and the EPA need to move forward
efficiently without being overburdened by unnecessary paperwork
requirements arising from former standards that can detract from
efficient movement towards more stringent standards.
    For these reasons, and consistent with the anti-backsliding regime
previously endorsed by the D.C. Circuit, South Coast Air Quality
Management Dist. v.

EPA, 472 F.3d 882 for the transition from the 1-hour to the 1997 ozone
NAAQS, the EPA believes that the revocation and associated anti-
backsliding measures for the 2008 ozone NAAQS provide the appropriate
way to move toward attaining the more protective standards in a timely
and effective manner, while ensuring that progress made under previous
ozone NAAQS is not lost. For additional details, please refer to the
Response to Comments document.
    Comment: A number of commenters in favor of revocation of the 1997
ozone NAAQS suggested alternate dates for revocation. Several
commenters wanted an earlier date for revocation, such as the
promulgation date of the 2008 ozone NAAQS or the effective date of
designations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. One of these commenters
questioned whether the revocation would occur on the date of
publication of the rule in the Federal Register or on the effective
date of the rule.
    Response: We disagree with commenters that recommended that the EPA
revoke the 1997 ozone NAAQS at an earlier date. We believe that
revoking the 1997 ozone NAAQS prior to the establishment of clear anti-
backsliding requirements would create a gap in air quality protection
and that South Coast v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 indicates that backstops to
prevent relaxation of measures implemented for a previous NAAQS must be
in place before the EPA can revoke that NAAQS. The EPA, upon
considering the comment on the effective date of revocation, clarifies
here that the 1997 ozone NAAQS will be revoked on the rule's effective
date as set forth in the Federal Register. That is, the 1997 ozone
NAAQS will be revoked 30 days after publication of the final rule in
the Federal Register.

B. What are the applicable requirements for anti-backsliding purposes
following the revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS?

1. Summary of the Proposal
    The EPA proposal stated that subpart AA, 40 CFR 51.1100 et seq.,
would provide comprehensive anti-backsliding requirements for
transition to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA proposed that, upon
revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS, subpart X, 40 CFR 51.900 et seq.,
would be effectively replaced by the proposed subpart AA.
    In proposed subpart AA, 40 CFR 51.1100(o) specified the list of
``applicable requirements'' that would apply as anti-backsliding
requirements for the transition from the 1997 ozone NAAQS to the 2008
ozone NAAQS. The EPA proposed as ``applicable requirements'' the
requirements that were previously listed in 40 CFR 51.900(f) (except
for Stage II vapor recovery),\79\ as well as the addition of three
anti-backsliding requirements that were included as a result of the
South Coast v. EPA \80\ decision: Nonattainment NSR thresholds and
offset ratios, nonattainment contingency measures for failure to attain
by the applicable deadline or to meet RFP milestones, and CAA section
185 fee program requirements. Since the South Coast v. EPA decision,
the EPA has been including these three requirements as anti-backsliding
requirements for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for the purpose of discharging
its obligations to effectuate anti-backsliding for that standard. The
proposed action would formally list them with the other applicable
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ Under CAA section 202(a)(6), the EPA found that onboard
refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) systems are in widespread use in the
motor vehicle fleet and waived the CAA section 182(b)(3) Stage II
vapor recovery requirement for Serious and higher ozone
nonattainment areas on May 16, 2012 (77 FR 28772). Thus, in the
proposal, the section 182(b)(3) Stage II requirement is omitted from
the list of applicable requirements in 40 CFR 51.1100(o).
    \80\ South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA, 472
F.3d at 899.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The applicable requirements discussed previously apply to areas
that are designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and remain
nonattainment for a previous ozone NAAQS on the date the 1997 ozone
NAAQS is revoked. For areas designated attainment for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS but nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the EPA proposed that
after the 1997 ozone NAAQS is revoked, these areas would not be
required to retain in their SIPs nonattainment NSR programs for ozone.
Instead, such areas would be required to implement PSD requirements for
ozone. The EPA's determination that after revocation of the 1997 ozone
NAAQS nonattainment NSR requirements do not apply to areas designated
attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS is consistent with the Greenbaum v.
EPA decision.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ Greenbaum v. EPA, 370 F.3d 527, 536 (6th Cir. 2004). ``It
would make little sense for [nonattainment NSR] to be included in
the post-attainment SIP, as the Clean Air Act . . . explicitly
states that attainment area SIPs must include a PSD program.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on requirements in the Phase 1 rule for the 1997 ozone NAAQS,
as modified in light of South Coast v. EPA, the definition of
applicable requirements proposed in 40 CFR 51.1100(o) included the
following: (1) RACT; (2) Vehicle I/M programs; (3) Major source
applicability cut-offs for purposes of RACT; (4) ROP and/or RFP
reductions; (5) the Clean fuels fleet program under section 183(c)(4)
of the CAA; (6) Clean fuels for boilers under section 182(e)(3) of the
CAA; (7) Transportation control measures during heavy traffic hours as
provided under section 182(e)(4) of the CAA; (8) Enhanced (ambient)
monitoring under section 182(c)(1) of the CAA; (9) Transportation
controls under section 182(c)(5) of the CAA; (10) Vehicle miles
traveled provisions under section 182(d)(1)(A) of the CAA; (11)
NOX requirements under section 182(f) of the CAA; (12)
Attainment demonstrations; (13) Nonattainment contingency measures;
(14) Nonattainment NSR requirements; and (15) CAA section 185
enforcement requirements for Severe and Extreme nonattainment areas for
failure to attain.
    As part of the proposal, the EPA indicated that upon revocation of
the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the designations for that NAAQS would have no
further effect except as references for anti-backsliding purposes.
References to the designations for the revoked standard in 40 CFR part
81 would be retained solely for anti-backsliding purposes for areas
designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and should not be
viewed as current nonattainment designations under CAA Sec.  107 within
the meaning of 40 CFR 51.166(i)(2) and 52.21(i)(2) and, therefore,
would not trigger the exemption from PSD requirements otherwise
resulting from those provisions. The proposal also requested comment as
to whether or not an amendment to 40 CFR 51.166(i)(2) and 52.21(i)(2)
would be appropriate to make it clear that a nonattainment designation
for a revoked NAAQS, once the revocation becomes effective in an area,
would not trigger the PSD exemption in those provisions and would not
prevent application of PSD requirements for that pollutant and how to
word such an amendment. Alternatively, the EPA sought comment as to
whether it would be sufficient for the EPA to articulate the
interpretation of these provisions as described earlier in this
paragraph.
2. Final Action
    The EPA is finalizing the anti-backsliding requirements as
proposed, including amendments to 51.166(i)(2) and 52.21(i)(2) which
address classifications for revoked NAAQS. The amended subpart AA
addresses anti-backsliding requirements for both the previously revoked
1-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 ozone NAAQS in a consolidated and
streamlined fashion. Areas designated nonattainment for the

2008 ozone NAAQS and also designated nonattainment for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS \82\ at the time of revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS will be
subject to 40 CFR 51.1100(o). As proposed, areas designated attainment
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS
when the 1997 ozone NAAQS is revoked will become subject to PSD
requirements rather than nonattainment NSR requirements once the
revocation is effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ Note that some areas designated as nonattainment for the
1997 NAAQS might also retain anti-backsliding requirements for the
already revoked 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also as proposed, three items are being added to the list of
applicable requirements: Nonattainment contingency measures,
nonattainment NSR requirements (clarified to refer to major source
thresholds and offset ratios), and CAA section 185 requirements for
Severe and Extreme areas. As proposed, Stage II vapor recovery is not
being included in the list of applicable requirements for the reasons
described above.
    Based on feedback received during the comment period, the EPA is
specifically including two additional items in the list of applicable
requirements: RACM and CAA section 182(e)(5) contingency measures.
These provisions were implicitly included in the attainment
demonstration but are listed separately for clarification. As such, the
complete list of applicable requirements in 40 CFR 51.1100(o) is: (1)
RACT; (2) Vehicle I/M programs; (3) Major source applicability cut-offs
for purposes of RACT; (4) ROP and/or RFP reductions; (5) the Clean
fuels fleet program under section 183(c)(4) of the CAA; (6) Clean fuels
for boilers under section 182(e)(3) of the CAA; (7) Transportation
control measures during heavy traffic hours as provided under section
182(e)(4) of the CAA; (8) Enhanced (ambient) monitoring under section
182(c)(1) of the CAA; (9) Transportation controls under section
182(c)(5) of the CAA; (10) Vehicle miles traveled provisions under
section 182(d)(1)(A) of the CAA; (11) NOX requirements under
section 182(f) of the CAA; (12) Attainment demonstrations; (13)
Nonattainment contingency measures; (14) Nonattainment NSR major source
thresholds and offset ratios; \83\ (15) CAA section 185 requirements
for Severe and Extreme areas for failure to attain; (16) RACM; and (17)
Contingency measures for SIPs invoking section 182(e)(5) of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ It should be noted that replacement of nonattainment NSR
SIP provisions with PSD upon successful redesignation to attainment
does not relieve sources of their obligations under previously
established permit conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Rationale
    As detailed in the proposal,\84\ the EPA already treats
nonattainment contingency measures, nonattainment NSR major source
thresholds and offset ratios, and CAA section 185 requirements for
Severe and Extreme areas as being included in the list of applicable
requirements that apply to areas for anti-backsliding purposes under
the revoked 1-hour NAAQS, consistent with the South Coast v. EPA
decision. Their explicit inclusion in this list is to formalize their
place in the list of applicable requirements. Similarly, Stage II vapor
recovery is not included in this list due to the May 16, 2012
determination \85\ that the requirement is waived, and that an area
currently implementing a Stage II control program can, under certain
circumstances, remove it from the SIP. These changes to the list of
applicable requirements reflect policies already being implemented by
the EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ See 78 FR 34178, June 6, 2013.
    \85\ See 77 FR 28772.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, areas designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and
nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS when the 1997 ozone NAAQS is
revoked will become subject to PSD rather than nonattainment NSR once
the revocation takes effect. An area that is attainment for the 2008
ozone NAAQS is attaining the most current and health protective ozone
standard. The EPA believes that Congress did not intend to hold such an
area to the requirements for an old standard when the area has met a
newer, more stringent standard of the same form. Such areas will
implement PSD for the 2008 ozone NAAQS once the revocation of the 1997
ozone NAAQS takes effect, notwithstanding any remaining references to
nonattainment designations for the 1997 ozone NAAQS in 40 CFR part 81.
The references to the designations for the revoked standard in 40 CFR
part 81 are retained solely for anti-backsliding purposes for areas
designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Accordingly, such
references to historical nonattainment designations for the revoked
standard should not be viewed as current nonattainment designations
under CAA Sec.  107 within the meaning of 40 CFR 51.166(i)(2) and
52.21(i)(2) and, therefore, do not trigger the exemption from PSD
requirements otherwise resulting from those provisions.
    Upon reviewing comments, the EPA decided that sufficient arguments
were provided to append two additional items to the list of applicable
requirements in 51.1100(o). Those two items are RACM and 182(e)(5)
contingency measures. The EPA views this as a clarification, rather
than as an addition of control elements. Attainment demonstration SIPs
are already listed as an applicable requirement. RACM is an integral
part of an approvable attainment demonstration. Similarly, contingency
measures will become a required element of 51.1100(o) consistent with
the South Coast v. EPA decision. Adding contingency measures associated
with CAA section 182(e)(5) to the list is a clarification, rather than
an imposition of an additional requirement.
4. Comments and Responses
    Comment: A commenter pointed out that, with regard to applicable
requirements, federal measures and locally implemented measures are
held to two separate standards. The commenter used the example of Stage
II vapor recovery. The EPA removed Stage II vapor recovery from the
list of applicable requirements. However, locally implemented control
measures included in a SIP for a previous NAAQS must be retained in
perpetuity.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter. SIP-approved
control measures, whether federal programs or locally implemented
measures, may not be modified unless the modification meets the
requirements of CAA section 110(l) and, if applicable, CAA section 193.
For purposes of anti-backsliding, Stage II control programs are no
longer mandatory because the EPA has determined under the statutory
provisions of CAA section 202(a)(6) that another federal program,
onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) technology, is in widespread
use, rendering Stage II controls largely redundant. However, in an area
where a Stage II control program is already adopted into the SIP, it
cannot be removed from the SIP unless the conditions of CAA sections
110(l) and 193 are met. Therefore, it is subject to the same treatment
as any locally implemented SIP-adopted control measure.
    Comment: A commenter stated that no planning requirements from the
1997 ozone NAAQS should apply once that NAAQS is revoked. The commenter
based this on two arguments. First, CAA section 172(e) applies to
control requirements and not state planning requirements. Second, the
commenter argued that the decision in South Coast v. EPA has limited
applicability because

the court was faced with two ozone standards that differed in form and
level, and in this situation the two standards are of the same form.
    Response: The EPA agrees that the transition from the 1997 ozone
NAAQS to the 2008 ozone NAAQS calls for a re-evaluation of the
provisions necessary to protect against backsliding and ensure
continued progress toward achieving healthy air quality. However, we do
not agree that South Coast v. EPA has limited application to informing
appropriate anti-backsliding requirements for a revoked 1997 NAAQS
simply because the 2008 NAAQS has the same form as the 1997 NAAQS. With
only one exception, the seventeen ``applicable requirements'' that will
be listed in new 40 CFR 51.1100(o) are all control requirements,
consistent with South Coast v. EPA. To the extent that any of these
control requirements have not been implemented in a 1997 nonattainment
area by the time the 1997 NAAQS is revoked, consistent with South Coast
v. EPA the state must ensure these controls are adopted into the SIP
and implemented, if applicable. The one applicable requirement that
involves both planning and control elements is the attainment
demonstration requirement.\86\ Since the attainment demonstration is
part of the basis for establishing that the RACM requirement (a control
requirement consistent with South Coast) is satisfied, the EPA believes
it is appropriate to retain this as an applicable anti-backsliding
requirement to ensure timely progress toward attainment of the 1997
NAAQS, especially for areas classified in the highest classifications
where the statutory attainment dates for the 1997 NAAQS extend well
into the future (e.g., 2019 for Severe and 2024 for Extreme areas). The
EPA encourages states to synchronize their planning and emissions
control efforts for attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS with any
unfulfilled anti-backsliding requirements associated with the revoked
1997 ozone NAAQS. As a reminder, a Clean Data Determination for the
1997 ozone NAAQS can suspend the associated attainment demonstration
requirement for as long as the area continues to attain the 1997 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ An attainment demonstration includes technical analyses of
base year emissions and future year emissions, including the impact
of RACM and RACT; a list of adopted control measures with schedules
for implementation; and a RACM analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: A commenter pointed out that there are several control
measures that continue to apply to areas after a standard is revoked.
The commenter argued that, for consistency, the EPA should include
these items in the list of applicable requirements. For example, RACT
is listed as an applicable requirement, but not RACM. The commenter
argued that RACM should be listed as an applicable requirement.
Similarly, transportation conformity, ``other control measures'' as
necessary for attainment under CAA section 172(c)(6), and contingency
measures for CAA section 182(e)(5) measures should be retained as
applicable requirements, according to the commenter.
    Response: The EPA agrees in part with the commenter, that it is
appropriate to list both RACM and CAA section 182(e)(5) contingency
measures as ``applicable requirements'' in the final rule in 40 CFR
51.1100(o). RACM is a component of the attainment demonstration and is
a requirement of the CAA. The EPA reviews each SIP submission from a
state to ensure that sufficient information is provided for the EPA to
determine whether the state has adopted all RACM necessary for
attainment as expeditiously as practicable and provided for
implementation of those measures as expeditiously as practicable. For
areas remaining in nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and
designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the EPA does not
believe that revocation of the NAAQS should halt or delay the planned
implementation of control measures. These measures, while adopted
pursuant to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, will also assist the areas in
attaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    Similarly, for Extreme areas relying on CAA section 182(e)(5), the
EPA agrees that the contingency measures required for that program
should be held to the same requirements as contingency measures for
sections 172(c) and 182(c) of the CAA. Thus the EPA is adding 182(e)(5)
contingency measures to the list of applicable requirements in
51.1100(o).
    However, the EPA does not agree with the commenter that conformity
needs to be retained as an applicable requirement. Transportation and
general conformity are retained as requirements for all areas
designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. For areas designated
attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, these areas are meeting the most
stringent, health-protective NAAQS and thus have no remaining
conformity requirements because they are designated attainment for the
2008 ozone NAAQS and the designations for the 1997 ozone NAAQS which
trigger conformity requirements are revoked. Transportation and general
conformity apply only in areas designated as nonattainment or
redesignated to attainment with an approved CAA section 175A
maintenance plan. (CAA section 176(c)(5)). Upon the effective date of
the revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS the only relevant designation
for ozone for conformity purposes will be an area's designation for the
2008 ozone NAAQS.\87\ Areas that are designated attainment for the 2008
ozone NAAQS are not subject to transportation or general conformity
requirements regardless of their designation for the 1997 ozone NAAQS
at the time of revocation of that NAAQS. (CAA section 176(c)(5)).
Similarly, ``other control measures'' necessary for attainment are
already covered by the attainment demonstration, and cannot be removed
without satisfying CAA section 110(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ The EPA revoked the 1997 ozone NAAQS for transportation
conformity on May 21, 2012. (77 FR 30160) The revocation of the 1997
ozone NAAQS for transportation conformity purposes was effective on
July 20, 2013. In this final rule, the EPA is revoking the 1997
ozone NAAQS for all remaining purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: A commenter disagreed with what it described as the EPA's
proposal to allow areas that were designated nonattainment for the 1997
ozone NAAQS or the 1-hour NAAQS before those standards were revoked to
terminate any nonattainment NSR or 185 fee requirements once the 1997
ozone NAAQS is revoked and the area has been designated or redesignated
attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS or a redesignation substitute has
been approved for the revoked standard. The commenter argues that
allowing such an area to remove nonattainment NSR or 185 fee
requirements from the SIP is contrary to the NRDC v. EPA (2011) ruling.
    Response: The court ruled in NRDC v. EPA that it would be improper
for the EPA to relieve an area that has not attained a standard from
requirements imposed for failure to attain that standard. The EPA's
``redesignation substitute'' proposal does not do that. It relieves
areas that demonstrate that they are in fact attaining a standard from
obligations arising from failure to attain that standard as well as all
anti-backsliding requirements applicable for any prior revoked standard
without the need for a formal redesignation. Nothing in the 2011 NRDC
v. EPA decision forecloses that approach. The EPA also rejects any
suggestion that an area would remain subject to NSR or 185 fees after
it is designated as an attainment area and any prior standards for
which it was designated nonattainment have been revoked. Areas cannot
be redesignated to attainment for ozone

unless they have attained all current standards and met all anti-
backsliding requirements applicable for prior revoked standards.
Moreover, nonattainment NSR is not a requirement in attainment areas
and 185 by its own terms does not apply to an area that has been
designated ``an attainment area for ozone.''

C. Application of Transition Requirements to Nonattainment and
Attainment Areas

    This section discusses how the transition requirements apply to
various types of areas. The general principle is to apply transition
requirements depending on how the area is designated--attainment or
nonattainment--for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, while taking into account the
area's status with respect to prior standards.\88\ In the subsequent
sections, for purposes of determining an area's transition
requirements, we first look to the area's designation and
classification for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. We then determine the area's
designation and classification status for the 1997 ozone NAAQS as of
the effective date the 1997 ozone NAAQS is revoked. Finally, where
appropriate, we determine whether anti-backsliding requirements for the
1-hour ozone NAAQS apply in the area and, if so, we determine the
area's designation and classification status for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
as of the date the 1-hour NAAQS was revoked.\89\ Appendix B of this
rule contains a list of areas subject to anti-backsliding requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ One area, the Uintah Basin, UT, was designated as
``unclassifiable,'' and for purposes here would be treated like an
area designated ``attainment.''
    \89\ If the nonattainment area was initially designated
attainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS or was redesignated to
attainment (``Maintenance'') for the 1997 ozone NAAQS prior to the
date of revocation of the 1997 NAAQS, then the area has already
fulfilled any applicable 1-hour anti-backsliding requirements. For
ease of reference, we refer to these areas as ``Maintenance'' areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Requirements for Areas Designated Attainment for the 2008 Ozone
NAAQS and Maintenance for the 1997 Ozone NAAQS
a. Summary of the Proposal
    For this category, the EPA proposed that an area's approved CAA
section 175A maintenance plan for the revoked 1997 ozone NAAQS
satisfies both its obligations for maintenance under section 110(a)(1)
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and its obligation to submit a second
approvable maintenance plan under CAA section 175A for the revoked 1997
ozone NAAQS.
b. Final Action
    The EPA is finalizing this as proposed. For areas designated
attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and maintenance for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS (as of the date of revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS), the
area's approved CAA section 175A maintenance plan for the revoked 1997
ozone NAAQS satisfies both its obligations for maintenance under CAA
section 110(a)(1) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and its obligation to submit
a second approvable maintenance plan under CAA section 175A for the
revoked 1997 ozone NAAQS.
c. Rationale
    All areas in this category were already subject to a CAA section
175A maintenance plan for the revoked 1997 ozone NAAQS, and have been
both redesignated to attainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS (as well as
any other revoked ozone NAAQS) and designated attainment for the more
stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS. The approved CAA section 175A maintenance
plan for the 1997 ozone NAAQS satisfied the anti-backsliding
requirements of these areas for the prior 1-hour NAAQS. Any further
110(a)(1) maintenance plan requirement under the 2008 ozone NAAQS would
be unnecessarily burdensome. No revision to the CAA section 175A
maintenance plans for these areas can be approved unless it complies
with the anti-backsliding checks in CAA sections 110(l) and 193. The
EPA believes that there is no justification for additional maintenance
plan demonstration burdens to be imposed on these areas solely because
at one time they were designated nonattainment under the revoked 1997
ozone NAAQS. This approach recognizes and reflects that these areas
were redesignated to attainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS prior to its
revocation, and have been designated attainment for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.
d. Comments and Responses
    Comment: One commenter opposed this action for several reasons.
First, the commenter stated that the EPA cannot dispense with the
statutory responsibility of areas by excusing compliance with CAA
section 110(a)(1). Second, the commenter believes that demonstrating
long-term compliance via an approved 175A maintenance plan for the 1997
ozone NAAQS is not sufficient to demonstrate continued compliance with
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The commenter maintained that even with an
approved 175A plan for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, emissions can continue to
increase. There is nothing in the approved 175A plan that will be
activated should the area start to violate the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter. The EPA is not
ignoring the maintenance provision of CAA section 110(a)(1), but rather
evaluating what is sufficient to address that provision under the
circumstances of transition to a new more stringent NAAQS for an area
designated attainment for that more stringent NAAQS. With the control
measures included in their SIPs and in approved CAA section 175A
maintenance plans, those areas have already achieved sufficient
emissions reductions to bring them into attainment for both the 1997
ozone NAAQS and the more stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS. These SIP control
measures cannot be weakened without satisfying CAA section 110(l) and
in some cases also CAA section 193, which effectively serve as anti-
backsliding provisions. The EPA is not relieving areas designated
attainment of the requirement under CAA section 110(a)(1) to maintain
the more stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS, but rather, the EPA is allowing
the approved PSD plan for the 2008 ozone NAAQS to suffice as a
maintenance showing for these areas. These are areas that already have
many controls in place, including approved CAA section 175A maintenance
plans ensuring that the areas can maintain the level of the prior
standard.
    While these approved CAA section 175A maintenance plans were
established for maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and accordingly
help prevent backsliding for that revoked NAAQS, they also provide a
foundation for maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, which, in
combination with other active requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS,
contribute to maintenance of the new standard. The emissions reductions
for one NAAQS build upon the emissions reductions from previous NAAQS.
The EPA concludes that no additional measures beyond the prior CAA
section 175A maintenance plans and the PSD plans for the 2008 standard
should be necessary to provide for maintenance in these areas. The EPA
will work with states as necessary to address any future air quality
concerns and maintenance needs for these areas.
2. Areas Designated Attainment for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS and
Nonattainment for the 1997 Ozone NAAQS
a. Summary of the Proposal
    The EPA proposed two approaches for this category. The EPA proposed
as its

preferred approach for areas designated attainment for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS and nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS (as of revocation of
the 1997 ozone NAAQS) that the state not be required to adopt any
outstanding applicable requirements for the area for the revoked 1997
standard. This approach was similar to the approach followed in the
Phase 1 Rule. The EPA also proposed, in a departure from the Phase 1
Rule, that the approved PSD SIPs for these areas satisfy the obligation
to submit an approvable maintenance plan for the 2008 ozone NAAQS under
CAA section 110(a)(1).
    The second, and less preferred, alternative proposed by the EPA for
these areas was that the state be required to demonstrate maintenance
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS via a ``maintenance showing.'' This
maintenance showing would be due 3 years after the effective date of
designations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and would be in a form other than
a formal SIP revision. The maintenance showing would contain a
demonstration of continued maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the
area for 10 years from the effective date of the area's designation as
attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA committed to providing
guidance regarding the specific elements of the maintenance showing if
this route were chosen.
b. Final Action
    The EPA is finalizing the preferred option: For areas designated
attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and nonattainment for the 1997
ozone NAAQS (as of revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS) states are not
required to adopt any outstanding applicable requirements for the
revoked 1997 standard. Approved PSD SIPs for these areas satisfy the
obligation to submit an approvable maintenance plan for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS under CAA section 110(a)(1).
c. Rationale
    Areas designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and
nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS (as of revocation of the 1997
ozone NAAQS) have already attained the most stringent existing
standard, notwithstanding any existing nonattainment designation. These
areas thus have developed nonattainment SIPs that in combination with
federal measures and emissions controls in upwind areas have produced
sufficient emissions reductions to achieve air quality that attained
both the 1997 ozone NAAQS and resulted in an attainment designation for
the more protective 2008 ozone NAAQS. They remain subject to the 1997
nonattainment area requirements already approved into the SIP, which
can be revised only upon a showing that such revision complies with the
anti-backsliding checks in CAA sections 110(l) and 193. Given the
succession of NAAQS of increasing stringency that has occurred, the EPA
believes that the burden of developing an approvable 110(a)(1)
maintenance plan for the 2008 ozone NAAQS would outweigh any
compensating benefit for an area that is already attaining that NAAQS
and that is subject to prior nonattainment requirements which are
already incorporated into the SIP and have been sufficient to bring the
area into attainment of both the 1997 and 2008 standards.
d. Comments and Responses
    Comment: A commenter believed that the EPA should adopt the
alternative approach. The commenter stated that an inequity arises from
the fact that areas designated maintenance for the 1997 ozone NAAQS
prior to revocation of the NAAQS have contingency measures that are
activated should the area begin to re-violate the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
These areas designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and
nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS would not be subject to any
maintenance plans or contingency measures. Implementing the alternative
approach would address this inequity.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter. The control
measures implemented by these areas and included in their SIPs have
already produced sufficient emissions reductions to achieve air quality
that not only attained the 1997 ozone NAAQS, but also resulted in an
attainment designation for the more stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS. These
control measures cannot be modified or removed without a demonstration
satisfying CAA section 110(l) and in some cases both CAA sections
110(l) and 193. These demonstrations must address not only the 1997
ozone NAAQS but also the 2008 ozone NAAQS as well as any future NAAQS.
    Comment: One commenter believed both proposed approaches violate
the plain language of the CAA by not requiring the area to submit a CAA
section 175A maintenance plan, and thus opposed both options. A second
commenter believed that the EPA should continue to require formal 10-
year maintenance plan submittals for the 1997 ozone NAAQS from these
areas in an attempt to guarantee that controls are not relaxed, thus
impacting downwind areas.
    Response: We believe that an approved PSD SIP, in conjunction with
the other already-existing statutory and regulatory provisions that
govern implementation of ozone standards, and the historical safeguards
in place for the area adopted for prior NAAQS, are generally sufficient
to prevent backsliding, and to satisfy the requirement for maintenance
under CAA section 110(a)(1). The control measures implemented by these
areas and included in their SIPs have already produced sufficient
emissions reductions to achieve air quality that attained the 1997
ozone NAAQS, and resulted in an attainment designation for the more
stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS . These control measures cannot be modified
or removed without a CAA section 110(l) showing and in some cases both
a CAA section 110(l) and a CAA section 193 showing. Areas designated
attainment for the 2008 standard remain subject to the attainment and
maintenance requirements of that standard. These include continued
implementation of the control measures that brought the area into
attainment. For these areas, and for any area designated attainment for
the 2008 NAAQS, the CAA's general NAAQS air quality management
framework and associated regulatory provisions continue to apply, and
serve as the foundation for handling any potential future issues with
maintaining the 2008 NAAQS.
3. Areas Designated Nonattainment for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS and
Maintenance for the 1997 Ozone NAAQS
a. Summary of the Proposal
    The EPA proposed that for these areas, the area's approved CAA
section 175A maintenance plan for the revoked 1997 ozone NAAQS would
satisfy the obligation to submit a second approvable maintenance plan
under CAA section 175A for the revoked 1997 ozone NAAQS.
b. Final Action
    The EPA is finalizing this as proposed.
c. Rationale
    All areas in this group are already subject to an approved CAA
section 175A maintenance plan for the revoked 1997 ozone NAAQS and have
been redesignated to attainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. As explained
elsewhere, the approval of the redesignation request and of the CAA
section 175A maintenance plan for the 1997 ozone NAAQS required the EPA
to determine that any anti-backsliding requirements

of these areas for the 1997 standard, as well as any requirements that
might be applicable for the 1-hour standard, have been met. Thus the
EPA's approvals of the redesignation request and the maintenance plan
for the 1997 standard signify not only that all applicable requirements
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS have been met, but also that all applicable
anti-backsliding measures for the 1-hour standard have been adopted and
approved into the SIP. No revision to the CAA section 175A maintenance
plans for these areas can be approved unless it complies with the anti-
backsliding checks in CAA sections 110(l) and 193.
    These areas are also designated nonattainment for the more
stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS and therefore are subject to nonattainment
NSR and other nonattainment requirements for their classification under
the more stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS. Thus, the EPA believes that there
is no justification for a second CAA section 175A maintenance plan to
be imposed on these areas solely because at one time they were
designated nonattainment under a revoked ozone NAAQS.
d. Comments and Responses
    Comment: A commenter that supported the EPA's approach indicated
that the proposed regulatory text for areas designated nonattainment
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and maintenance for the 1997 ozone NAAQS,
located in 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(2), should be modified in line with text
in 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(4) to allow maintenance plans to be modified
consistent with CAA sections 110(l) and 193.
    Response: The EPA agrees that the text regarding areas designated
maintenance for the 1997 ozone NAAQS should be modified. The regulatory
text has been adjusted to reflect that maintenance plans can be
modified pursuant to CAA sections 110(l) and 193.
    Comment: One commenter indicated that a second 10-year 175A
maintenance plan was needed by these areas. The commenter maintained
that the EPA's proposed approach does not demonstrate continued
maintenance. The commenter stated that an area designated nonattainment
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS should prepare a second maintenance plan to
assure maintenance and set conformity budgets. Another commenter
opposed the proposal because the CAA clearly requires two 10-year
maintenance plans. The fact that the area is designated nonattainment
under the 2008 ozone NAAQS is no guarantee that there will be no
increase in ozone violations. The commenter suggested that the EPA
review the record for areas violating a NAAQS for which it had been
redesignated to attainment with an approved maintenance plan. Waiving
the requirements of a second 10-year maintenance plan as described in
CAA section 175A(b) without support is arbitrary and undermines the
protections of the Act.
    Response: The EPA recognizes that the approved 175A maintenance
plan for the 1997 ozone NAAQS can only be modified via a CAA section
110(l) and, where appropriate, a CAA section 193 showing. These
analyses would have to demonstrate that any revisions to the
maintenance plan would not interfere with the ability to demonstrate
timely attainment for the new standard. The removal of the requirement
for the second 10-year plan for maintenance of a revoked, less
stringent standard that the areas previously attained allows states to
focus planning and control efforts on attaining and maintaining the
more stringent and currently applicable 2008 ozone NAAQS in these
areas, for the already attained 1997 ozone NAAQS. The areas will remain
subject to the MVEBs established in the approved 175A maintenance plan
until such time that MVEBs for the more stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS are
submitted and are found adequate or are approved, which must be used
for transportation conformity determinations under the 2008 ozone NAAQS
pursuant to the conformity regulations.
4. 2008 Nonattainment Areas Also Designated Nonattainment for a Prior
Revoked Ozone NAAQS
a. Summary of the Proposal
    The EPA proposed that areas designated nonattainment for the 2008
ozone NAAQS and also designated nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS
as of the revocation of the 1997 NAAQS \90\ will be subject to
applicable anti-backsliding requirements for the applicable prior NAAQS
as set forth in 51.1100(o), as well as the pertinent requirements for
the current 2008 ozone NAAQS. In addition, if a state seeks to revise
any measure already approved into its SIP for any prior standard, the
revision must comply with the anti-backsliding checks in CAA sections
110(l) and 193.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ We do not include in these groups any areas that were
redesignated to attainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS prior to
revocation of that NAAQS. In order to be redesignated for the 1997
ozone NAAQS, the area had to satisfy all applicable anti-backsliding
requirements for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Any 1997 ozone NAAQS
nonattainment area that was designated nonattainment for the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS at time of revocation of the 1-hour NAAQS had to meet
applicable 1-hour ozone NAAQS anti-backsliding requirements in order
to be redesignated to attainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Final Action
    The EPA is finalizing this as proposed. In an area designated
nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and nonattainment for the 1997
ozone NAAQS at the time of revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS the state
will be obligated to implement the applicable requirements set forth in
51.1100(o) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. This could include, as applicable,
anti-backsliding requirements associated with the revoked 1-hour NAAQS
if the area was also designated nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS when that NAAQS was revoked. Nonattainment NSR applies in these
areas in accordance with their highest nonattainment classification
under any ozone standard for which they are (or were at the time of
revocation) designated nonattainment. Also, if these areas are
classified Severe or Extreme at the time of revocation for a prior
standard, the requirements of CAA section 185 in relation to that prior
standard continue to apply.
c. Rationale
    The EPA believes that the application of anti-backsliding
principles is very clear cut for this category of areas. These areas
remain subject to the applicable requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS,
as well as for any of the revoked ozone NAAQS for which the areas
remained nonattainment, until the requirements are satisfied or
suspended as detailed in sections IV.D and IV.E. The EPA received no
adverse comments on this approach.

D. Satisfaction of Anti-Backsliding Requirements for an Area

1. Summary of the Proposal
    The EPA proposed two acceptable procedures through which a state
may demonstrate that it is no longer required to adopt any additional
applicable requirements for an area which have not already been
approved into the SIP for a revoked ozone NAAQS. Both procedures allow
a state to remove or revise the nonattainment NSR provisions in the SIP
and, upon a showing of consistency with the anti-backsliding checks in
CAA sections 110(l) and 193 (if applicable), shift requirements which
are contained in the active portion of the SIP to the

contingency measures portion of the SIP.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ Nonattainment NSR is not required to be retained in the SIP
as a contingency measure. In areas designated attainment, the PSD
permitting program applies rather than nonattainment NSR.
Replacement or removal of an area's NSR SIP provisions does not
relieve sources in the area of their obligations under previously
established permit conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first of the proposed procedures is formal redesignation of the
area to attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. For areas subject to anti-
backsliding requirements for revoked standards, approval of a request
for redesignation to attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS signifies that
the state has satisfied its obligations to adopt anti-backsliding
requirements for the revoked standards. This is an extension of the
approach that the EPA adopted in the Phase 1 Rule. The EPA proposed
that once the area is redesignated and the requirement(s) for
nonattainment NSR for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and for any prior ozone
NAAQS cease to apply, the state may request that the corresponding
nonattainment NSR requirements be removed from the SIP rather than be
retained as a maintenance plan contingency measure.\92\ The state would
instead implement the PSD program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ States in the OTR may not use this flexibility because the
CAA requires all areas of the OTR including attainment areas to
implement, at a minimum, the nonattainment NSR requirements
prescribed for Moderate areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second of the proposed procedures for satisfying anti-
backsliding requirements was a new separate route referred to as a
``redesignation substitute'' for a revoked standard. This redesignation
substitute showing would serve as a successor to redesignation to
attainment, for which the area would have been eligible were it not for
revocation. The showing is based on the CAA's criteria for
redesignation to attainment [CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)]. States would
have to demonstrate that the area has attained the relevant standard
and met all of the requirements for redesignation. After notice-and-
comment rulemaking on this showing, the EPA approval of the showing
would have the same effect on the area's nonattainment anti-backsliding
obligations as would a redesignation to attainment for the revoked
standard. The EPA did not propose to require states to go through
formal SIP submission procedures to submit a request for approval of a
redesignation substitute because it is not a redesignation. The EPA
proposed that such an area would no longer be subject to any remaining
applicable anti-backsliding requirements and the nonattainment NSR
requirements associated with the revoked NAAQS for which the area
completed a redesignation substitute would be lifted, leaving the
remaining NSR requirements to be determined by the highest remaining
classification the area is subject to, whether for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
or another revoked NAAQS for which the EPA had not approved a
redesignation showing.
2. Final Action
    The EPA is finalizing both routes as acceptable ways to address
anti-backsliding requirements. That is, states can choose either to
submit a request to redesignate to attainment for the most current
NAAQS with an approved 175A maintenance plan that addresses the current
and revoked NAAQS, or to submit a redesignation substitute request for
a revoked NAAQS. Under both of the these procedures, a state seeking to
revise its SIP to remove anti-backsliding measures from the active
portion of its SIP must demonstrate, pursuant to CAA section 110(l),
that such revision would not interfere with attainment or maintenance
of any applicable NAAQS, or any other requirement of the CAA.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ Likewise, to the extent that a SIP revision seeking to
remove anti-backsliding measures modifies control requirements
subject to CAA section 193, the revision would also have to satisfy
the requirements of that provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Rationale
    The first of the procedures, formal redesignation of the area to
attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, is an extension of the approach
that the EPA adopted in the Phase 1 Rule. Redesignation to attainment
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS would allow a state to terminate and remove
from the active portion of its SIP any applicable anti-backsliding
requirements, including nonattainment NSR requirements associated with
its classifications under the 2008 ozone NAAQS, or under the 1997 or 1-
hour ozone NAAQS, except for areas in the OTR. The area would instead
need, at a minimum, to implement the PSD program. This approach is
consistent with the EPA's longstanding interpretation of nonattainment
NSR requirements for areas that are redesignated to attainment.\94\
Redesignation to attainment would also terminate any obligations to
implement CAA section 185 fee programs in a Severe or Extreme area for
the 2008 or prior revoked 1997 or 1-hour ozone NAAQS pursuant to the
express terms of CAA section 185.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ See 40 CFR 51.905(a)(3), the comparable provision for
transition from the 1-hour NAAQS to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, which
allows states with such areas to request that the 1-hour
nonattainment NSR provisions be removed from the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Approval of a redesignation to attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
signifies that the state has satisfied its obligations to adopt anti-
backsliding requirements for the current and revoked standards for that
area. This same approach was used in the Phase 1 Rule in requiring
redesignations for the 1997 ozone NAAQS to address anti-backsliding
requirements for the revoked 1-hour standard. Approval of the CAA
section 175A maintenance plan for the 2008 ozone NAAQS assures that the
area's SIP includes the provisions necessary for maintenance of the
2008 ozone NAAQS, which is the most stringent of the NAAQS. Therefore,
upon redesignation to attainment and approval of its plan for
maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, an area will have satisfied its
obligations to adopt anti-backsliding requirements. All of the anti-
backsliding measures that have been approved into the SIP must continue
to be implemented unless or until the state can show that such
implementation is not necessary for maintenance, consistent with CAA
sections 110(l) and 193 if applicable.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ This showing may be submitted to the EPA at the same time
as the maintenance plan, and may be approved by the EPA in a single
action. Subject to this process, anti-backsliding requirements
contained in the SIP could be shifted to the contingency measures
portion of a CAA section 175A maintenance plan, or, in limited
circumstances (such as nonattainment NSR) removed from the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Experience has shown the EPA that a second mechanism for areas to
address the requirements imposed by anti-backsliding requirements is
also appropriate. After revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS, areas that
attain and meet requirements for the revoked 1997 or 1-hour ozone NAAQS
would be disadvantaged relative to areas that were redesignated to
attainment for those standards prior to their revocation. Absent this
second mechanism, areas that would otherwise have qualified for
redesignation to attainment for the 1997 or 1-hour ozone NAAQS, were it
not for revocation of those NAAQS, would need to continue implementing
potentially outdated and onerous requirements for a NAAQS they have
attained until they also qualify for redesignation to attainment for
the more stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA believes that, under any
view of anti-backsliding for a revoked standard, it should not mean
imposing requirements greater than those that would apply if the
standard had not been revoked.
    The EPA has no mechanism for formally redesignating areas for a

revoked standard. However, by establishing the redesignation
substitute, the EPA is providing a pathway for states to demonstrate
and for the EPA to acknowledge that they have satisfied the applicable
requirements for the revoked 1-hour or 1997 ozone NAAQS by submitting a
showing that functions as a substitute for redesignation to attainment
for that revoked standard, and ensures that the substance of the
redesignation requirements are met. For a revoked standard, this second
mechanism will serve as a successor to redesignation to attainment, for
which the area would have been eligible were it not for revocation.
    The EPA believes this is an acceptable approach because it is based
on the CAA's criteria for redesignation to attainment [CAA section
107(d)(3)(E)]. A showing would include: Attainment of the relevant
revoked 1-hour or 1997 ozone NAAQS; a showing that attainment was due
to permanent and enforceable emissions reductions; and a demonstration
that the area can continue to maintain the standard over the next 10
years. Redesignation criteria in CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v)
would be met by the existing approved SIP, under which the area has
attained the revoked standard, in the context of (and reinforced by)
the requirements for the new 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA will conduct
notice-and-comment rulemaking on the state's showings. We believe a
notice-and-comment process fulfills the function of redesignation to
attainment for the purpose of satisfying anti-backsliding requirements
for a revoked standard.
    The EPA believes that requiring more elaborate administrative
procedures for purposes of approving a state's request for a
redesignation substitute for a revoked NAAQS (for example, requiring
states to use the formal SIP adoption process) would needlessly impose
burdens because the area will remain subject to all the formal
requirements for redesignation to attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Development of SIP revisions takes time and imposes administrative
costs on states, industry and the public. As in the case of a
redesignation to attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, at the time of
submitting a redesignation substitute request or at any time
thereafter, a state may request to revise its SIP so as to cease
implementing a specific nonattainment SIP requirement. However, this
request could not be granted, and the SIP revised, until the EPA
approves the redesignation substitute and a demonstration that the SIP
revision meets the requirements of CAA section 110(l). The EPA is not
providing this mechanism for the purpose of allowing states to relax or
avoid air quality management measures that are needed for attainment
and maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The showings required, the
provisions of CAA section 110(l), and the fact that the area remains
subject to CAA requirements for the more stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS,
assure that is not the case. It is, however, important to relieve
states of requirements that are no longer necessary, or that can be
replaced by other forms of protection that might better meet the local
needs and circumstances of an area.
    The EPA is providing in the redesignation substitute option a
mechanism that demands more than a determination of attainment of the
prior NAAQS, and calls for a showing that addresses redesignation
criteria for that NAAQS. Moreover, the process under this option occurs
while the state remains subject to ongoing requirements to meet the new
more stringent standard in that area. In this context, this final
action is clearly sufficient for its limited anti-backsliding purpose--
it recognizes and supports the state's progress in having attained the
prior standard in that area due to permanent and enforceable emissions
reductions, and reinforces continued attainment by calling for a
demonstration that the area can maintain the revoked standard.
 4. Comments and Responses
    Comment: Several commenters requested that the EPA preserve the
statutory mechanism as described in 42 U.S.C 7407(d)(3) that would
allow the EPA to redesignate areas for a revoked NAAQS.
    Response: After the revocation of a standard, the EPA believes that
it can no longer take action to reclassify or to redesignate areas for
that standard. Revocation of the standard removes both classifications
and designations for the revoked standard. The EPA believes the two
mechanisms provided in the final rule accomplish the goals of 42 U.S.C
7407(d)(3) [CAA section 107(d)(3)] in a manner consistent with anti-
backsliding principles and appropriate for the circumstance where a
more stringent NAAQS with the same form and averaging time exists and
is being actively implemented.
    Comment: A commenter argued that redesignation to attainment for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS is not sufficient to turn off anti-backsliding
obligations triggered under the revoked 1-hour or the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter. When the EPA
approves a redesignation request for the current 2008 ozone NAAQS, we
assess whether the area is in attainment for the current and previous
NAAQS. The maintenance plan submitted by the state demonstrates that
the area being considered for redesignation will continue for the next
10 years to attain the standard that is requisite to protect public
health, and that attainment is due to permanent and enforceable
emissions reductions. A redesignation to attainment signifies that the
area has met the requirements of the 2008, as well as any revoked,
NAAQS. CAA section 185 specifically indicates redesignation ``as an
attainment area for ozone'' as a basis for terminating fee
requirements. Also, redesignation to attainment historically has
terminated nonattainment NSR requirements, which are not required to be
kept in the SIP as contingency measures. See Greenbaum v. EPA (370 F.3d
at 536). Moreover, redesignation for the current standard was the
unchallenged basis for demonstrating satisfaction of anti-backsliding
requirements in the EPA's previous Phase 1 anti-backsliding regime (69
FR 23951). We believe the application of the same principle when
transitioning from the 1997 to the 2008 ozone NAAQS is an even better
fit: It is impossible to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS without first
achieving air quality that would attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS due to the
identical form of the two standards.
    Comment: A number of commenters supported the concept of the
redesignation substitute, but requested that a more streamlined process
be developed. Several commenters suggested that a clean data
determination would be sufficient to terminate anti-backsliding
requirements for a revoked NAAQS.
    Response: The EPA recognizes that a clean data determination alone
is less burdensome for states than a CAA section 107(d)(3)
redesignation or a redesignation substitute. A clean data determination
only suspends planning requirements associated with the NAAQS for which
the determination was granted. However, we believe that the
redesignation and redesignation substitute mechanisms represent the
minimum set of requirements sufficient to demonstrate satisfaction of
anti-backsliding requirements under the EPA's application of the
principles of CAA section 172(e). These mechanisms provide a way for
states to demonstrate that they have attained these standards, they
have met all the requirements for redesignations, and no longer need
any anti-backsliding requirements beyond those already approved in
their SIPs.

    Comment: Two commenters asked the EPA to reconsider the use of CAA
section 172(e). One of these commenters asked that the use of 172(e) be
applied to all applicable requirements required of areas subject to
anti-backsliding allowing them to substitute measures at least as
stringent as the controls listed. The other commenter believed no
application of 172(e) is justified, even to CAA section 185 fees where
the EPA has historically applied this principle.
    Response: CAA section 172(e), which addresses relaxations of a
NAAQS, requires protections for areas that have not attained a NAAQS
prior to a relaxation, by requiring controls that are ``not less
stringent'' than the controls applicable in nonattainment areas prior
to any such relaxation. The EPA applied these principles in developing
previous guidance on satisfying the anti-backsliding approach for CAA
section 185 requirements. As stated in previous EPA guidance, we
interpret the principles of 172(e) as authorizing, but not requiring,
the Administrator to approve on a case-by-case basis ``not less
stringent'' alternatives to the applicable CAA section 185 fee program
requirements associated with a revoked ozone NAAQS.\96\ The NRDC
challenged this guidance in 2010. Although the court vacated the 2010
guidance memorandum on procedural grounds, it did not prohibit
alternative programs, stating that ``neither the statute nor our case
law obviously precludes that alternative.'' See NRDC v. EPA, 643 F.3d
332 (D.C. Cir. July 2011). We believe the application of CAA section
172(e) principles to applicable CAA section 185 anti-backsliding
requirements is an appropriate and reasonable use of the
Administrator's discretion to approve ``not less stringent'' controls.
However, we did not propose and do not intend at this time to
promulgate regulatory language to apply principles of CAA section
172(e) to other anti-backsliding requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ Memo from Stephen D. Page to Regional Air Division
Directors, Jan. 5, 2010, ``Guidance on Developing Fee Programs
Required by Clean Air Act Section 185 for the 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. How will the EPA's determination of attainment (``Clean Data'')
regulation apply for purposes of the anti-backsliding requirements?

1. Summary of the Proposal
    The EPA proposed to apply the same approach with respect to
determinations of attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS as applied under
the 1997 ozone NAAQS under 40 CFR 51.918. Under 40 CFR 51.918, an EPA
determination that an area attained the 1997 ozone NAAQS suspended the
obligation to submit any attainment-related SIP planning elements for
the 1997 ozone NAAQS not yet approved in the SIP, for so long as the
area continued to be in attainment of that NAAQS.\97\ In order to
reflect the ongoing status of the Clean Data Policy and to consolidate
in one regulation a comprehensive provision applicable to
determinations of attainment for all current and former ozone NAAQS,
the EPA proposed to replace 40 CFR 51.918 with proposed 40 CFR 51.1118
after revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ The EPA initially issued the Clean Data Policy in 1995,
``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related
Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard.'' Memorandum from John S.
Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May
10, 1995. For purposes of the 1997 ozone NAAQS, we codified that
policy at 40 CFR 51.918. This codified policy was upheld by the D.C.
Circuit in NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Final Action
    The EPA is finalizing its proposed approach to implementing the
Clean Data Policy with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS and all prior
ozone NAAQS. Under the EPA's Clean Data Regulation, a determination of
attainment suspends the obligation to submit certain attainment-related
planning requirements for the associated NAAQS for an area as long as
the area continues to attain that standard.\98\ For those areas that
have already incorporated measures into their approved SIPs that
satisfy the nonattainment requirements for that standard, CAA section
110(l) functions as an anti-backsliding check to require continued
implementation of such measures unless revised in accordance with its
provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ Depending on the area's classification for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS and the SIP elements already approved, the area may still have
outstanding non-planning 1997 anti-backsliding submission
requirements that are not suspended by 51.918 (e.g., emissions
inventories, nonattainment NSR, Subpart 2 RACT requirements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The planning elements that may be suspended under 40 CFR 51.1118
are the same as those suspended under existing 40 CFR 51.918: RFP
requirements, attainment demonstrations, RACM, contingency measures and
other state planning requirements related to attainment of the relevant
standard. For a Severe or Extreme area, a CAA section 185 fee program
is expressly linked by the statute itself to an attainment plan;
therefore suspension of the obligation to submit the attainment plan
also necessarily suspends the obligation to submit the fee program
which is part of the attainment plan (provided that the EPA has not
already determined that the area failed to attain by its attainment
deadline and thus triggered the obligation to implement a fee program).
The EPA notes that a determination of attainment would not, however,
suspend obligations to submit non-planning requirements such as
nonattainment NSR, subpart 2 RACT or emission inventories under CAA
section 182(a)(1).
3. Rationale
    40 CFR 51.1118 applies essentially the same language as 40 CFR
51.918. Upon revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS, this section would be
applicable to determinations of attainment for all ozone NAAQS: The
2008, 1997 and the already revoked 1-hour ozone NAAQS. With the
finalization of 51.1118, the EPA's long-standing Clean Data Policy,
which has been upheld by the D.C. Circuit and all other courts that
have considered it, is embodied in a regulation applicable for the
purpose of all existing and prior ozone NAAQS. The EPA believes that
continuation of this approach makes the most sense for implementing the
2008 ozone NAAQS.
4. Comments and Responses
    Comment: Two commenters indicated that a determination that an area
has ``clean data'' for the more-stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS should be
sufficient to lift anti-backsliding requirements for the 1997 and the
1-hour ozone NAAQS.
    Response: A clean data determination only suspends specific
planning requirements, not mandatory control requirements, which could
include, as applicable, anti-backsliding requirements associated with
revoked NAAQS. As explained previously, the EPA believes that an
approved redesignation to attainment or a redesignation substitute is
necessary to lift anti-backsliding requirements. 40 CFR 51.1118
clarifies that a clean data determination for a specific standard only
affects attainment-related planning requirements for that standard.
    Comment: A commenter requested that the EPA clarify language in the
proposed 40 CFR 51.1118 to indicate more specifically which NAAQS must
be attained to suspend planning requirements.
    Response: The EPA will revise the language in 40 CFR 51.1118 to
make it clear that a clean data determination for the 2008 NAAQS acts
to suspend planning requirements associated with the 2008 and less
stringent 1997 ozone NAAQS, which have an identical form.

F. What is the relationship between implementation of the 2008 ozone
NAAQS and the CAA title V permits program?

1. Summary of the Proposal
    We proposed, and solicited comment on, two alternative approaches
for implementing the title V permit program for sources in areas
designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and subject to anti-
backsliding requirements for a prior ozone NAAQS. The EPA co-proposed
two approaches to interpreting title V applicability requirements
following revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS: (1) Major source
thresholds for title V should be the same as the major source
thresholds applicable for purposes of other requirements such as RACT
and NSR; and (2) major source thresholds for title V depend solely on
the area's classification for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA
specifically solicited comments on whether title V should (or should
not) be considered a ``control'' within the meaning of CAA section
172(e) in light of the fact that title V generally does not impose new
substantive air quality control requirements but is intended to assure
compliance with all such existing requirements.
2. Final Action
    We are finalizing the first option and the associated proposed
revisions to parts 70 and 71. Following revocation of the 1997 ozone
NAAQS, major source thresholds for title V will be the same as the
major source \99\ thresholds applicable for purposes of other
requirements, such as RACT and NSR (i.e., the major source threshold
associated with the more stringent of the area's classification for the
2008, 1997 and/or 1-hour ozone NAAQS will be the applicable threshold
for title V purposes, to the extent that anti-backsliding requirements
for the 1997 and/or 1-hour ozone NAAQS apply in the area).\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ One of the ways a source can become subject to title V is
as a ``major source.'' See CAA section 502(a); 40 CFR 70.3; 71.3.
Furthermore, the definition of ``major source'' for purposes of
title V includes, but is not limited to, a ``major stationary source
as defined . . . in part D'' of title I. See CAA section 501(2)(B)
and 502(a); 40 CFR 70.2; 71.2. Thus, changes in an area's
classification (e.g., from ``Serious'' to ``Severe'') by changing
the emissions threshold for being deemed a major source (e.g., from
100 tpy to 50 tpy of a relevant pollutant) can result in changes in
title V applicability for a source. (The EPA notes that sources can
become subject to title V permitting for other reasons, and nothing
in this discussion is intended to suggest that changes in an area's
classification would affect those other provisions of title V.
Accordingly, sources subject to title V under other provisions would
remain subject to title V for those independent reasons.)
    \100\ It should be noted that, pursuant to CAA section 503(a), a
source is subject to a permit program on the later of the date that
it becomes a major source and the effective date of a permit program
applicable to the source. Thus, if a permitting authority with an
approved title V program lacks any authority to permit certain
sources that are major sources subject to title V as a result of
ozone precursor emissions and an area classification for ozone that
has a major source threshold lower than 100 tpy (e.g., ``Serious'')
then there is no title V permit program ``applicable to the source''
and those sources have no obligation to apply for a title V permit
until after such time as a permit program becomes applicable to
them. The EPA will work with states to ensure that all approved
title V programs are adequate under the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Rationale
    The EPA received a wide range of comments on the question of
whether the major source thresholds for title V permitting should be
considered a ``control'' for purposes of the anti-backsliding
requirements of CAA section 172(e). The EPA recognizes that many of
these comments raise valid perspectives. It is true that title V
generally does not impose new substantive pollution control
requirements on sources, and thus ordinarily the EPA would not describe
title V permitting itself as a ``control.'' At the same time, the EPA
does believe that one of the underlying purposes of title V is to
assure compliance with the pollution control requirements applicable to
a source. Thus, it may well be true that title V provides air quality
benefits, and should be considered a ``control'' under the broad,
functional analysis used by the court in the South Coast v. EPA
decision. The EPA believes it is unnecessary to resolve this precise
question at this time, because the EPA believes that regardless of
whether title V should be considered a ``control'' for purposes of CAA
section 172(e), it fulfils the purposes and requirements of the Act for
title V permitting thresholds to be the same as the permitting
thresholds for underlying applicable requirements, particularly NSR
which was considered a control by the South Coast court.
    Title V and NSR have long shared a common approach to the
definition of major source.101 102 The EPA concurs with the
commenters, such as Texas and New York, who believe that we should
maintain clarity and uniformity in major source threshold
determinations for both NSR and title V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ The EPA recognizes that there are statutory and regulatory
differences between title V and NSR, but for purposes of the
discussion we are focusing on the commonalities.
    \102\ See, e.g., Memorandum from Lydia N. Wegman, Deputy
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA,
``Definition of Regulated Air Pollutant for Purposes of Title V''
(April 26, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the EPA notes that, under CAA section 502, sources are
required to operate in accordance with the terms of a title V permit
if, inter alia, the source is a major source or the source is required
to have a permit under part D of Title I. Thus, even if a source is not
a major source for purposes of title V, it is still required to get a
title V permit if it is required to have a permit under part D of title
I. This provides additional support to the EPA's conclusion that the
major source permitting threshold for NSR and RACT should be the same
as for title V because otherwise, a source that is not a ``major
source'' for purposes of title V might not understand it is still
covered by the applicability provisions of parts 70 and 71, if it is
required to have a permit under part D of title I.
    Maintaining consistency between the NSR and title V thresholds in
this regard will promote compliance with CAA requirements by providing
a simpler permitting regime, ensuring that sources subject to major
source NSR understand they are also subject to title V, and enabling
permitting authorities to identify sources that are potentially subject
to major source NSR. The EPA believes a contrary approach would
introduce not only complexity, but anomalies, into the permitting
program that would be contrary to the purposes and requirements of the
Act. To promote effective program implementation and ensure consistency
with the CAA, this final rule will amend the relevant provisions of
parts 70 and 71 related to application of title V thresholds.
4. Comments and Responses
    Comment: Several commenters supported the first option, which sets
major source title V thresholds equal to those applied for RACT and
NSR. One of these commenters supported the first option with the minor
conforming amendments to the definition of major source in 40 CFR 70.2
and 71.2 as detailed on page 34225 of the proposal. Commenters stated
that this approach would provide applicants with clarity and uniformity
regarding applicable major source thresholds, and that this approach
maintains the consistency which will ultimately simplify permitting and
enforcement. A commenter indicated that option 1 is supported by the
fact that these thresholds emanate from the same provisions of the CAA
(part D of title I), therefore, the intent of the CAA was to keep the
thresholds the same. Several commenters noted that the first approach
is consistent with past

precedent and compelled by the Act's anti-backsliding requirements as
well as court precedent.
    Response: As discussed previously, the EPA agrees with these
commenters that the major source threshold for title V should be the
same as the major source threshold for NSR and RACT, and the EPA is
finalizing the proposed revisions to parts 70 and 71 to make that
clear.
    Comment: Several commenters supported the second approach, in which
the major source thresholds for title V permitting are based solely on
an area's classification for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Commenters cited a
number of reasons for this, including: This approach would provide
relief to small operators, and that this approach makes good sense in a
time of resource constraints. Several commenters questioned the utility
of setting title V levels based on a revoked NAAQS. Several commenters
also commented that EPA's understanding of the impacts of the South
Coast v. EPA decision is not correct. These commenters agreed that the
classifications of revoked NAAQS can impact the NSR level, but
disagreed with the EPA that the title V levels are controlled by
anything other than the current 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    Response: The EPA recognizes that the approach being adopted does
not solely rely on the area's current classification for purposes of
determining major source thresholds for title V. The EPA believes there
is ambiguity in the intersection between title V and part D as to
whether title V should apply the major source threshold of the area's
current classification, or the area's classification for purposes of
NSR and other underlying applicable requirements, when that threshold
would be lower. As discussed previously, the EPA believes that it is
appropriate under the CAA, and consistent with the EPA's longstanding
approach to these programs, for a source which is considered to be
``major'' for purposes of NSR to also be considered ``major'' for
purposes of title V. For the reasons stated previously, the EPA
believes maintaining consistency in the major source applicability of
the two programs in the context of today's rulemaking is the best
approach to promote consistency and compliance with the purposes and
requirements of the CAA. Additional information can be found in the
Response to Comments document.
    Comment: The EPA received a wide range of comments on the question
of whether the major source thresholds for title V permitting should be
considered a ``control'' for purposes of the anti-backsliding
requirements of CAA section 172(e). Several commenters believed that
title V should be considered as a control within the meaning of CAA
section 172(e). One commenter stated that title V permits represent
``controls'' for purposes of the Act's anti-backsliding requirements
and, as such, the EPA should abide by South Coast v. EPA and use the
same major source thresholds for administering the title V permit
program as the agency proposes to for the NSR and RACT programs. The
commenter stated that title V permits serve as independently
enforceable compliance assurance mechanisms that constrain emissions by
sources and accordingly should be seen as control measures. Since title
V permits collect multiple control requirements in one document, there
is no reason for the agency to depart from South Coast v. EPA and treat
title V permitting classifications differently than, for example, NSR
permitting.
    A number of commenters stated that the title V program is not a
control in and of itself. One commenter stated that the EPA has
consistently stated that title V is a separate program when compared to
the requirements of title I. Several commenters stated that the history
of title V rulemaking is clear on this point, indicating that the EPA
has stated repeatedly that no substantive controls are imposed simply
by having a title V permit. Title V should not be considered a
``control'' in light of the fact that title V is not intended to impose
new substantive air quality control requirements but is instead
intended to assure compliance with all existing applicable
requirements.
    Response: The EPA believes it is unnecessary to resolve this
precise question at this time, because the EPA believes that regardless
of whether title V should be considered a ``control'' for purposes of
CAA section 172(e), it fulfills the purposes and requirements of the
CAA for title V permitting thresholds to be the same as the permitting
thresholds for underlying applicable requirements, particularly NSR.
Thus, the EPA is taking final action adopting the interpretation that
major source definitions should be the same for both programs.

V. Environmental Justice Considerations

    The CAA requires that states with areas designated as nonattainment
submit to the Administrator the appropriate SIP revisions and implement
specified control measures by certain dates applicable to the area's
classification. By addressing the planning and implementation
requirements for all areas designated nonattainment under the 2008
ozone NAAQS, this action protects all those residing, working,
attending school, or otherwise present in those areas regardless of
minority or economic status.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This action
raises novel policy issues. Any changes made in response to OMB
recommendations have been documented in the docket.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this final rule have been
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget under the
PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA
prepared has been assigned the EPA ICR number 2347.02 and OMB Reference
number 2060-0695. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this
rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The information collection
requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.
    The EPA is finalizing this 2008 ozone NAAQS SIP Requirements Rule
so that states will know what CAA requirements apply to their
nonattainment areas when the states develop their SIPs for attaining
and maintaining the NAAQS. The intended effect of the SIP Requirements
Rule is to provide certainty to states regarding their planning
obligations such that states may begin SIP development. For purposes of
analysis of the estimated paperwork burden, the EPA assumed 46
nonattainment areas,\103\ some of which must prepare an attainment
demonstration as well as submit an RFP and RACT SIP. The attainment
demonstration requirement would appear in 40 CFR 51.1108 which
implements CAA subsections 172(c)(1), 182(b)(1)(A) and 182(c)(2)(B).
The RFP SIP submission requirement would appear in 40 CFR 51.1110, and
the RACT SIP submission requirement would appear in 40 CFR 51.1112,
which implements CAA subsections 172(c)(1) 182(b)(2), (c), (d) and (e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ May 21, 2012, 77 FR 30088.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    States should already have information from many emission

sources, as facilities should have provided this information to meet 1-
hour and 1997 ozone NAAQS SIP requirements, operating permits and/or
emissions reporting requirements. Such information does not generally
reveal the details of production processes. But, to the extent it may,
confidential business information for the affected facilities is
protected. Specifically, submissions of emissions and control
efficiency information that is confidential, proprietary and trade
secret is protected from disclosure under the requirements of
subsections 503(e) and 114(c) of the CAA.
    The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the
first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to be a total of 120,000 labor
hours per year at an annual labor cost of $2.4 million (present value)
over the 3-year period or approximately $91,000 per state for the 26
state air agency respondents, including the District of Columbia. The
Information Collection Request Supporting Statement for the 2008 8-hour
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard Implementation Rule EPA ICR
#2347.02 in the docket provides the details for the 26 state air
agencies that are required to provide the 58 SIP revisions for the 46
areas designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone standard. The average
annual reporting burden is 690 hours per response, with approximately 2
responses per state for 58 state responses from the state air agencies.
There are no capital or operating and maintenance costs associated with
the proposed rule requirements. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Respondents/affected entities: States with 46 nonattainment areas.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (CAA, sections 172
and 182).
    Estimated number of respondents: 26 state respondents.
    Frequency of response: Once.
    Total estimated burden: 40,000 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $2.4 million (per year), includes $0
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB
approves this ICR, the agency will announce that approval in the
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities contained in this final rule.

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. Entities
potentially affected directly by this rule include state, local and
tribal governments and none of these governments are small governments.
Other types of small entities are not directly subject to the
requirements of this rule because this action only addresses how a SIP
will provide for adequate attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS and
meet the obligations of the CAA. Although some states may ultimately
decide to impose economic impacts on small entities, that is not
required by this rule and would only occur at the discretion of the
state.

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. The action implements mandates specifically and
explicitly set forth in the CAA without the exercise of any policy
discretion by the EPA.

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: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, since no tribe has to develop a TIP under
these regulatory revisions. Furthermore, these regulation revisions do
not affect the relationship or distribution of power and
responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes. The
CAA and the Tribal Air Rule establish the relationship of the federal
government and tribes in developing plans to attain the NAAQS, and
these revisions to the regulations do nothing to modify that
relationship. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.
    Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action, the
EPA met with tribal officials in developing the proposal. Meeting
summaries are contained in the docket for this rulemaking.

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. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution or use of energy. This final rule addresses the
substantive requirements for states with nonattainment areas to develop
planning SIPs and attain the NAAQS.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income
or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or the environment.
    The final revisions to the regulations address the substantive
requirements for SIPs to attain the NAAQS, which are designed to
protect all segments of the general populations. As such, they do not
adversely affect the health or safety of minority or low-income
populations and are designed to protect and enhance the health and
safety of these and other populations. The EPA encourages states to
consider any potential impacts on these populations in developing SIPs
to attain the NAAQS.

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).

L. Determination Under Section 307(d)

    Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(V), the Administrator determines
that this action is subject to the provisions of CAA section 307(d).
Section 307(d) establishes procedural requirements specific to
rulemaking under the CAA. CAA section 307(d)(1)(V) provides that the
provisions of CAA section 307(d) apply to ``such other actions as the
Administrator may determine.''

M. Judicial Review

    Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA indicates which Federal Courts of
Appeal have venue for petitions of review of final agency actions by
the EPA under the CAA. This section provides, in part, that petitions
for review must be filed in the U.S. 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 and if in taking such action the Administrator finds
and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.''
    This rule implementing the 2008 ozone NAAQS is ``nationally
applicable'' within the meaning of CAA section 307(b)(1). First, the
rulemaking addresses a NAAQS that applies to all states and territories
in the U.S. Second, the rulemaking addresses issues relevant to
specific existing SIP provisions in states across the U.S. that are
located in each of the 10 EPA Regions, numerous federal circuits and
multiple time zones. Third, the rulemaking addresses a common core of
knowledge and analysis involved in formulating the decision and a
common interpretation of the requirements of the CAA being applied to
SIPs in states across the country. Fourth, the rulemaking, by
addressing issues relevant to appropriate SIP provisions in one state,
may have precedential impacts upon the SIPs of other states nationwide.
Courts have found similar rulemaking actions to be of nationwide scope
and effect.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ See, e.g., State of Texas, et al. v. EPA, 2011 U.S. App.
LEXIS 5654 (5th Cir. 2011) (finding SIP call to 13 states to be of
nationwide scope and effect and thus transferring the case to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in accordance with CAA
section 307(b)(1)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit by May 4, 2015. Any such judicial
review is limited to only those objections that are raised with
reasonable specificity in timely comments. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
Under section 307(b)(2) of the Act, the requirements of this final
action may not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings
brought by us to enforce these requirements.

Appendix A to Preamble Glossary of Terms and Acronyms

ACT Alternative Control Techniques (document)
AERR Air Emissions Reporting Requirements Rule
BACT Best Available Control Technology
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAAC Clean Air Act Advisory Committee
CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule
CERR Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO Carbon Monoxide
CSAPR Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
CTG Control Technique Guideline
DOT Department of Transportation
DV Design Value
EMFAC EMissions FACtors (a mobile emissions model)
EO Executive Order
ESRP Emissions Statement Reporting Program
EGU Electricity Generating Unit
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FIP Federal Implementation Plan
GDF Gasoline dispensing facilities
HEDD High Electric Demand Day
ICR Information Collection Requirement
I/M Inspection and Maintenance (i.e., smog check)
km Kilometers
LAER Lowest Achievable Emission Rate
MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology
MCR Mid-course Review
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NOX Nitrogen Oxides
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NSR New Source Review
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
OMB Office of Management and Budget
ORVR Onboard refueling vapor recovery
OTR Ozone Transport Region
PM Particulate Matter
PM2.5 Fine Particulate Matter
ppb Parts per Billion
ppm Parts per Million
PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration
RACM Reasonably Available Control Measures
RACT Reasonably Available Control Technology
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RFG Reformulated Gasoline
RFP Reasonable Further Progress
ROP Rate-of-Progress
RPO Regional Planning Organization
SBA Small Business Administration
SIP State Implementation Plan
TAR Tribal Authority Rule
TAS Treatment in the Same Manner as a State (``Treatment as State'')
TIP Tribal Implementation Plan; also Transportation Improvement
Program (depending on context)
tpd Tons Per Day
tpy Tons Per Year
TSP Total Suspended Particulate
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
VCS Voluntary Consensus Standards
VOC Volatile Organic Compound

Appendix B--List of Areas Nonattainment for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS in
Addition to a Prior Ozone NAAQS as of April 6, 2015

    This table lists the areas that were designated nonattainment
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS effective July 20, 2012 that were also
nonattainment for a prior ozone NAAQS (1997 NAAQS and/or 1-hour
NAAQS) as of the date the prior NAAQS was revoked. The table also
indicates the attainment-related status of each area with respect to
each of the ozone standards, which is relevant to understanding
which obligations associated with the standards applies to each
area, as detailed in this final rule. Clean Data Determination means
the area received a determination from the EPA that suspends the
obligation to submit to the EPA certain planning requirements
associated with a standard. Attainment Deadline Determination means
the EPA determined that the area attained a standard by the
applicable attainment date. No Action means the EPA did not
determine that the area qualified for either a Clean Data
Determination or a determination of attainment by the applicable
attainment date. The term ``n/a'' means not applicable for this area
because the area was not nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS at
the time the 1-hour NAAQS was revoked (June 15, 2005).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                1997 8-hour ozone                                1-hour ozone
    2008 Nonattainment area name       2008 8-hour ozone      1997 8-hour ozone          attainment             1-hour ozone            attainment
                                         classification         classification          determination          classification          determination
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore Area, MD.................  Moderate.............  Serious..............  No Action.............  Severe-15............  Clean Data
                                                                                Determination.
Calaveras County, CA \1\...........  Marginal.............  Moderate.............  Clean Data              n/a..................  n/a.
                                                                                Determination,
                                                                                Attainment Deadline
                                                                                Determination.
Chico Area, CA.....................  Marginal.............  Marginal.............  Clean Data              n/a..................  n/a.
                                                                                Determination,
                                                                                Attainment Deadline
                                                                                Determination.
Dallas-Fort Worth Area, TX \1\.....  Moderate.............  Serious..............  No Action.............  Serious..............  Clean Data
                                                                                Determination.
Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft. Collins-  Marginal.............  Marginal.............  No Action.............  n/a..................  n/a.
 Loveland Area, CO.
Dukes County, MA \1\...............  Marginal.............  Moderate.............  Clean Data              Serious..............  Clean Data
                                                                                Determination,                                 Determination,
                                                                                Attainment Deadline                            Attainment Deadline
                                                                                Determination.                                 Determination.
Greater Connecticut Area, CT.......  Marginal.............  Moderate.............  Clean Data              Serious..............  Clean Data
                                                                                Determination,                                 Determination.
                                                                                Attainment Deadline
                                                                                Determination.
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Area, TX  Marginal.............  Severe-15............  No Action.............  Severe-17............  No Action.
Imperial County Area, CA...........  Marginal.............  Moderate.............  Clean Data              n/a..................  n/a.
                                                                                Determination.
Jamestown Area, NY.................  Marginal.............  Moderate.............  Clean Data              n/a..................  n/a.
                                                                                Determination \2\.
Kern County (Eastern Kern) Area, CA  Marginal.............  Moderate.............  Clean Data              n/a..................  n/a.
                                                                                Determination,
                                                                                Attainment Deadline
                                                                                Determination.
Los Angeles and San Bernardino       Severe-15............  Severe-15............  No Action.............  Severe-17............  No Action.
 Counties (W Mojave Desert) Area,
 CA.
Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin    Extreme..............  Extreme..............  No Action.............  Extreme..............  No Action.
 Area, CA.
Mariposa County, CA \1\............  Marginal.............  Moderate.............  Clean Data              n/a..................  n/a.
                                                                                Determination,
                                                                                Attainment Deadline
                                                                                Determination.
Morongo Areas of Indian Country      Serious..............  Severe-17............  No Action.............  Severe-17............  No Action.
 (Morongo Band of Mission Indians)
 \3\.
Nevada County (Western part) Area,   Marginal.............  Moderate.............  Clean Data              n/a..................  n/a.
 CA.                                                                                Determination,
                                                                                Attainment Deadline
                                                                                Determination.
New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island   Marginal.............  Moderate.............  Clean Data              Severe-17............  Clean Data
 Area, NY-NJ-CT.                                                                    Determination,                                 Determination.
                                                                                Attainment Deadline
                                                                                Determination.
Pechanga Areas of Indian Country     Moderate.............  Severe-17............  No Action.............  Extreme..............  No Action.
 (Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission
 Indians of the Pechanga
 Reservation) \4\.
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic     Marginal.............  Moderate.............  Clean Data              Severe-15............  Clean Data
 City Area, PA-NJ-MD-DE \1\.                                                        Determination,                                 Determination,
                                                                                Attainment Deadline                            Attainment Deadline
                                                                                Determination.                                 Determination.
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area, PA..  Marginal.............  Moderate.............  Clean Data              n/a..................  n/a.
                                                                                Determination \2\.
Riverside County (Coachella Valley)  Severe-15............  Severe-15............  No Action.............  Severe-17............  No Action.
 Area (1-hr Southeast Desert), CA.
Sacramento Metro Area, CA..........  Severe-15............  Severe-15............  No Action.............  Severe-15............  Clean Data
                                                                                Determination.
San Francisco Bay Area, CA.........  Marginal.............  Marginal.............  No Action.............  Other................  Clean Data
                                                                                Determination,
                                                                                Attainment Deadline
                                                                                Determination.
San Joaquin Valley Area, CA........  Extreme..............  Extreme..............  No Action.............  Extreme..............  No Action.
Seaford, DE \5\....................  Marginal.............  Moderate.............  Clean Data              Marginal.............  Clean Data
                                                                                Determination,                                 Determination,
                                                                                Attainment Deadline                            Attainment Deadline
                                                                                Determination.                                 Determination.
Sheboygan County, WI...............  Marginal.............  Moderate.............  Clean Data              n/a..................  n/a.
                                                                                Determination.
Ventura County (part) Area, CA.....  Serious..............  Serious..............  Clean Data              Severe-15............  Clean Data
                                                                                Determination.                                 Determination,
                                                                                Attainment Deadline
                                                                                Determination.

Washington Area, DC-MD-VA..........  Marginal.............  Moderate.............  Clean Data              Severe-15............  Clean Data
                                                                                Determination,                                 Determination,
                                                                                Attainment Deadline                            Attainment Deadline
                                                                                Determination.                                 Determination.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 2008 ozone NAAQS nonattainment area boundary differs from 1997 and (where applicable) 1-hr ozone NAAQS nonattainment area boundary.
\2\ Former subpart 1 areas with Determinations of Attainment prior to subpart 2 classification on May 14, 2012 (77 FR 28424). An Attainment Deadline
  Determination for these areas for the 1997 ozone NAAQS attainment dates is pending with the EPA.
\3\ Part of Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin Area, CA (South Coast) for 1997 and 1-hr ozone nonattainment area boundaries. The EPA published a
  correction of the classification for the 1997 ozone and 1-hr ozone NAAQS on September 23, 2013 (78 FR 58189).
\4\ Part of Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin Area, CA (South Coast) for 1997 and 1-hr ozone nonattainment area boundaries. The EPA published a
  correction of the classification for the 1997 ozone NAAQS on May 5, 2010 (75 FR 24409).
\5\ Part of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City Area, PA, NJ, MD, DE for 1997 ozone nonattainment area boundary, and part of the Sussex County, DE
  ozone nonattainment area boundary for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.

Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections
109; 110; 172; 181 through 185B; 301(a)(1) and 501(2)(B) of the CAA, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 7409; 42 U.S.C. 7410; 42 U.S.C. 7502; 42 U.S.C.
7511-7511f; 42 U.S.C. 7601(a)(1); 42 U.S.C. 7661(2)(B)).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 50

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.

40 CFR Part 51

    Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Transportation, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 52

    Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter.

40 CFR Part 70

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen oxides, Operating permits, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and record keeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.

40 CFR Part 71

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides,
Operating permits, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and record
keeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: February 13, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, Title 40, Chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 50--NATIONAL PRIMARY AND SECONDARY AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 50 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. In Sec.  50.10, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  50.10  National 8-hour primary and secondary ambient air quality
standards for ozone.

* * * * *
    (c) Until the effective date of the final Implementation of the
2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: State
Implementation Plan Requirements Rule (final SIP Requirements Rule) to
be codified at 40 CFR 51.1100 et seq., the 1997 ozone NAAQS set forth
in this section will continue in effect, notwithstanding the
promulgation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS under Sec.  50.15. The 1997 ozone
NAAQS set forth in this section will no longer apply upon the effective
date of the final SIP Requirements Rule. For purposes of the anti-
backsliding requirements of Sec.  51.1105, Sec.  51.165 and Appendix S
to part 51, the area designations and classifications with respect to
the revoked 1997 ozone NAAQS are codified in 40 CFR part 81.

PART 51--REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
3. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart X--Provisions for Implementation of 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards

0
4. Add Sec.  51.919 to read as follows:

Sec.  51.919  Applicability.

    As of April 6, 2015, the provisions of subpart AA shall replace the
provisions of subpart X, Sec. Sec.  51.900 to 51.918, which will cease
to apply, with the exception of the attainment date extension
provisions of Sec.  51.907 for the anti-backsliding purposes of Sec.
51.1105(d)(2).

Subpart AA--Provisions for Implementation of the 2008 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards

0
5. In Sec.  51.1100, add paragraphs (o) through (cc) to read as
follows:

Sec.  51.1100  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (o) Applicable requirements for an area for anti-backsliding
purposes means the following requirements, to the extent such
requirements apply to the area pursuant to its classification under CAA
section 181(a)(1) for the 1-hour NAAQS or 40 CFR 51.902 for the 1997
ozone NAAQS at the time of revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS:
    (1) Reasonably available control technology (RACT) under CAA
sections 172(c)(1) and 182(b)(2).
    (2) Vehicle inspection and maintenance programs (I/M) under CAA
sections 182(b)(4) and 182(c)(3).
    (3) Major source applicability thresholds for purposes of RACT
under CAA sections 172(c)(2), 182(b), 182(c), 182(d), and 182(e).
    (4) Reductions to achieve Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) under
CAA sections172(c)(2), 182(b)(1)(A), and 182(c)(2)(B).
    (5) Clean fuels fleet program under CAA section183(c)(4).
    (6) Clean fuels for boilers under CAA section 182(e)(3).

    (7) Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) during heavy traffic
hours as specified under CAA section 182(e)(4).
    (8) Enhanced (ambient) monitoring under CAA section 182(c)(1).
    (9) Transportation controls under CAA section 182(c)(5).
    (10) Vehicle miles traveled provisions of CAA section 182(d)(1).
    (11) NOX requirements under CAA section 182(f).
    (12) Attainment demonstration requirements under CAA sections
172(c)(4), 182(b)(1)(A), and 182(c)(2).
    (13) Nonattainment contingency measures required under CAA sections
172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) for failure to attain the 1-hour or 1997 ozone
NAAQS by the applicable attainment date or to make reasonable further
progress toward attainment of the 1-hour or 1997 ozone NAAQS.
    (14) Nonattainment NSR major source thresholds and offset ratios
under CAA sections 172(a)(5) and 182(a)(2).
    (15) Penalty fee program requirements for Severe and Extreme Areas
under CAA section 185.
    (16) Contingency measures associated with areas utilizing CAA
section 182(e)(5).
    (17) Reasonably available control measures (RACM) requirements
under CAA section 172(c)(1).
    (p) CSAPR means the Cross State Air Pollution Rule codified at 40
CFR 52.38 and part 97.
    (q) CAIR means the Clean Air Interstate Rule codified at 40 CFR
51.123, 52.35 and part 95.
    (r) NOX SIP Call means the rules codified at 40 CFR 51.121 and
51.122.
    (s) Ozone transport region (OTR) means the area established by CAA
section 184(a) or any other area established by the Administrator
pursuant to CAA section 176A for purposes of ozone.
    (t) Reasonable further progress (RFP) means both the emissions
reductions required under CAA section 172(c)(2) which 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 six years of the plan and the