Ozone Reclassification State Implementation Plan Rule

A coalition of environmental and public health advocacy organizations opposes the EPA's Ozone Reclassification State Implementation Plan Rule. They argue the proposal is unlawful, undermines the Clean Air Act's public health protections, and allows states to indefinitely delay meeting ozone standards by effectively erasing missed deadlines through reclassification.

The Maryland Department of the Environment opposes the proposed rule, arguing it creates a loophole that allows states to avoid sanctions and FIPs for delinquent SIP submissions by seeking reclassification. They also contend that the proposal fails to account for the increased stringency of requirements associated with higher nonattainment classifications.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) opposes the proposed Ozone Reclassification State Implementation Plan Rule, arguing that it relaxes Clean Air Act requirements and could lead to delayed emission reductions and backsliding in air quality. They contend that the proposal is vague, exceeds agency authority, and prioritizes administrative efficiency over significant public health benefits.

The Harris County Attorney's Office opposes the proposed rule, arguing that the new interpretation of State Implementation Plan (SIP) requirements will disincentivize states from meeting ozone NAAQS deadlines and delay air quality improvements. They contend that the proposal allows states to avoid past obligations, which undermines the Clean Air Act's goal of protecting public health and achieving expeditious attainment.

The Environmental Protection Network (EPN) opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it improperly removes requirements from lower nonattainment classifications when an area is reclassified. They contend that the proposal ignores Congressional intent regarding "reasonable further progress," ignores anti-backsliding requirements, and rewards states for delaying emission reductions.

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) opposes the EPA's proposed rule because it allows states to effectively delay ozone nonattainment requirements for decades by stopping sanctions and FIP clocks upon reclassification. While the agency supports reducing planning burdens, it argues that the current proposal is an "absurd" reading of the Clean Air Act that prioritizes administrative convenience over public health.

Jan Tierney, a retired EPA attorney and national expert on the Clean Air Act, opposes the proposed rule because it allows states to avoid past non-compliance obligations upon reclassification. She argues that the proposal contradicts the statute's language and purpose of attaining air quality standards "as expeditiously as practicable" by rewarding delinquent states and delaying health benefits.

The commenter opposes the proposed rule because it contains language that could potentially absolve noncompliant areas of penalties by rendering previous findings of failure to submit obsolete. They express concern that the rule change effectively negates past regulatory failures.