Ozone Reclassification State Implementation Plan Rule

The Prime Mover Institute, a public interest organization, supports the proposed rule because it correctly interprets the Clean Air Act to mean that reclassified ozone nonattainment areas are governed by their current classification's requirements. They also argue that the EPA should explicitly confirm that these reclassified-area plans can incorporate Section 179B to provide relief for areas affected by international emissions.

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.

Matt Kuryla of BAKER BOTTS LLP supports the EPA's proposal to rescind the January 2025 reclassification rule, arguing it aligns with the Clean Air Act. However, the commenter requests that the EPA act separately to rescind past reclassifications, formally amend rules regarding sanctions clocks, and establish a default SIP submittal deadline of at least 18 months.

The commenter opposes the rule, arguing that it creates regulatory uncertainty by simultaneously claiming to be a non-discretionary mandate and a deregulatory relief measure. They criticize the EPA for failing to provide a full accounting of the rule's extensive retroactive scope and for neglecting to conduct a proper reliance-interest analysis for affected businesses and communities.