This final rule amends the signage requirements at 12 CFR 328.4 and 328.5 to provide IDIs with greater flexibility in the display of FDIC signage on digital deposit-taking channels and ATMs and like devices. The final rule seeks to minimize implementation issues, reduce burden, and address potential consumer confusion. The final rule does not amend other provisions under 12 CFR part 328.

On December 20, 2023, the FDIC adopted a final rule that, among other things, amended the FDIC's official sign and advertisement of membership regulations under subpart A of 12 CFR part 328 (the 2023 Final Rule). The rule established signage requirements across a wide range of banking channels, including physical premises, digital deposit-taking channels, and ATMs and like devices. 1

Following the adoption of the 2023 Final Rule, some IDIs requested additional time to meet the new requirements. As a result, the FDIC delayed the compliance deadline for the subpart A amendments. 2 Thereafter, the FDIC observed that the provisions governing signage requirements for digital deposit-taking channels and ATMs and like devices, 12 CFR 328.4 and 328.5, continued to generate questions regarding implementation and had the potential to cause consumer confusion. 3 Accordingly, the FDIC further delayed compliance for those provisions. This extension was intended to allow the FDIC to propose changes to these requirements. 4 On November 25, 2025, the FDIC further extended the compliance date for 12 CFR 328.4 and 328.5 from March 1, 2026, to January 1, 2027, noting the uncertainty IDIs faced while the FDIC considered changes to those provisions. 5

The FDIC maintains stability and public confidence in the nation's financial system by, among other things, insuring the deposits of all IDIs. Section 18(a) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act)  6 governs IDI sign and advertising statement requirements and grants the FDIC authority to prescribe regulations with respect to these requirements. The regulations implementing signage and advertisement requirements are contained in 12 CFR 328.0 through 328.8 of subpart A (subpart A). Subpart A applies to IDIs, including insured branches of foreign banks.

In response to potential consumer confusion and challenges with implementing the 2023 Final Rule's signage requirements for digital deposit-taking channels, ATMs, and like devices, the FDIC published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR or proposal) in the Federal Register on August 21, 2025. The NPR proposed to amend the signage requirements at 12 CFR 328.4 and 328.5 and requested public comment. 7

The NPR intended to clarify and provide greater flexibility with respect to the requirements regarding the (1) FDIC official digital sign design; (2) display of signage on digital deposit-taking channels; and (3) display of signage on ATMs and like devices. The NPR solicited comments on all aspects of the proposed rule. The comment period ended on October 20, 2025. The FDIC received a total of nine substantive comments from industry groups, a payments provider, a non-profit organization, and an individual. 8 Comments are discussed below.

The FDIC reviewed and carefully considered public comments received and is generally finalizing the rule as proposed, with some changes and clarifications, as described below. The amendments made by this final rule will take effect 30 days following publication in the Federal Register . For reasons discussed below, the compliance date for the amendments made by this final rule will be April 1, 2027.

The requirements governing the design of the FDIC official digital sign appear at 12 CFR 328.5(b). Those requirements include specific text, color, font, and size requirements, such as specific hexadecimal color codes and wordmark sizes and provide limited flexibility for cases in which the required colors would be illegible due to the color of the background on a digital deposit-taking channel.

The NPR proposed amendments to 12 CFR 328.5(b) that would have provided additional flexibility with respect to the color, font, and text size that IDIs may use when displaying the FDIC official digital sign. Although the NPR would have continued to require that the FDIC official digital sign be displayed in either a combination of navy blue and black text or all-white text, the NPR would not have prescribed specific hexadecimal color codes or required a specific font size for the text of the FDIC official digital sign. The proposed amendments would have provided additional flexibility by not requiring specific font sizes and allowing the font used for the FDIC official digital sign to be Source Sans Pro Web or a similar font. Consistent with the FDIC's previous guidance in “Questions and Answers Related to the FDIC's Part 328 Final Rule”  9 (Q&As), the proposed rule would have expressly permitted IDIs to “wrap” the text of the FDIC official digital sign to address space constraints.

Comments regarding the FDIC official digital sign design requirements were mixed, with commenters supporting or opposing certain proposed amendments, and others recommending additional changes. Several commenters expressed agreement with the digital sign design amendments proposed in the NPR. Others disagreed with the NPR's approach, with one commenter arguing that consumers derive confidence from the consistency of the FDIC's signage, which would be undermined by providing flexibility in its display. Another commenter suggested that defining a range of acceptable hexadecimal color codes and minimum font sizes would provide clarity and certainty to IDIs regarding whether they have satisfied the rule's requirements. Commenters suggested alternative changes, including providing illustrative examples of permitted digital sign designs, providing a standardized—but optional—official digital sign, and allowing IDIs the flexibility to amend the text of the official digital sign.

The final rule adopts the NPR's amendments as proposed with respect to the design of the FDIC official digital sign. The final rule requires that the text of the official digital sign be navy blue or black but does not mandate specific color codes. Like the proposed rule, the final rule also requires IDIs to use Source Sans Pro Web or any other similar font. These changes are intended to give IDIs sufficient flexibility to exercise reasonable judgment in order to accommodate technical limitations ( e.g., space constraints, font availability, and color options for “navy blue”). In addition, the FDIC will continue to provide a standardized—but optional—digital official sign to IDIs via FDICconnect.

Section 328.5(d) requires IDIs to display the FDIC official digital sign on an IDI's digital deposit-taking channel's initial page or homepage of the website or application; landing or login pages; and pages where a customer may transact with deposits. Following the adoption of that provision as part of the 2023 Final Rule, IDIs raised questions and concerns with implementing these requirements, particularly with respect to “landing pages” and “pages where a customer may transact with deposits.” In response, the NPR included proposed amendments to 12 CFR 328.5(d) that would have focused the display of the FDIC official digital sign on specific pages and screens that are most relevant to consumers. First, because the term “landing page” may be viewed as duplicative of “login page,” the NPR proposed removing the requirement to display the FDIC official digital sign on an IDI's “landing page” while retaining the requirement for IDIs to display the FDIC official digital sign on the “login page” of an IDI's digital deposit-taking channel. Next, the NPR proposed removing the requirement to display the FDIC official digital sign on “pages where the customer may transact with deposits,” and, instead, proposed requiring IDIs to display the FDIC official digital sign on the digital deposit-taking channels' page or screen where a consumer initiates a deposit account opening.

Several commenters agreed with the NPR's proposal to remove the requirement that the digital sign be displayed on “pages where the customer may transact with deposits.” Regarding the proposed requirement to display signage on the page or screen where a consumer initiates a deposit account opening, some commenters suggested that the FDIC clarify that signage would only be required on the first page of a multi-page account opening process. Another commenter expressed disagreement with the proposed changes, suggesting that the FDIC official digital sign should be required any time a deposit is made. This commenter also suggested that the FDIC should prohibit IDIs from featuring insured and uninsured products on the same page, in part to ensure that the accompanying signage is not misleading to consumers.

One commenter supported the proposed removal of the requirement to display the FDIC official digital sign on landing pages and suggested that the FDIC eliminate the requirement to display the official digital sign altogether. The commenter said that the presence of the digital sign on pages where IDIs also provide information about products that are not FDIC-insured could confuse consumers. Another commenter suggested that the FDIC limit the requirement to pages or screens solely dedicated to insured deposit products.

The final rule adopts the NPR's proposed changes to the display of the FDIC official digital sign on digital deposit-taking channels and explicitly provides that the sign is required only on the first page or screen of the deposit account opening process. Specifically, under the final rule, IDIs are required to display the FDIC official digital sign clearly, continuously, and conspicuously on the (1) initial page or homepage of the website or application; (2) login page; and (3) page or screen where the consumer first initiates a deposit account opening.

The final rule ensures that signage appears where it is most valuable to consumers without requiring the repetitive display of the official digital sign on successive pages or screens. Importantly, the rule does not prohibit the inclusion of uninsured products on pages bearing the FDIC official digital sign. The FDIC's regulations prohibiting deposit insurance misrepresentations, including misrepresentations using FDIC-Associated Images such as the FDIC official digital sign, 10 provide sufficient safeguards against such misrepresentations or confusion that may occur if the FDIC official digital sign is displayed on pages that include uninsured products.

Section 328.5(g)(1) requires IDIs to clearly, continuously, and conspicuously display non-deposit signage “on each page relating to non-deposit products” that indicates that non-deposit products are not insured by the FDIC, are not deposits, and may lose value.

To address questions and concerns raised regarding what would be considered a page “relating” to non-deposit products and whether this term includes pages and screens with incidental references to non-deposit products ( e.g., homepages or navigation menus or tabs), the NPR proposed requiring the display of non-deposit signage only on pages and screens that are primarily dedicated to one or more non-deposit products. The NPR would have clarified that IDIs would not need to display non-deposit signage on pages or screens with incidental references to non-deposit products, such as the homepage or on a navigation menu that references or links to non-deposit product pages.

In general, commenters supported the NPR's proposed requirement that non-deposit signage only be required on pages and screens that are primarily dedicated to one or more non-deposit products. Two commenters, however, requested that the FDIC provide examples of pages or screens that require non-deposit signage as a result of being “primarily dedicated” to non-deposit products.

Commenters requested clarification regarding how 12 CFR part 328's non-deposit signage requirements interact with other regulatory disclosure obligations. One commenter suggested that the FDIC add an exception such that non-deposit digital signage would not be required on digital channels that align with the Interagency Statement on Retail Sales of Nondeposit Investment Products (interagency guidance). 11 Another commenter suggested that the FDIC's non-deposit signage requirements for digital deposit-taking channels should be eliminated entirely, as existing guidance and regulations already require similar disclosures alongside statements regarding securities, investment products, and insurance products. Specifically, this commenter pointed to requirements imposed by the interagency guidance, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) Rule 3160, and the insurance product regulations issued pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1831x. 12

The final rule adopts the NPR's changes to static non-deposit signage requirements on digital deposit-taking channels with additional revisions. The NPR proposed that the requirement to display static non-deposit signage apply to an IDI's digital deposit-taking channel that “offers the ability to make deposits electronically and provides access to deposits and one or more non-deposit products[.]” Recognizing that an IDI's digital deposit-taking channels may also advertise or provide information about non-deposit products and include a weblink to a third-party's website or mobile application—where the customer can then open or transact with a non-deposit product—the final rule adopts language to incorporate this concept. Specifically, the requirement to display non-deposit signage applies to digital deposit-taking channels that offer customers the ability to make deposits electronically, provide customers access to deposits, and advertise, provide information about, or access to non-deposit products.

The final rule also adopts a clearer, more specific “primarily dedicated” standard for the pages of an IDI's digital deposit-taking channel on which non-deposit signage is required. The final rule states that IDIs must clearly, continuously, and conspicuously display non-deposit signage on any page that is primarily dedicated to advertising or providing information about, or access to, non-deposit products. On such pages, IDIs must clearly, continuously, and conspicuously display non-deposit signage indicating that non-deposit products are not insured by the FDIC; are not deposits; and may lose value.

The amended scope of the non-deposit signage requirement is intended to recognize that, although graphics and links concerning non-deposit products may appear on a variety of IDI web pages, the range of pages that are primarily dedicated to advertising or providing information about, or access to, non-deposit products may be much narrower. An IDI's homepage—typically geared toward general banking services, even if it includes limited graphics and links that allow customers to access pages with non-deposit products—would not meet this standard. Instead, pages on an IDI's digital deposit-taking channel where the primary focus of the content is marketing or providing information about non-deposit products (such as pages that are accessed by clicking “Investing” or “Wealth Management”) will tend to be pages covered by this standard.

Commenters also raised concerns that IDIs may be subject to overlapping disclosure requirements for non-deposit investment products that are similar to 12 CFR part 328's non-deposit signage requirements. There are two dimensions to these similarities: the content of required disclosures and the manner in which disclosures must be displayed.

As to content, the signage must “indicat[e] that the non-deposit products: are not insured by the FDIC; are not deposits; and may lose value.”  13 The FDIC has previously noted in Q&As that signage that states “Not FDIC Insured; No Bank Guarantee; May Lose Value” would meet this requirement. 14 15 As to the manner in which non-deposit signage must be displayed, the regulation's clear, continuous, and conspicuous requirement bears similarity to the display requirements that accompany other disclosure requirements, which characterize their standards in similar terms. 16 If, in efforts to comply with other disclosure requirements, an IDI already continuously, clearly, and conspicuously displays non-deposit signage consistent with 12 CFR part 328, no additional changes would be required by the final rule. However, a common industry practice is to include disclosures towards the bottom of a web page, where they are generally less likely to be seen by consumers. Signage would not be displayed clearly, continuously, and conspicuously for purposes of 12 CFR part 328 if it appears at the bottom of a web page, in very small text size.

The FDIC recognizes the variability of IDI web pages and understands that the specific location in which to place the non-deposit signage on a web page that would be considered clear and conspicuous depends on the design of the specific web page. As a result, the final rule provides IDIs flexibility in the placement of the non-deposit signage. Signage appearing towards the bottom of a web page would meet the standard in 12 CFR part 328 so long as the text is displayed more prominently than footnotes. For example, if the non-deposit signage is placed in a text box, or displayed in larger or bolded font, relative to the smallest text on the page, it would be sufficiently clear and conspicuous to meet the standard, notwithstanding its placement towards the bottom of a web page.

The NPR did not propose changes to the requirement that the signage must be displayed clearly, continuously, and conspicuously. However, to provide IDIs with additional clarification about meeting this display standard, the proposed rule provided a non-exhaustive list of examples of various placements of the FDIC official digital sign and non-deposit signage that would meet the clear, continuous, and conspicuous standard for IDIs' digital deposit-taking channels.

In general, commenters sought further clarity on the “clearly, continuously, and conspicuously” standard. One commenter stated that, with respect to login pages for mobile applications, the signage requirement should be clarified to expressly state whether the digital sign is required to be displayed “near the top of the page.” Another commenter requested additional guidance on the application of the clear, continuous, and conspicuous standard to mobile applications and web designs. This commenter also stated that prescriptive requirements about where on a page or screen signage must be displayed may confuse customers by leading to cluttered pages or situations where both the FDIC official digital sign and non-deposit signage are on the same page.

The final rule generally adopts the NPR's examples of clear, continuous, and conspicuous signage with certain changes. The NPR proposed four examples at 12 CFR 328.5(e). The final rule adopts the first three of those examples as proposed. The fourth example illustrated that non-deposit signage would meet the standard if placed “[on] a page on an insured depository institution's website promoting, for example, annuities available for purchase, with non-deposit signage appearing towards the bottom of a promotional text or graphic in a size generally consistent with other text on the page.” As noted above, it is a common industry practice to include disclosures towards the bottom of a web page, as opposed to near promotional text or graphics themselves. In order to provide a clearer and more practical example, the final rule revises this example to state that non-deposit signage placed towards the bottom of a page that distinguishes the text from the smallest text on the page by using bold or larger font, or surrounding the disclosure with a text box, would generally be considered to be clear and conspicuous.

The final rule provides examples that are broad enough to recognize both the wide variety of content arrangements and page layouts on IDI platforms and the potential that those arrangements and layouts will change over time. Ultimately, whether signage is clear, continuous, and conspicuous must be based on the appearance of signage in relation to other content on a given page or screen.

The examples provided in the final rule identify potential means of satisfying the clear, continuous, and conspicuous standard for various types of FDIC signage. Importantly, the examples do not set minimum requirements beyond what is stated in the regulatory text by, for example, mandating the placement of signage on a particular part of a web page or mobile application. The intention in providing these requested examples is to suggest means of satisfying 12 CFR part 328's requirements, not to constrain IDIs' ability to arrange required signage in the manner that best suits their digital deposit-taking channels.

In rare circumstances, both the FDIC official digital sign and non-deposit signage may appear on the same page. However, the potential for both signage requirements to apply to the same page is greatly minimized by the amendments in this rule, which reduce the number of pages on which the FDIC official digital sign and non-deposit signage must be displayed.

Section 328.5(g)(2) requires IDIs to display a one-time notification when a bank customer who is logged into an IDI's digital deposit-taking channel attempts to access non-deposit products through a hyperlink (or similar weblinking feature) to a non-bank third-party platform. The one-time notification must clearly and conspicuously indicate that the non-deposit products: are not insured by the FDIC; are not deposits; and may lose value. IDIs may permit their customers to access the third party's platform only after such customers acted to dismiss the notification.

To address operational challenges in implementing the one-time notification requirement, as well as concerns that the notification would be disruptive and degrade the user experience for IDI customers, the NPR proposed giving IDIs additional flexibility with respect to the one-time notification requirement. Specifically, under the proposed rule, IDIs would have two options with respect to the dismissal of the notification, such that the notification could be dismissed by an act of the customer or dismissed automatically after the customer has been provided a reasonable opportunity—constituting at least three seconds—to read the content.

Consistent with prior interpretations, 17 the NPR's preamble noted that affiliated entities are viewed as “third parties” for purposes of the one-time notification requirement. As such, the NPR preamble stated that IDIs would be required to display the one-time notification when customers access affiliated third-party non-deposit products when leaving an IDI's digital deposit-taking channel. Finally, the NPR would have made non-substantive organizational changes to the regulatory text of the one-time notification requirement.

Several commenters expressed support for the proposed amendments to the one-time notification requirement. A commenter requested that the FDIC specifically clarify whether the three-second duration applies when the notification is dismissed automatically, as opposed to when the customer actively clicks it away. One commenter stated that it did not object to requiring the one-time notification when the third-party is an affiliate of an IDI. Another commenter sought additional clarification regarding when the one-time notification requirement applies to affiliated third-party platforms.

One commenter stated that the FDIC should eliminate the one-time notification requirement, arguing that the notice is confusing and that other regulations that apply to both IDIs and third parties provide consumers with sufficient notice. Another commenter conversely stated that both the three-second duration and the consumer's ability to click the notification away would not provide consumers with sufficient notice.

The final rule adopts the proposed requirement to display a one-time notification for IDI customers accessing third-party non-deposit products, with organizational and streamlining changes to the regulatory text for clarity.

Commenters asked whether the one-time notification requirement would apply to IDI affiliates. As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, and consistent with the FDIC's prior interpretations, 18 the notification must appear when a logged-in IDI customer attempts to navigate from the IDI's digital deposit-taking channel to the affiliate platform ( e.g., website or application) that offers non-deposit products. Commenters also asked whether the requirement applies to customers who do not leave an IDI's digital deposit-taking channel. The notification requirement applies only when a customer leaves the IDI's digital deposit-taking channel.

As noted, at least one commenter sought clarification on the required operation of the one-time notification. The final rule adopts the proposed change and, in response to that commenter, restructures and streamlines the proposed regulatory text to make it clear that the requirement to display the sign for a minimum of three seconds only applies if the notification disappears automatically (as opposed to if the customer manually dismisses the notification). Simply stated, an institution could enable a customer to affirmatively dismiss the notification or could permit the notification to remain on the page for a minimum of 3 seconds. In addition, IDIs could combine these two options through a notification that could either be dismissed manually by the customer or disappear automatically after a minimum of 3 seconds. The notification would not need to remain on the page for 3 seconds if the customer affirmatively dismisses the notification before 3 seconds elapses.

Although some commenters believe the one-time notification is duplicative, and one commenter stated that the notification is not sufficient to inform IDI customers, the revised requirement preserves a customer notification function, while providing IDIs with greater flexibility such that the notification does not meaningfully degrade the user experience on IDIs' digital deposit-taking channels.

The NPR included language that would have expressly permitted IDIs to include additional disclosures in the one-time notification for bank customers related to third-party non-deposit products. Some commenters requested that the FDIC expand the scope of this provision to give IDIs explicit flexibility to include additional disclosures generally, and not just with respect to the one-time notification.

Since the 2023 Final Rule was adopted, the FDIC has observed IDIs that provide additional disclosures on their digital deposit-taking channels to clarify the availability of FDIC insurance on certain products. 19 This demonstrates that digital deposit-taking channels can differ widely and IDIs may identify instances where additional disclosures would prevent consumer confusion or otherwise benefit consumers. The final rule expressly provides IDIs with the latitude to display additional disclosures through a new 12 CFR 328.5(f), which provides that the signage requirements for digital deposit-taking channels do not limit IDIs' ability to display signage and disclosures in addition to those required by 12 CFR part 328.

Under 12 CFR 328.4(c), for ATMs that receive deposits and offer access to non-deposit products, IDIs are required to display the FDIC official digital sign clearly, continuously, and conspicuously on an ATM or like device's “homepage or screen and on each transaction page or screen relating to deposits.” The proposal sought to simplify compliance for IDIs and mitigate potential consumer confusion by requiring the display of the FDIC official digital sign only on the “initial screen” of an IDI's ATM or like device. The NPR preamble stated that an ATM's “initial screen” is the screen that is displayed before an IDI's customer inserts a debit card or other credentials to access the device (sometimes referred to as a “welcome screen”).

Two commenters requested clarification on the “initial screen” requirement for ATMs and like devices. Both commenters believed that this language was susceptible to multiple interpretations. One commenter argued that the NPR could require the display of signage on a device's idle or standby screen, which IDIs often use to advertise a range of financial and non-financial products and services, rendering it potentially misleading to display the FDIC official digital sign. Both commenters suggested that the requirement be changed to require display of the FDIC sign on the screen after a customer's engagement with the device—whether the insertion of a debit card or credentials or some other action, such as pressing a button or touchscreen—that would cause the idle or standby screen to stop displaying.

Another commenter suggested that the description of an “initial screen” in the preamble to the NPR was technically unworkable. Specifically, because the proposal described an initial screen with reference to a customer's behavior, this commenter suggested that IDIs would need to assess the identity of an ATM's user and their relationship to the IDI in order to determine whether signage was required. Because the NPR preamble described the initial screen as the screen appearing before a customer presents credentials, this would be difficult or impossible to do.

To simplify compliance for IDIs and mitigate potential consumer confusion, the final rule generally adopts the proposed change that the FDIC official digital sign appear on the initial screen of IDIs' ATMs and like devices, with one clarification noted below. The FDIC official digital sign is no longer required on homepages or screens or on each transaction page or screen relating to deposits.

The proposal, in the preamble, described an “initial screen” as “the screen that is displayed before an IDI's customer inserts a debit card or other credentials to access the device (sometimes referred to as a `welcome screen').” In light of the variability in the types of “initial screens,” as explained by the commenters, the FDIC is providing additional precision regarding the “initial screen” requirement. Many IDIs display rotating advertisements for products, services, and events on the screens of idle ATMs, which operate as a “screen saver” prior to engagement by a user. Read literally, the preamble's description of an “initial screen” could apply to those screens. If the FDIC official digital signage appeared with such content, it may be misleading. Accordingly, the final rule includes a clarification that advertisements of this nature will not be considered initial screens for purposes of the ATM signage requirements. Whether or not a given device displays advertisements when idle, all ATMs and like devices will have at least one “initial screen” on which the FDIC official digital sign is displayed, consistent with the FDIC's goals of ensuring that consumers know when they are doing business with an IDI and that an IDI's customers are informed about the insured status of their deposits.

Section 328.4 provides a limited exception to the FDIC official digital sign requirement for ATMs and like devices that do not offer non-deposit products and were placed into service prior to January 1, 2025, permitting such devices to display either the FDIC official digital sign or the physical FDIC official sign. 20 To address questions about the scope of the physical FDIC official sign exception for existing ATMs and like devices and concerns about costs associated with updating ATMs and like devices that are already in service, the NPR would have expanded the physical sign exception to a wider range of ATMs and like devices, giving IDIs greater flexibility to display either the physical FDIC official sign or the FDIC official digital sign on those devices. Under the proposal, the physical signage exception would have been available to (1) all ATMs and like devices placed into service prior to January 1, 2027, and (2) all ATMs and like devices, regardless of when placed into service, that do not allow customers to transact with non-deposit products.

Two commenters expressed support for the NPR's expanded exception from the digital sign requirement for ATMs and like devices placed into service before January 1, 2027, or that do not offer non-deposit products.

The final rule adopts the limited exception for certain ATMs to display the physical official sign as proposed, with one change. The relevant “placed into service” date the NPR proposed for the physical sign exception was January 1, 2027, which was aligned with the contemplated compliance date. Because the compliance date for this rule is April 1, 2027, that date will also serve as the “placed into service” date for the physical sign exception for ATMs and like devices. As noted, commenters did not suggest changes to the proposed exception from the digital sign requirement for ATMs and like devices.

Section 328.4(f) provides that a degraded or defaced physical FDIC official sign on ATMs and like devices would not be considered to be displayed in a clear and conspicuous manner. The NPR would have removed this provision. The NPR stated that this provision is not needed because an institution is required to clearly and conspicuously display the sign, and if the sign is not clear to consumers, the institution would not be displaying it clearly.

A commenter noted that setting minimum standards for the condition, clarity, or conspicuousness of physical FDIC signage would create a compliance burden for IDIs, particularly community banks that have ATMs distributed across rural locations.

The final rule adopts the proposed deletion of section 328.4(f). As noted, this provision is unnecessary in light of an IDI's obligation to display signage clearly. Signage that is degraded or defaced to an extent that a consumer is unable to read and understand its content would not be displayed clearly. The FDIC did not receive any comments opposing this aspect of the proposal.

Section 328.4(d) requires IDIs' ATMs that receive deposits and offer access to non-deposit products to clearly, continuously, and conspicuously display non-deposit signage “on each transaction page or screen relating to non-deposit products.” Such non-deposit signage must indicate that non-deposit products are not insured by the FDIC; are not deposits; and may lose value. In recognition of feedback that non-deposit signage requirements for ATMs and like devices are overly broad and repetitive, the NPR proposed modifying the non-deposit signage requirements for ATMs and like devices in two respects.

First, under the proposal, a narrower subset of ATMs and like devices would have been subject to the non-deposit signage requirements. While the non-deposit signage requirements presently apply to an ATM or like device that offers access to non-deposit products, the proposal would only have required non-deposit signage on ATMs or like devices that permit IDI customers to transact with one or more non-deposit products. 21 This change would have removed ATMs and like devices from the scope of the non-deposit signage requirements if, for example, they merely permit customers to view account balances for non-deposit products. Moreover, acknowledging the technical limitations IDIs face in verifying information for customers of other financial institutions using the IDI's ATMs and like devices (referred to as “non-customers”), including whether the non-customer is accessing FDIC-insured deposit accounts or non-deposit products, the proposed rule would not have required IDIs to display non-deposit signage for pages and screens viewed by non-customers.

The disaster loan program authorized by section 7(b) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)) is an important federal mechanism established to provide rapid financial assistance to homeowners, business owners, and other victims whose property is damaged or destroyed as a result of declared disasters. Congress intended the program to operate swiftly to mitigate the severe economic, housing, and public health consequences resulting in the wake of such disasters.

In administering the program, SBA has identified recurring delays to recovery caused by state and local permitting requirements or similar conditions precedent to construction. These requirements have materially delayed or prevented business owners, homeowners, and other victims of disasters from using federally approved loan proceeds, frustrating the core objectives of the Disaster Loan Program. Specifically, SBA has identified instances where existing victims of Presidentially-declared disasters have suffered undue delays in their ability to use approved loan proceeds because local and state authorities are delaying approvals and permits necessary to repair, rehabilitate, or replace their homes and businesses. Some of these victims have delayed disbursement of their SBA loans, while others who have received loan proceeds cannot use them and will soon begin accruing interest and payment obligations, adding insult to injury. Every day counts in recovering from a disaster, a fact Congress recognized in 2007 when it criticized SBA for failing to deliver relief to disaster victims within 30 days. 1

This interim final rule establishes clear federal standards governing use of Disaster Loan Program proceeds when interacting with non-federal governmental authorities and preempts state and local permitting and approval requirements to the extent such requirements delay the use of Disaster Loan Program proceeds in contravention of Congressional objectives. The rule does not preempt any substantive state and local building requirements ( e.g., building standards, health and safety requirements, inspections, or certificates of occupancy), but rather applies only where state or local permits or other approvals stand as obstacles to accomplishing the federal goal of rapid relief after a Presidentially declared disaster. Substantive state and local standards and requirements are preserved in that builders must certify that they have, and will, otherwise comply with all such substantive local and state standards and requirements.

SBA is issuing this rule pursuant to its authority under section 5(b)(6) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 634(b)(6)), which authorizes the Administrator to make such rules and regulations as deemed necessary to carry out the functions and purposes of the Small Business Act. The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution provides that valid federal regulations preempt state and local laws when the latter stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. (U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2; see also Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 399, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2501 (2012)). Congress intended the Small Business Act's Disaster Loan Program to provide rapid, effective deployment of assistance in the wake of a disaster to avoid additional harms to victims of disasters. 2 Frustration of this goal frustrates a federal purpose, justifying preemption.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3), SBA finds good cause to issue this rule as an interim final rule without prior written notice and comment and with an immediate effective date. Because SBA finds good cause to issue an interim final rule under relevant statutory authority, SBA has complied with the maximum procedural requirements required by Congress. Regardless, the SBA is inviting post-promulgation comment for agency consideration.

Delaying implementation to allow for advance notice and comment and delaying the effective date would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because:

1. Disaster recovery efforts are ongoing and currently being impeded;

2. Borrowers are currently experiencing undue delays in the repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of their homes and businesses, frustrating the effectiveness of SBA loans in promptly providing needed federal assistance following a Presidentially-declared disaster; by way of example, in the last year, SBA has authorized over $3 billion with respect to the January 2025 wildfires in California ($2 billion of which was approved within the first 75 days of the disaster declaration), yet approximately only $600 million has been disbursed;

3. Continued delay of assistance would exacerbate housing and business instability, economic harm, and public safety and health risks in current and future disaster areas;

4. Continued delay preventing the use of assistance proceeds will further harm victims—many of whom will soon begin accruing interest and payment obligations on disbursed loans—despite not being able to commence repair, rehabilitation, or replacement of the destroyed or damaged home or building;

5. The immediate problems faced by borrowers, if not addressed, will be repeated by inevitable and unpredictable future disasters;

6. The ongoing delay of assistance to many borrowers poses a threat of rendering the Disaster Loan Program ineffective in a time of crisis; and

7. Immediate regulatory clarity is necessary to ensure uniform administration of the SBA Disaster Loan Program nationwide.

SBA nonetheless invites post-promulgation public comment and will consider all timely submissions in determining whether revisions to this rule are warranted.

This rule has federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. SBA has determined that this rule is consistent with the principles of federalism because it preempts state and local law only to the limited extent necessary to resolve conflicts with well-established federal objectives. The rule does not displace state or local health and safety standards and preserves traditional areas of state and local permitting authority except where such requirements obstruct federally authorized disaster assistance from achieving federal objectives through delay in granting and providing approvals which are a condition precedent to construction. The policymaking discretion of state and local authorities is preserved because preemption of state or local requirements would occur only when state and local requirements cause delay and thus interference with statutorily authorized and clearly expressed federal objectives. State and local requirements are also preserved in that builders still must certify compliance with all substantive local and state requirements. Further, SBA has determined that prior consultation with State and local officials is impracticable given the emergency nature of this interim final rule.

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this rule is a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. SBA invites comment on its Regulatory Impact Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

SBA has drafted the following Regulatory Impact Analysis for the public's information. The disaster loan program authorized under Section 7(b) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)) is an important federal mechanism established to provide rapid financial assistance to homeowners, business owners, and other victims whose properties are damaged or destroyed as a result of declared disasters. Congress intended the program to operate swiftly to mitigate the severe economic, housing, and public health consequences resulting in the wake of disasters.

In administering the program, SBA has identified recurring delays to recovery caused by state and local requirements. This interim final rule establishes clear federal standards governing use of Disaster Loan Program proceeds when interacting with non-federal governmental authorities and preempts state and local requirements to the extent such requirements delay the use of SBA Disaster Loan Program proceeds. The rule applies where state or local permits or other approvals stand as an obstacle to accomplishing the federal goal of rapid relief.

A natural disaster reduces economic activity on impact as it destroys and injures persons and property. A period of recovery involves growing incomes and GDP in the area as physical assets are rebuilt. By accelerating the pace of recovery from natural disaster, the rule would increase GDP and incomes during the recovery period. The rule does not change the amount lent.

SBA acknowledges that GDP and incomes are not pure benefits because the persons and assets involved have opportunity costs. However, in the disaster context, the outside options for workers and owners of destroyed businesses and homes are relatively low because the timing and precise location of natural disasters is unpredictable. The RIA therefore assumes that a fraction of net production and incomes is a benefit, using the fraction of 0.34 estimated in the pandemic economics literature. 3 That is, each $100 million added to GDP by accelerating the recovery would represent a net benefit of $34 million.

In fiscal year 2024, SBA loaned $1.5 billion for disasters to about 18,000 borrowers. SBA expects that, while this rule is in effect, one-third of its disaster loans (about 6,000 annually) and two-thirds of its disaster dollars (about $500 million annually) will be during Presidentially-declared disasters.

This RIA takes loan amounts as an estimate of the value of assets destroyed at the businesses and homes participating in the program. Assuming a capital-output ratio of 3, the businesses and households participating in the program had output of $333 million annually associated with the assets destroyed in Presidentially-declared disasters.

Natural disaster recovery times for businesses and households can exceed a year. The average for major hurricanes is 14 months. California's experience with the 2025 Los Angeles wildfires demonstrates variability by region: despite over $3 billion in approved SBA loans, only 15% of destroyed structures received rebuild permits within one year. The potential for permit-speed improvements is further illustrated by the building-permit time differential between Denver of almost ten months and Dallas where the approval time averages about two months. 4

Based on these observations, this RIA assumes two scenarios: one in which the average recovery time is reduced by 2 months and the other by 4 months. SBA notes that the average includes both states that already support rapid recoveries and states that do not. The businesses and households participating in the program during Presidentially-declared disasters had output averaging $333 million annually, which is $56 million for two months and $111 million for four months. Converting the output to net (of opportunity cost) benefits with the 0.34 factor puts the net benefits at $19 million to $37 million per year that the rule is in effect. Note that these effects are considered cost savings for purposes of Executive Order 14192 accounting. These output-related net benefits would be somewhat less if they are partially offset by delays in rebuilding by property owners that do not participate in in the Disaster Program.

Depending on the situation, state and local governments with the preempted permitting or approval requirements may adjust staffing or change permitting priorities so that properties that are part of SBA Disaster Programs are more likely to receive their permits/approvals on the SBA timeline. If state and local governments increased permitting/approval staff time by one day per SBA Disaster Loan per year, that would be 48,000 additional staff hours supplied by state and local permitting agencies involved with recoveries from Presidentially-declared disasters. To acknowledge both the capital and labor requirements of paperwork, SBA applies an average dollar cost of an hour of $84.76, which is national income per hour. 5 Therefore, the projected staffing cost to state and local governments is $4 million annually.

Alternatively, state and local governments might not adjust their staff time at all, or may even reduce it relative to what would be spent without the rule following a disaster.

Accounting for the costs of state and local government staff time, the net benefits of the rule are expected to be $15 million to $33 million annually. At a three percent discount rate, the midpoint net present value benefits over a twenty-year horizon would be $368 million. At a seven percent discount rate, the net benefits would be $272 million in net present value.

This interim final rule is considered to be an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action. We estimate that this rule generates $15 million to $33 million in annualized cost savings. Taking the midpoint and discounting at seven percent relative to year 2024, this implies annualized net savings of $19.9 million over a perpetual time horizon.

This action meets the standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. SBA has taken the necessary steps to minimize litigation, eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, reduce burden, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, and has “specifie[d] in clear language the preemptive effect . . . to be given to the law.”

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601, requires administrative agencies to consider the effect of their actions on small entities, small nonprofit enterprises, and small local governments. Pursuant to the RFA, when an agency issues a rulemaking, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis which describes the impact of the rule on small entities. However, the RFA requires such analysis only where notice and comment rulemaking is required, which, as discussed above, is not the case here. Accordingly, SBA is not required to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis and is publishing this rule as an interim final rule without advance notice and public comment. Nonetheless, SBA has prepared a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for public review and comment.

This interim final rule may have a significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses participating in SBA's Disaster Program. This rule would benefit small businesses by accelerating their rebuilding after a disaster. Small governmental jurisdictions would benefit from more rapid rebuilding in the jurisdictions but may incur additional staffing costs so that properties in their jurisdictions that are part of SBA Disaster Program are more likely to receive their permits/approvals on the SBA timeline.

Immediately below, SBA sets forth a regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) of this interim final rule addressing the following questions: (1) What are the reasons for the rule? (2) What are SBA's objectives and legal basis for, the rule? (3) What small entities are regulated? (4) What is the economic impact? (5) Does the rule duplicate, overlap or conflict with other Federal Rules? and (6) What significant alternatives might exist that will allow the Agency to accomplish its regulatory objectives while minimizing the costs on, or maximizing the benefits for, small entities?

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 603(a), SBA has transmitted a copy of this regulatory flexibility analysis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy and received his comments.

1. What are the reasons for the rule?

The Disaster Loan Program authorized under Section 7(b) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)) is an important federal mechanism established to provide rapid financial assistance to homeowners, business owners and other victims whose properties are damaged or destroyed as a result of declared disasters. Congress intended the program to operate swiftly to mitigate the severe economic, housing, and public health consequences resulting in the wake of disasters.

In administering the program, SBA has identified recurring delays to recovery caused by state and local requirements. This interim final rule establishes clear federal standards governing use of Disaster Loan Program proceeds when interacting with non-federal governmental authorities and preempts state and local requirements to the extent such requirements delay the use of SBA Disaster Loan Program proceeds. The rule applies where state or local permits or other approvals stand as an obstacle to accomplishing the federal goal of rapid relief—returning victims to their pre-disaster lives.

2. What are SBA's objectives and legal basis for, the rule?

SBA issued this rule pursuant to its authority under section 5(b)(6) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 634(b)(6)), which authorizes the Administrator to make such rules and regulations as deemed necessary to carry out the functions and purposes of the Small Business Act. The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution provides that valid federal regulations preempt state and local laws when the latter stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.

3. What small entities are regulated?

The additions to 13 CFR 123 will regulate (1) small business borrowers participating in the SBA Disaster Program and (2) small governmental jurisdictions that have preempted requirements.

Approximately 18,000 borrowers participate in the SBA Disaster Program each year, approximately 3,000 of which are small businesses. They are regulated in the sense that the interim final rule directs them to provide a builder's self-certification of compliance with the preempted state and local requirements rather than waiting for approval from the state and local authorities. Because the exact timing and location of natural disasters are unpredictable, the range of industries likely to be affected resembles the range of industries nationwide.

SBA estimates that less than 100 small government jurisdictions have small businesses in the SBA Disaster Program in any given year. SBA estimates that there are fewer than 90,000 local governments nationwide, some of which are not small government jurisdictions because they have population exceeding 50,000. Because less than one out of 900 small employers nationwide participates in the SBA disaster loan program during Presidentially-declared disasters and natural disasters are geographically concentrated, an even smaller fraction of small governmental jurisdictions has a participating business in their jurisdiction.

Only a fraction of these will have preempted requirements. The number of small governmental jurisdictions directly affected may in a year well be fewer than 50.

Builders and other contractors retained by borrowers may be small businesses but are not directly regulated by this rule.

4. What is the economic impact of the rule?

The RIA section of this rule explains exactly how SBA estimates that the interim final rule would increase the output, including housing services, of borrowers' properties by $56 million to $111 million annually. Assuming that 17 percent of the properties are small businesses rather than residential, small business revenue increases by $10 million to $19 million annually. These small businesses experience benefits rather than costs.

Fewer than 100 small government jurisdictions may have preempted requirements. They may not incur costs, or even save on staffing time, if they are satisfied with self-certification. Otherwise, they may (1) add some staff time in order to attain the timelines established in this rule or (2) reprioritize their permit queues so that SBA Disaster Program participants receive priority.

5. What are the relevant Federal rules, which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the rule?

SBA is not aware of any other Federal rule that would duplicate or conflict with requiring borrowers to provide their builder(s)'s self-certification that they have complied, and will continue to comply, with substantive state and local requirements.

6. What alternatives will allow the Agency to accomplish its regulatory objectives while minimizing the costs on, or maximizing the benefits for, small entities?

The SBA has considered alternative timelines for 13 CFR 123.803. Shorter timelines would not be consistent with the goal of preempting state and local processes to the minimum extent necessary to achieve federal objectives. Longer timelines would not maximize the benefits for the small businesses participating in the Disaster Loan Program or achieve federal objectives of rapid recovery.

OIRA has determined that this rule is a major rule under Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (also known as the Congressional Review Act or CRA), 5 U.S.C. 804(2). If a rule is deemed major, the CRA generally provides that the rule may not take effect until at least 60 days following its publication unless the agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). For the reasons discussed in Section III above, SBA finds that there is good cause to dispense with the CRA effective date requirement. The agency believes that delaying the effective date of this final rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

The SBA has determined that this interim final rule would impose additional reporting and recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35. As a result of this interim final rule, a borrower who relies on preemption under § 123.803 will be required to provide a builder's self-certification that the builder has complied with all substantive requirements. As a result of these new requirements, SBA is requesting approval of a new information collection identified below:

OMB Control No.: To be assigned.

Title: Certification as to State and Local Compliance.

Description of Respondents: Disaster loan borrowers and any contractors, subcontractors, or agents of such borrower.

Form Number: To be assigned.

Total Estimated Annual Responses: 18,000.

Total Estimated Annual Hour Burden: 9,000.

SBA invites public comment on all aspects of this interim final rule, including the scope of the preemption, implementation experience in disaster affected jurisdictions, and any unintended consequences. Comments received will inform any future revisions to the regulation.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, SBA is amending 13 CFR part 123 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies Class E airspace to support IFR operations at Newport Municipal Airport, Newport, OR.

The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2025-2282 in the Federal Register (90 FR 52011; November 19, 2025), proposing to modify Class E airspace at Newport Municipal Airport, Newport, OR. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. One comment was received from the Citizens Rulemaking Alliance that was not germane. Although the commentor addressed the rulemaking process, they commented on the docket as if it were a final rule, specifically referring to the action as such, instead of a proposed action. As such, the deficiencies claimed by the commenter were inaccurate given the actual stage of rulemaking. The FAA has confirmed that all regulatory requirements for this action have been satisfied.

Additionally, the commenter stated, “[i]f the agency relied on the Administrative Procedure Act's good cause exception to waive prior notice and comment,” the agency should “withdraw that reliance and proceed via standard NPRM” or “extend the effective date . . . to allow outreach and operational planning by affected small entities.” The FAA did not waive prior notice and comment for this rulemaking, as evidenced by the comment submitted during the comment window. However, in this final rule, the FAA is making ministerial edits to the affected Class E5 airspace description and has found good cause for not re-circulating the proposal for a second round of public notice and comment, as explained below. In doing so, the FAA thoroughly assessed the changes from the NPRM and the pertinent legal authorities. Moreover, there is no need to delay the rule's effective date for outreach or planning with stakeholders, as the changes do not alter airspace boundaries or operating requirements and therefore would be of no consequence to regulated parties.

The legal description for the Class E5 airspace as proposed in the NPRM was modified from the NPRM for clarity by replacing the phrase “and clockwise from the airport's 187° bearing to the 318° bearing extending from the 4.6-mile radius to the 6.5-mile arc,” with the phrase “and within an area beginning at the airport's 187° bearing clockwise to its 318° bearing extending from its 4.6-mile radius to its 6.5-mile radius.” Additionally, one instance of the phrase “the airport's” was removed from the Class E2 airspace legal description as proposed in the NPRM and replaced with “its” due to redundancy.

These are ministerial corrections that do not alter airspace boundaries or operating requirements. As such, these administrative edits that do not impact the regulatory scope or requirements are expected to be “inconsequential to the industry and to the public.” See Mack Trucks, Inc. v. EPA, 682 F.3d 87, 94 (D.C. Cir. 2012). Accordingly, the FAA finds good cause, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), that recirculating the NPRM for additional notice and comment is unnecessary.

Additionally, while reflected by the proposed amendments to the Class E5 airspace legal description, the FAA unintentionally omitted discussion within the NPRM preamble explaining that the portion of Class E5 airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface would be removed. The FAA is proceeding with that amendment within this final rule, as explained below. The FAA does not expect concerns from stakeholders given that the change reduces controlled airspace and duplication is provided by other controlled airspace.

Class E2 and E5 airspace designations are published in paragraphs 6002 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order JO 7400.11, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11K, dated August 4, 2025, and effective September 15, 2025. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11K, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by modifying Class E2 and Class E5 airspace at Newport Municipal Airport, Newport, OR.

The Class E2 airspace is modified to expand its radius from 4 to 4.6 miles, add a 0.8-mile extension to the south, and shift the location of its northern extension to more appropriately contain IFR operations at the airport. As the FAA stated in the NPRM, these changes are made to better contain IFR procedures, which are required to be within controlled airspace. The expansion to a 4.6-mile radius better contains the maximum circling maneuvering areas to Runways (RWY) 20 and 34 and would also provide more appropriate containment to departing IFR aircraft until reaching the base of the next adjacent controlled airspace when executing the NEWPORT ONE DEPARTURE (OBSTACLE) RWY 20 procedure. The Class E2 airspace is extended .08 miles south to better contain departing IFR aircraft until reaching the base of the next adjacent controlled airspace when executing the NEWPORT ONE DEPARTURE (OBSTACLE) RWY 16 departure procedure and IFR operations below 1,000 feet above the surface when executing the Area Navigation (RNAV) (Global Positioning System [GPS]) RWY 34 approach procedure. The northern extension is shifted approximately 15° to the west to be centered on the airport's 341° bearing, extending to 6.8 miles north. Shifting the northern extension provides more appropriate containment for aircraft executing the NEWPORT ONE DEPARTURE (OBSTACLE) RWY 34 departure procedure until reaching the base of the next adjacent controlled airspace and arriving IFR operations below 1,000 feet above the surface when executing the RNAV (GPS) RWY 16 and Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range (VOR)-A approach procedures.

Furthermore, Newport Municipal Airport's Class E5 airspace is modified to more appropriately contain arriving IFR operations below 1,500 feet above the surface and departing IFR operations until reaching 1,200 feet above the surface at the airport. The northeast portion of the Class E5 airspace is no longer necessary and is removed. The Class E5 airspace to the north is shifted approximately 20° west to more appropriately contain the RNAV (GPS) RWY 16 and Instrument Landing System (ILS) or Localizer (LOC) RWY 16 approach operations when below 1,500 feet above the surface. The Class E5 airspace radius is expanded by one mile to the west to better contain departing IFR operations until reaching 1,200 feet above the surface. Finally, the airspace is extended 2.4 miles south to better contain departing IFR operations until reaching 1,200 feet above the surface and arriving IFR operations when executing the RNAV (GPS) RWY 34 approach procedure.

Lastly, the portion of the Class E5 airspace described as extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface is removed. Containment within Class E airspace at 1,200 feet or more above the surface is provided by the Bend Class E6 airspace, and duplication is not necessary. Although this was reflected by the proposed amendments to the airspace legal description in the NPRM, it was unintentionally not identified within the preamble discussion.

Lastly, Class E2 and Class E5 airspace should be described using only the airport reference point. As such, any reference to the Newport very high frequency omnidirectional range tactical air navigation (VORTAC) is removed from the airport's legal descriptions.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1G, “FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures,” paragraph B-2.5. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies Class E airspace to support IFR operations at Driggs/Reed Memorial Airport, Driggs, ID.

The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2025-4543 in the Federal Register (90 FR 53248; November 25, 2025), proposing to modify the Class E airspace at Driggs/Reed Memorial Airport, Driggs, ID. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

The FAA identified a typographical error within the NPRM after publication. A portion of the Class E airspace legal description proposed for Driggs/Reed Memorial Airport, Driggs, ID, was described as being “within an area 1.2 miles northwest and 3.4 miles southeast of the airport's 028° bearing extending to its 5.8-mile radius.” The phrase is corrected to read “5.7-mile radius” within the Final Rule.

Class E5 airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11K, dated August 4, 2025, and effective September 15, 2025. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11K, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

The FAA amends 14 CFR part 71 by modifying the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Driggs/Reed Memorial Airport, ID. The Class E airspace surrounding the airport is reduced due to modifications made to the airport's instrument flight procedures (IFP) that allow for more condensed containment within controlled airspace.

The northern extension is narrowed by 4.3 miles and shortened by 5.5 miles to more appropriately contain the Area Navigation (RNAV) (Global Positioning System [GPS])-A approach procedure. The southwest extension is narrowed by 1.3 miles, shortened by 1.3 miles, and shifted a half mile west to more appropriately contain the RNAV (GPS) Runway 4 approach procedure. The southeastern third of the existing airspace is removed, as it is no longer needed for the containment of IFPs. The western portion of the airspace is removed beyond the airport's 4.8-mile radius, approximately between the airport's 220° and 315° radials, as it is no longer needed for IFP containment.

Finally, the airport's geographic location within its Class E airspace legal description is updated to match the FAA's database.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1G, “FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures,” paragraph B-2.5. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Throughout this document, wherever “we” or “our” is used, it means “the EPA.”

On June 26, 2024, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA) submitted revisions to the Oregon SIP, codified at 40 CFR part 52, subpart MM. The Oregon DEQ is the permitting authority throughout the State, except where LRAPA has been authorized to permit sources located in Lane County, Oregon. The submitted changes, State effective May 25, 2024, update the stationary source permitting programs established in LRAPA regulations to align with recent changes to State rules (89 FR 59611, July 23, 2024).

On September 5, 2025, the EPA proposed to approve the submitted revisions (90 FR 42867). 1 The reasons for our proposed approval were stated in the proposed rulemaking and will not be re-stated here. The public comment period for our proposed action ended on October 6, 2025. We received no comments.

The EPA approves revisions to the Oregon SIP applicable in Lane County and submitted on June 26, 2024. 2 These changes are approved only to the extent the requirements apply to: (1) pollutants for which NAAQS have been established (criteria pollutants) and precursors to those criteria pollutants as determined by the EPA for the applicable geographic area; and (2) any additional pollutants that are required to be regulated under part C of title I of the Clean Air Act, but only for the purposes of meeting or avoiding the requirements of part C of title I of the Clean Air Act. The following paragraphs detail our incorporations by reference.

The EPA approves and incorporates specific LRAPA rule sections by reference. Upon the effective date of this action, the regulatory portion of the Oregon SIP, at 40 CFR 52.1970(c), will include the following provisions, State effective May 25, 2024:

• LRAPA section 12-001 General (establishing general provisions applicable to all LRAPA air quality regulations);

• LRAPA section 12-005 Definitions (defining terms used in the LRAPA air quality regulations);

• LRAPA section 12-010 Abbreviations and Acronyms (defining abbreviations and acronyms used in the LRAPA air quality regulations);

• LRAPA section 12-020 Exceptions (clarifying what activities are not covered by the LRAPA air quality regulations);

• LRAPA section 12-025 Reference Materials (specifying the title and version of each reference material used in the LRAPA air quality regulations);

• LRAPA section 13-005 General Duties and Powers of Board and Director (spelling out powers of the LRAPA board and LRAPA director);

• LRAPA section 13-010 Duties and Powers of the Board of Directors (listing the powers of the LRAPA board);

• LRAPA section 13-020 Duties and Function of the Director (listing the duties and functions of the LRAPA director);

• LRAPA section 13-025 Conflict of Interest (board conflict of interest requirements);

• LRAPA section 13-030 Advisory Committee (establishing a committee to advise LRAPA on air pollution related matters);

• LRAPA section 13-035 Public Records and Confidential Information (identifying public records requirements);

• LRAPA section 29-0010 Definitions (definitions for purposes of designation of air quality areas);

• LRAPA section 29-0020 Designation of Air Quality Control Regions (listing historic air quality control regions);

• LRAPA section 29-0030 Designation of Nonattainment Areas (identifying nonattainment areas in Lane County);

• LRAPA section 29-0040 Designation of Maintenance Areas (listing maintenance areas in Lane County);

• LRAPA section 29-0050 Designation of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Areas (listing PSD class I areas in Oregon and requirements for reclassifying areas);

• LRAPA section 29-0060 Redesignation of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Areas (procedures for redesignating PSD areas);

• LRAPA section 29-0070 Special Control Areas (designating special controls areas);

• LRAPA section 29-0300 Designation of Sustainment areas (listing areas designated as sustainment in Lane County);

• LRAPA section 29-0310 Designation of Reattainment Areas (listing areas designated as reattainment in Lane County);

• LRAPA section 29-0320 Priority Sources (identifying residential wood devices as priority sources for offsets);

• LRAPA section 31-0020 Applicability (listing types of permit actions requiring public notice);

• LRAPA section 31-0030 Public Notice Categories and Timing (establishing categories for different levels of public participation);

• LRAPA section 31-0040 Public Notice Information (detailing the information that is required in public notices);

• LRAPA section 31-0050 Public Notice Procedures (stating how notice will be provided to the public);

• LRAPA section 31-0080 Issuance or Denial of a Permit (procedures LRAPA will follow to issue or deny permits);

• LRAPA section 32-005 Highest and Best Practical Treatment and Control Required (permit conditions to ensure high degree of pollutant removal);

• LRAPA section 32-007 Operating and Maintenance Requirements (permit conditions to include operational, maintenance and work practices);

• LRAPA section 32-008 Typically Achievable Control Technology (TACT) (control determination procedures);

• LRAPA section 32-009 Additional Control Requirements for Stationary Sources of Air Contaminants (procedures for establishing additional pollution controls);

• LRAPA section 32-010 Visible Air Contaminant Limitations (setting visible emission standards and monitoring methods);

• LRAPA section 32-015 Particulate Emission Limitations for Sources Other Than Fuel Burning Equipment, Refuse Burning Equipment and Fugitive Emissions (limitations on particulate emissions and associated test methods);

• LRAPA section 32-020 Particulate Matter Weight Standards—Existing Combustion Sources (limitations on particulate emissions from existing fuel-burning equipment);

• LRAPA section 32-030 Particulate Matter Weight Standards—New Combustion Sources (limitations on particulate emissions from new fuel-burning equipment);

• LRAPA section 32-045 Process Weight Emission Limitations and Determination of Process Weight (limitations on particulate emissions based on operation type);

• LRAPA section 32-060 Air Conveying Systems (setting particulate matter emissions from air conveying systems);

• LRAPA section 32-065 Sulfur Content of Fuels (setting limits on fuel oil sulfur content);

• LRAPA section 32-070 Sulfur Dioxide Emission Limitations (setting limits on sulfur dioxide emissions based on heat input);

• LRAPA section 32-090 Other Emissions (stating that detrimental emissions are not allowed);

• LRAPA section 32-100 Alternative Emission Controls (Bubble) (procedures for establishing alternative emission controls);

• LRAPA section 32-8010 Particulate Matter Emissions Standards for Process Equipment (process weight limits);

• LRAPA section 33-060 Board Products Industries (Hardboard, Particleboard, Plywood Veneer) (prohibited practices for board products industries);

• LRAPA section 33-065 Charcoal Producing Plants (pollution and monitoring requirements for charcoal plants);

• LRAPA section 33-070 Kraft Pulp Mills (emission limits for units at Kraft pulp mills) except, in (1) the definitions of “non-condensables” and “other sources”, (3)(a), (4)(b), (5)(b), (6)(a) and (6)(b);

• LRAPA section 33-500 Particulate Matter Emissions Standards for Process Equipment (process weight limits);

• LRAPA section 34-010 Applicability and Requirements (identifying what types of sources are subject to the stationary source notification requirements);

• LRAPA section 34-015 Request for Information (requiring owners and operators to provide information and analysis as necessary to issue permits and ascertain compliance);

• LRAPA section 34-016 Records; Maintaining and Reporting (how to maintain records and report information to LRAPA);

• LRAPA section 34-020 Information Exempt from Disclosure (spelling out what is considered a trade secret or other category of information that may be exempt from disclosure);

• LRAPA section 34-025 Registration in General (stating that certain sources must register with LRAPA);

• LRAPA section 34-030 Registration Requirements and Re-Registration and Maintaining Registration (outlining the general requirements for registering sources, including the information to provide and forms to use);

• LRAPA section 34-035 Types of Construction/Modification Changes (listing the types of construction and modification changes requiring notification to LRAPA);

• LRAPA section 34-036 Notice to Construct Application (listing the information to be provided in a notice and required forms to use);

• LRAPA section 34-037 Construction Approval (requirements and limitations of approvals to construct and orders prohibiting construction);

• LRAPA section 34-038 Approval to Operate (requirements and limitations of approvals to operate);

• LRAPA section 37-0020 Applicability and Jurisdiction (sources required to obtain an air contaminant discharge permit (ACDP);

• LRAPA section 37-0025 Types of Permits (outlining the types of ACDPs);

• LRAPA section 37-0030 Definitions (terms defined for use in the ACDP rules);

• LRAPA section 37-0040 Application Requirements (detailing how to apply for an ACDP);

• LRAPA section 37-0052 Construction ACDP (describing the requirements for construction ACDPs);

• LRAPA section 37-0054 Short Term Activity ACDPs (describing the requirements for short term activity ACDPs);

• LRAPA section 37-0056 Basic ACDPs (describing the requirements for basic ACDPs);

• LRAPA section 37-0060 General Air Contaminant Discharge Permits (describing the requirements for general ACDPs);

• LRAPA section 37-0062 General ACDP Attachments (allowing sources to be assigned to general ACDP attachments);

• LRAPA section 37-0064 Simple ACDPs (describing the requirements for simple ACDPs);

• LRAPA section 37-0066 Standard ACDPs (describing the requirements for standard ACDPs);

• LRAPA section 37-0068 Simple and Standard ACDP Attachments (allowing the addition of requirements to existing simple and standard ACDPs);

• LRAPA section 37-0070 Permitting a Source with Multiple Activities or Processes at a Single Adjacent or Contiguous Site (allowing standard ACDPs for sources with multiple activities or processes);

• LRAPA section 37-0082 Expiration, Termination, Reinstatement or Revocation of an ACDP (governing the conditions and processes for expired, terminated, reinstated, and revoked ACDPs);

• LRAPA section 37-0084 LRAPA Initiated Modification (allowing for modifications to ACDPs when appropriate);

• LRAPA section 37-0090 Sources Subject to ACDPs and Fees (requiring sources to pay appropriate fees);

• LRAPA section 37-0094 Temporary Closure (adjusting annual fees due to temporary closure);

• LRAPA section 37-8010 Table 1—Activities and Sources (listing source categories that must obtain an ACDP);

• LRAPA section 38-0010 Applicability, General Prohibitions, General Requirements, and Jurisdiction (specifying new source review applicability and general requirements);

• LRAPA section 38-0025 Major Modification (denoting what constitutes a major modification at an existing source);

• LRAPA section 38-0030 New Source Review Procedural Requirements (required information to be submitted for new source review);

• LRAPA section 38-0034 Exemptions (requirements for temporary emission sources);

• LRAPA section 38-0045 Requirements for Sources in Sustainment Areas (PSD and net air quality benefit requirements for sustainment areas);

• LRAPA section 38-0050 Requirements for Sources in Nonattainment Areas (LAER and net air quality benefit requirements for nonattainment areas);

• LRAPA section 38-0055 Requirements for Sources in Reattainment Areas (LAER, net air quality benefit and air quality analysis requirements for reattainment areas);

• LRAPA section 38-0060 Requirements for Sources in Maintenance Areas (PSD and net air quality benefit requirements for maintenance areas);

• LRAPA section 38-0070 Prevention of Significant Deterioration Requirements for Sources in Attainment or Unclassified Areas (PSD requirements including monitoring, BACT, and air quality analysis);

• LRAPA section 38-0245 Requirements for Sources in Sustainment Areas (air quality analysis, net air quality benefit and BACT requirements for sustainment areas);

• LRAPA section 38-0250 Requirements for Sources in Nonattainment Areas (State NSR requirements for nonattainment areas);

• LRAPA section 38-0255 Requirements for Sources in Reattainment Areas (State NSR requirements for reattainment areas);

• LRAPA section 38-0260 Requirements for Sources in Maintenance Areas (State NSR requirements for maintenance areas);

• LRAPA section 38-0270 Requirements for Sources in Attainment and Unclassifiable Areas (State NSR requirements for attainment and unclassifiable areas);

• LRAPA section 38-0500 Net Air Quality Benefit for Sources Located Within or Impacting Designated Areas (net air quality benefit emission offset requirements);

• LRAPA section 38-0510 Common Offset Requirements (reasonable further progress common offset requirements), except (3);

• LRAPA section 38-0530 Requirements for Demonstrating Net Air Quality Benefit for Non-Ozone Areas (major and State NSR offset requirements for non-ozone areas);

• LRAPA section 38-0540 Sources in a Designated Area Impacting Other Designated Areas (major and State NSR offset requirements in areas impacting other designated areas);

• LRAPA section 40-0010 Purpose (identifying the purpose of air quality analysis rules);

• LRAPA section 40-0020 Definitions (listing the definitions applicable to the air quality analysis rules);

• LRAPA section 40-0030 Procedural Requirements (air quality analysis procedures);

• LRAPA section 40-0040 Air Quality Models (requiring all modeling to be based on appendix W);

• LRAPA section 40-0045 Requirements for Analysis in Maintenance Areas (maintenance area impact analysis requirements);

• LRAPA section 40-0050 Requirements for Analysis in PSD Class II and Class III Areas (PSD impact analysis requirements);

• LRAPA section 40-0060 Requirements for Demonstrating Compliance with Standards and Increments in PSD Class I Areas (PSD impact analysis requirements);

• LRAPA section 40-0070 Requirements for Demonstrating Compliance with Air Quality Related Values Protection (Federal major source AQRV compliance);

• LRAPA section 41-0030 Emission Reduction Credits (how to establish emission reduction credits and bank them);

• LRAPA section 42-0020 Applicability (stationary source plant site emission limit applicability);

• LRAPA section 42-0030 Definitions (definitions that apply to plant site emission limit rules);

• LRAPA section 42-0035 General Requirements for Establishing All PSELs (PSEL requirements for sources);

• LRAPA section 42-0041 Annual PSEL (opportunity to obtain an annual PSEL when appropriate);

• LRAPA section 42-0042 Short Term PSEL (opportunity to obtain a short term PSEL when appropriate);

• LRAPA section 42-0046 Netting Basis (procedures for establishing a netting basis when appropriate);

• LRAPA section 42-0048 Baseline Period and Baseline Emission Rate (establishing baseline for criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases for purposes of permitting);

• LRAPA section 42-0051 Actual Emissions (determining actual emissions from baseline);

• LRAPA section 42-0055 Unassigned Emissions (tracking and managing the difference between netting basis and PTE);

• LRAPA section 42-0080 Plant Site Emission Limit Compliance (requiring specific monitoring and compliance methods);

• LRAPA section 42-0090 Combining and Splitting Sources and Changing Primary SIC Code (regarding the allowable ways to combine and split sources);

• LRAPA section 48-005 Definitions (definitions for purposes of the fugitive emissions rules);

• LRAPA section 48-015 General Applicability (listing examples of sources subject to the fugitive emissions rules);

• LRAPA section 50-001 Definitions (definitions for purposes of the ambient air standards and PSD increments);

• LRAPA section 50-005 Purpose and Scope of Ambient Air Standards (identifying the scope of ambient air standards);

• LRAPA section 50-015 Suspended Particulate Matter (listing the particulate matter ambient air standards);

• LRAPA section 50-025 Sulfur Dioxide (listing the sulfur dioxide ambient air standards);

• LRAPA section 50-030 Carbon Monoxide (listing the carbon monoxide ambient air standards);

• LRAPA section 50-035 Ozone (listing the ozone ambient air standards);

• LRAPA section 50-040 Nitrogen Dioxide (listing the nitrogen dioxide ambient air standards);

• LRAPA section 50-045 Lead (listing the lead ambient air standards);

• LRAPA section 50-050 General (identifying the purpose of PSD increments);

• LRAPA section 50-055 Ambient Air PSD Increments (listing the PSD increments by area class);

• LRAPA section 50-065 Ambient Air Quality Impact Levels for Maintenance areas (impact levels for carbon monoxide and particulate matter maintenance areas);

• LRAPA section 51-005 Introduction (introduction to air pollution emergency requirements);

• LRAPA section 51-007 Definitions (definitions for purposes of air pollution emergency requirements);

• LRAPA section 51-010 Episode Stage Criteria for Air Pollution Emergencies (criteria for air pollution emergency episode stages);

• LRAPA section 51-011 Special Conditions (ozone advisories and particle fallout special conditions);

• LRAPA section 51-015 Source Emission Reduction Plans (setting forth emission reduction measures to be taken during an air pollution alert, warning, or emergency);

• LRAPA section 51-020 Preplanned Abatement Strategies (establishing when source emission reduction plans are required); and

• LRAPA section 51-025 Implementation, and Table I, Table II, Table III (setting forth air pollution episode conditions and control actions).

We approve the following rule sections to the extent the provisions relate to the implementation of requirements in the SIP, but we note we are not incorporating these provisions by reference into 40 CFR part 52, subpart MM. These types of rules are generally not incorporated by reference into the CFR because they may conflict with the EPA's independent administrative and enforcement procedures under the Clean Air Act.

• LRAPA section 31-0070 Hearing Procedures (setting procedures for permit hearings).

The EPA removes from incorporation by reference the following LRAPA rule sections:

• LRAPA section 37-8020 Table 2 Air Contaminant Discharge Permit (fees for air contaminant discharge permits);

• LRAPA section 34-034 Requirements for Construction (notice of construction and approval of plans requirements); and

• LRAPA section 42-0040 Generic Annual PSEL (providing for generic annual plant sit emission limits).

In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are finalizing the incorporation by reference of the provisions described in section II of this preamble and set forth in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 in this document. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 10 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully Federally-enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the Clean Air Act as of the effective date of the final rule of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.

Also in this document, the EPA is removing regulatory text from incorporation by reference, as described in section II of this preamble.

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) because SIP actions are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866;

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a State program;

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and

• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, 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).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 30, 2026. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action 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. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

On October 7, 2022, the EPA determined that the Philadelphia NAA failed to attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS by its August 3, 2021 attainment date and reclassified the area from Marginal to Moderate nonattainment. 1 CAA requirements for a Moderate ozone nonattainment area include, amongst other measures, a Basic vehicle I/M program. 2 Requirements for a Basic I/M program are further articulated in the EPA's I/M Rule at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 51, subpart S. 3 Federal performance standards  4 for a Basic I/M program are outlined in 40 CFR 51.352. Consistent with the I/M Rule, areas with existing I/M programs need to conduct and submit a performance standard modeling analysis as well as make any necessary program revisions as part of their Moderate area SIP submissions to ensure that I/M programs are operating at or above the Basic I/M performance standard level for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. For such areas, states may demonstrate through emissions estimation modeling that an existing, SIP-approved I/M program would (without modification) comply with the applicable CAA Basic performance standard, as required for the 2015 ozone NAAQS NAA. In this case, the state could submit a SIP revision with the associated performance modeling and a written attestation certifying that the existing I/M program meets all Basic I/M requirements, in lieu of revising existing program regulations. 5

On August 28, 2025 (90 FR 41931), the EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In the NPRM, the EPA proposed to approve Pennsylvania's Basic I/M certification SIP, finding that Pennsylvania's existing Enhanced I/M Program SIP for the Pennsylvania portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE nonattainment Area meets all CAA requirements for a Basic I/M SIP applicable to an area classified by the EPA as Moderate ozone nonattainment under the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The formal SIP revision was submitted by Pennsylvania on September 28, 2023.

After submitting this Basic I/M certification SIP, the EPA again reclassified the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City nonattainment area—this time from Moderate to Serious nonattainment for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 6 CAA section 182(c)(3) requires states with areas designated as Serious or above to submit a SIP revision providing for the implementation of an Enhanced I/M program in certain urbanized areas of a Serious nonattainment area. As noted in the NPRM, that Serious area I/M requirement will be addressed through a SIP revision due at a later date.

Pennsylvania submitted the September 28, 2023 SIP revision to address the CAA requirements for a Basic I/M program in Pennsylvania's portion of the 2015 ozone Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City area, as required by the CAA upon the area's “bump up” in classification to Moderate ozone nonattainment. Due to the area's prior classification under prior ozone NAAQS, as well as Pennsylvania's location in and inclusion of a CAA-designated Ozone Transport Region (OTR), 7 Pennsylvania previously established and implemented a more stringent Enhanced I/M program in 2004 in the five-county Philadelphia ozone nonattainment area ( i.e., Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia Counties). 8 The EPA issued a final rule in June 1999 fully approving Pennsylvania's Enhanced I/M program SIP, including incorporation by reference of the program's governing regulations at 67 Pennsylvania (Pa) Code sections 175 and 177. 9 Pennsylvania made minor revisions to the program subsequent to approval of that SIP revision and the EPA approved those revisions to the Pennsylvania I/M program in October 2005. 10

Pursuant to the September 28, 2023 SIP submittal, the EPA concurs with the Commonwealth's determination that the I/M program for Pennsylvania's portion of the 2015 Ozone Philadelphia NAA meets the applicable performance standard and requirements for a Basic I/M program.

Further details of Pennsylvania's SIP-approved I/M program and the rationale for the EPA's action to approve Pennsylvania's September 2023 I/M certification SIP are provided in the NPRM and its associated technical support document (TSD). That full explanation will not be restated here. No public comments were received by EPA on the NPRM.

The EPA's August 28, 2025 NPRM (90 FR 41931) opened a 30-day public comment period, which closed on September 29, 2025. As no comments were received by EPA during the public comment period for the NPRM, the EPA has not prepared a response to comments document for this action.

The EPA is approving the Basic I/M Certification SIP submitted by Pennsylvania on September 28, 2023 for Pennsylvania's portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City multi-state nonattainment area for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS as satisfying applicable CAA requirements for a Basic I/M program.

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) because SIP actions are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866:

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and

• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal Governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, 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).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 30, 2026. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action 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. This action to approve Pennsylvania's Basic I/M certification SIP for the Commonwealth's portion of the multi-state Philadelphia NAA for the 2015 ozone NAAQS may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:

Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.

On July 16, 2025, the EPA proposed to determine, based on complete (or otherwise validated), quality-assured, and certified data meeting the requirements of 40 CFR part 50, appendix N for 2022 through 2024, that the San Joaquin Valley PM 2.5 nonattainment area attained the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS by its December 31, 2024 attainment date. 1

In accordance with 40 CFR 51.1015, we also proposed to issue a CDD for the San Joaquin Valley PM 2.5 nonattainment area for the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS. 2 We proposed to issue a CDD based on our determination that the San Joaquin Valley had attained and was currently attaining the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS. 3

The EPA's proposal explained that if we were to finalize the CDD, the requirements for the area to submit attainment planning provisions to meet the requirements for an attainment plan for the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS, including an attainment demonstration, reasonable further progress plan, quantitative milestones, quantitative milestone reports, and contingency measures, would be suspended until such time as: (1) the area is redesignated to attainment, after which such requirements are permanently discharged; or (2) the EPA determines that the area has re-violated the PM 2.5 NAAQS, at which time the state shall submit such attainment plan elements for the nonattainment area by a future date to be determined by the EPA and announced through publication in the Federal Register at the time the EPA determines the area is violating the PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Finally, the EPA's proposal explained that the CDD does not constitute a redesignation to attainment. The San Joaquin Valley PM 2.5 nonattainment area will remain designated nonattainment for the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS until such time as the EPA determines, pursuant to sections 107 and 175A of the Clean Air Act (CAA), that the San Joaquin Valley PM 2.5 nonattainment area meets the CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment, including an approved maintenance plan showing that the area will continue to meet the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS for 10 years. 4

Please see our July 16, 2025 proposed rulemaking for additional background and a detailed explanation of the rationale for our proposed action. 5

The public comment period for the proposed rulemaking opened on July 16, 2025, 6 the date of its publication in the Federal Register , and closed on August 15, 2025. During this period, the EPA received two comment submissions, including one comment submission from an anonymous private citizen  7 and one comment letter from San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD). 8 Both comments are included in the docket for this action.

The comment submission from SJVUAPCD was supportive of our proposal to determine that the San Joaquin Valley attained the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS by the December 31, 2024 attainment date and to issue a CDD for the area. The comment submission from the private citizen commenter was not germane to the action. We did not receive any comments that opposed the EPA's proposal to make an attainment determination by the applicable attainment date and issue a CDD. Thus, the comments received do not require a response.

For the reasons discussed in detail in our proposed action, the EPA is finalizing our determination that the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area has attained the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS by the December 31, 2024 attainment date, based on complete, quality-assured, and certified ambient air quality monitoring data for the 2022-2024 monitoring period. 9 The EPA is taking this final action pursuant to CAA sections 179(c)(1).

Preliminary data available in the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) for 2025 (January through October) indicate that the San Joaquin Valley area continues to show concentrations consistent with attainment of the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS;  10 therefore, as provided in 40 CFR 51.1015, we are also finalizing a CDD. Consequently, the requirements for this area to submit any SIP revisions related to attainment of the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS, including an attainment demonstration, reasonable further progress plan, quantitative milestones, quantitative milestone reports, and contingency measures, will be suspended for so long as the area continues to attain those NAAQS. This final determination that the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area has attained the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS does not constitute a redesignation of the area to attainment. The designation status of the San Joaquin Valley area will remain “Serious” nonattainment for the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS until such time as the EPA determines, pursuant to sections 107 and 175A of the CAA, that the area meets the CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment, including an approved maintenance plan showing that the area will continue to meet the standards for 10 years.

Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

This action is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those imposed by state law.

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will result from this action.

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.

This action does not have Tribal implications. It will neither impose substantial direct costs on federally recognized tribal governments nor preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.

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).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 30, 2026. 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. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

On October 1, 2015, EPA revised both the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone to a level of 0.070 parts per million (ppm). See 80 FR 65292, October 26, 2015. For ozone, an area may be considered to be attaining the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS if it meets those standards, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.19 and Appendix U of 40 CFR part 50, based on three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air quality monitoring data. To attain the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor within an area must not exceed 0.070 ppm. Based on the data handling and reporting convention described in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix U, the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS are attained if the design value (DV) is 0.070 ppm or below. The data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and recorded in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS).

As part of the designations process for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the Louisville, KY-IN Area (Clark and Floyd Counties in Indiana, and Bullitt, Jefferson, and Oldham Counties in Kentucky) was designated as a Marginal ozone nonattainment area, effective August 3, 2018. See 83 FR 25776, June 4, 2018. Areas that were designated as Marginal ozone nonattainment areas were required to attain the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS no later than August 3, 2021, based on 2018-2020 monitoring data. The Louisville, KY-IN Area was reclassified by operation of law from Marginal to Moderate nonattainment on October 7, 2022, following EPA's finding of failure to attain by the Marginal area attainment date. See 87 FR 60897, and 40 CFR 81.318. 2015 ozone Moderate areas are to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than August 3, 2024, six years after the effective date of the initial nonattainment designations. See 40 CFR 51.1303.

On February 21, 2022, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) submitted a redesignation request and maintenance plan for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS for Clark and Floyd Counties in the Indiana portion of the Louisville, KY-IN Area. On May 18, 2022, EPA proposed to approve the request to redesignate the Indiana portion of the Area. See 87 FR 30129. On July 5, 2022, EPA finalized approval of the redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Indiana portion of the Louisville, KY-IN Area. See 87 FR 39750.

On September 6, 2022, KDAQ submitted a redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Kentucky portion of the Louisville, KY-IN Area. On April 18, 2023, EPA proposed to approve KDAQ's redesignation request and maintenance plan SIP revision based, in part, on complete, quality-assured, and certified 2019-2021 DVs for each monitor in the Louisville, KY-IN Area. See 88 FR 23598, April 18, 2023. These DVs are equal to or less than the level of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS and were the most current DVs at the time of proposal.

Although data indicated an attaining DV at the time of the proposed approval, the Area preliminarily violated the 2015 8-hour ozone standards in June 2023. Through a NPRM published on January 3, 2025, EPA withdrew its proposed approval of KDAQ's redesignation request and proposed instead to deny the request because the Area did not meet the first statutory criterion for redesignation to attainment. See 90 FR 294. At the time of the proposed denial, the certified DV for 2021-2023 for the Area was 0.072 ppm, which exceeded the standard of 0.070 ppm. 1

After the close of the comment period for the proposed denial, the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District (LMAPCD) submitted an Exceptional Events (EE) demonstration for nine days in 2023 at the Cannons Lane monitor, believed to have been influenced by the 2023 Canadian Wildfires. However, the EE demonstration did not have regulatory significance for this action because concurrence on all nine days would not affect the relevant analysis. Since the proposed denial, EPA received certified 2024 monitoring data indicating a 2022-2024 DV of 0.074 ppm for the Area. The data shows that even with EE concurrence on all nine days, the 2022-2024 DV would still exceed the NAAQS. Thus, notwithstanding the EE demonstration, the Louisville, KY-IN Area does not meet the first statutory criterion for redesignation to attainment of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

In this final rule, EPA is finalizing the denial of the KDAQ's September 6, 2022, request to redesignate the Kentucky portion of the Louisville, KY-IN, nonattainment area to attainment for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Comments on the NPRM were due on or before February 3, 2025. EPA received five adverse comments and one supportive comment on the NPRM.

EPA received adverse comments from the Greater Louisville Inc., the Metro Chamber of Commerce; the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Office of the Attorney General; LMAPCD; KDAQ; and the public, (collectively, the “commenters”) as well as a set of supportive comments from Kentucky Resources Council, Inc. and Sierra Club. 2 All comments received are available in the docket for this action. In this section of this document, EPA has summarized and grouped, for clarity and ease of discussion, the significant adverse comments and responded to them.

Comment 1: Several commenters argue that CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)'s requirement that a nonattainment area “has attained” the NAAQS does not require that the area continue to attain the NAAQS after submission of a redesignation request. One commenter asserts that because KDAQ's redesignation request was based on data from 2019 to 2021, EPA's action “must be based on monitoring data from that period or snapshot, not subsequent years.” Another commenter also argues that EPA's decision should “have been based on 2019-2021 monitoring data which demonstrated attainment.” EPA received comments asserting that the 2019 to 2021 monitoring data demonstrates that the Area meets the 2015 ozone NAAQS and that relying on DVs beyond these years is both impermissible and prohibits a fair and equitable assessment of Kentucky's redesignation request. Commenters argue that EPA's approach is “inconsistent with the established process for evaluating redesignation requests, contrary to the statute governing these requests, and undermines the objective of fairly assessing the air quality status during the specified 3-year period.”

In the January 3, 2025 NPRM, EPA cited two cases where courts have agreed with EPA that CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) requires continuing attainment until redesignation— Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Browner, 121 F.3d 106 (3d Cir. 1997) (hereinafter Browner ) and Commonwealth of Kentucky v. EPA, No. 96-4274, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 21686 (6th Cir. 1998) (hereinafter Kentucky 1998 ). Commenters argue that those decisions are invalid because they “relied on Chevron [ 3 ] deference,” and Chevron was overruled by Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024) (hereinafter Loper Bright ). Thus, EPA received comment contending that EPA's interpretation of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) warrants judicial reexamination.

Response 1: EPA has historically interpreted CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) to require continued attainment until EPA's final action redesignating a nonattainment area and did not propose a different or additional interpretation in the NPRM. See 90 FR at 295, January 3, 2025. Applying that interpretation to the particular facts and circumstances of the Kentucky portion of the Louisville KY-IN area, EPA is denying the reclassification request for lack of continued attainment and to satisfy a consent decree obligation to take final action by January 20, 2026. 4 This final action should not be construed as taking a definitive view on the cases cited and arguments presented by commenters beyond the Agency's decision, for purposes of this action, to apply the historical interpretation described at proposal.

Comment 2: Commenters contend that, even if CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) requires continued attainment, that requirement ends when the 18-month timeframe established by section 107(d)(3)(D) expires. Commenters note that section 107(d)(3)(D) provides that EPA “shall” approve or deny a redesignation request within “18 months of receipt of a complete State redesignation submittal.” These commenters argue that this provision should be interpreted as preventing EPA from considering any information that became available more than 18 months after receipt of a complete state redesignation submittal. Because KDAQ's redesignation request was submitted on September 6, 2022, these commenters argue that EPA should not be allowed to consider any data that became available after March 6, 2024. One commenter asserts that CAA Section 107(d)(3) “does not give EPA the authority to reverse a redesignation based on post-deadline data.”

In support of this argument, commenters assert that EPA improperly relies on Browner and Kentucky 1998, mentioned above. One commenter notes that that the petitioners in Browner failed to raise the 18-month deadline argument during the rulemaking process, and thus the argument was forfeited. This commenter asserts that Kentucky 1998 “adds little” because it is unpublished, and EPA did not miss any deadline to act in that case. The commenters argue that if EPA is allowed to consider data that became available after the 18-month timeframe, then “there is no consequence” for EPA not acting. One commenter contends that EPA's interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) allows it to “move the goal post” because areas must continue to attain the NAAQS after the 18-month timeframe. The commenter asserts that states cannot know “what data the [EPA] will consider in acting on a redesignation request,” if EPA is allowed to consider data after the 18-month timeframe established by section 107(d)(3)(D).

The commenters argue that a court will enforce the mandatory section 107(d)(3)(D) deadline following legal challenge by preventing EPA from considering certain data. They point to a concurring opinion in Kentucky v. EPA, 123 F.4th 447 (6th Cir. 2024) ( Kentucky 2024 ) to argue that the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) authorizes a court to prevent an agency from “using data generated after its deadline to act.” See 123 F.4th at 474 (Murphy, J., concurring). The commenter notes that APA section 706(2)(A) allows a court to set aside an agency action that is “not in accordance with the law.” The commenter argues the use of the word “shall” in CAA section 107(d)(3)(D) suggests that EPA lacks discretion to miss the 18-month deadline to approve or deny a redesignation request. The commenter then contends that consideration of post-deadline “monitoring data is not in accordance with the law” because EPA did not finalize an action “on Kentucky's redesignation request within the timeframe established by Section 107(d)(3)(D).” The commenter further argues that EPA's failure to abide by the statutory deadline had a “substantial influence” on the outcome of the request because it allowed EPA to consider post-deadline monitoring data.

Response 2: As discussed in Response 1, EPA has historically interpreted CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) to require continued attainment until EPA's final action redesignating a nonattainment area and did not propose a different or additional interpretation in the NPRM. Applying that interpretation to the particular facts and circumstances here, EPA is denying the reclassification request for lack of continued attainment and to satisfy a consent decree obligation to take final action by January 20, 2026. This final action should not be construed as taking a definitive view on the cases cited and arguments presented by commenters, including with respect to potential legal implications of the 18-month statutory deadline, beyond the Agency's decision, for purposes of this action, to apply the historical interpretation described at proposal.

Comment 3: Commenters state that EPA “delayed” processing KDAQ's redesignation request, with one commenter asserting that this “delay is the sole reason the Kentucky portion of the [Area] is not designated attainment.” EPA received a comment asserting that EPA's “delay in making a final decision on Kentucky's redesignation request short-circuits the statutory process.” Commenters argue that their interpretation of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) that would prevent EPA from considering data after the 18-month deadline is best because it would prevent EPA from engaging in “unreasonable delay.” If EPA's interpretation is accepted, commenters contend that the CAA section 107(d)(3)(D) deadline would be “wholly nullifie[d]” and “toothless.” They claim that EPA's interpretation “indicates there is no consequence” for delay and allows the Administrator to wait “until data becomes available that allows him to deny the [redesignation] request.”

Response 3: EPA disagrees that “delay” on the Agency's part is the “sole reason” why the Kentucky portion of the Area is not being designated as attainment. Rather, EPA is denying the reclassification request for lack of continued attainment and to satisfy a consent decree obligation to take final action by January 20, 2026. As discussed in Responses 1 and 2, EPA is relying on its historical interpretation of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) and did not propose a different or additional interpretation in the NPRM. EPA notes that the Agency provided support to KDAQ during the preparation of the redesignation request and associated maintenance plan and encouraged the Commonwealth to submit the request and plan as soon as possible. EPA also assisted LMAPCD by providing resources to aid in preparing its EE demonstration. The Agency stands ready to engage further with KDAQ, LMAPCD, and the Commonwealth to support efforts to bring the Kentucky portion of the Area into attainment status.

Comment 4: Many of the commenters argue that the data available to EPA within CAA section 107(d)(3)(D)'s 18-month timeframe was attaining the NAAQS. One commenter notes that 2023 monitoring data was not certified until after expiration of the 18-month deadline and that EPA's redesignation guidance states that air monitoring data should be “collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR 58.”  5 This commenter then cites 40 CFR 58.15, containing annual air monitoring data certification requirements, and argues that 2023 monitoring data was not “quality assured in accordance with 40 CFR 58” until May 1, 2024, when KDAQ submitted its annual certification letter. Another commenter similarly argues that during the 18-month statutory review period, “only the 2019-2021 and 2020-2022 design values met the necessary regulatory criteria in 40 CFR part 50.”

Response 4: EPA has previously considered preliminary monitoring data in assessing whether an area should be redesignated, including when EPA initially proposed approving KDAQ's present redesignation request. See 88 FR 23598, 23601, April 18, 2023 (“Preliminary 2022 ozone monitoring data currently indicates attaining 2022 design values for the Louisville, KY-IN Area.”). Here, the information available to EPA on March 6, 2024, at least raised questions whether the Area was attaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS. EPA did not propose a different understanding of applicable law and regulations in the NPRM. Under these facts and circumstances, and as noted in Responses 1, 2, and 3, EPA is applying its historical interpretation of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) to the particular facts and circumstances here by denying the reclassification request for lack of continued attainment and to satisfy a consent decree obligation to take final action by January 20, 2026.

Comment 5: EPA received comments noting that LMAPCD was completing an EE demonstration during the comment period for the NPRM to account for monitoring data impacted by the 2023 Canadian Wildfires. A commenter argues that use of 2023 monitoring data is “improper” because the data was “incomplete” until LMAPCD submitted the EE demonstration. Another commenter contends that the appropriate “contingency measure” for the 2023 exceedances is the submittal of an EE demonstration. Commenters assert that at the “direction of EPA, air agencies were advised to submit” EE demonstrations to account for the 2023 Canadian Wildfires. EPA received comment asserting that EPA advised states that it would develop a tool to assist with the development of EE demonstrations—the Expedited Modeling of Burn Events Results (EMBER)—that was not released until December 2024. A commenter suggests that LMAPCD's EE demonstration was “delayed while waiting for EPA to release EMBER.”

EPA received comment stating that EPA must “acknowledge the Canadian Wildfires” and that EPA would act “arbitrarily” if it denied KDAQ's redesignation request without considering the EE demonstration. A commenter asserts that the EE demonstration “will demonstrate that the Louisville Area continues to attain the ozone standard”. LMAPCD's comment acknowledges the 2024 ozone exceedances and asserts, without further explanation, that it “is evaluating the cause of those exceedances.” Finally, LMAPCD notes that a coal-fired boiler (Mill Creek Unit 1) was scheduled to shut down on December 31, 2024.

Response 5: To be excluded from the complete, certified 2023 monitoring data, LMAPCD had to submit an EE demonstration showing “to the Administrator's satisfaction that [an exceptional] event caused a specific air pollution concentration at a particular air quality monitoring location.” 40 CFR 50.14(a)(1) (ii); see also 40 CFR part 50 App'x U, section 1(b) (“Whether to exclude or retain the data affected by exceptional events is determined by the requirements under §§ 50.1, 50.14 and 51.930.”). LMAPCD submitted the EE demonstration on June 11, 2025. LMAPCD's EE demonstration does not have regulatory significance for this action  6 because even if EPA were to concur on all nine days in the EE demonstration, the Area's complete certified 2022-2024 DV would be 0.073 ppm, and the preliminary 2023-2025 DV would be 0.072 ppm. Thus, even if EPA were to concur on all nine days in the EE demonstration, the Agency cannot redesignate the Kentucky portion of the Area to attainment based on current data under the historical interpretation referenced above in Responses 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Comment 6: One commenter notes that CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) requires a determination that “the area” has attained the NAAQS. The commenter contrasts this language with the language in CAA section 107(d)(3)(D) and (E) referring to an area “or portion thereof.” Thus, the commenter contends that EPA “must determine that an entire area has attained the relevant NAAQS, even if [a] redesignation request is only for a portion of the area.” Because EPA Region 5 approved the redesignation of the Indiana portion of the Area, the commenter argues that EPA has “determined that the entire Louisville Area has attained the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.” Based on this assertion, the commenter argues that KDAQ does not need to meet the “requirement of Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)” to support its redesignation request.

Response 6: For EPA to redesignate a portion of a multistate area from nonattainment to attainment, all the requirements of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) must be met. As noted above in Responses 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, EPA is relying on its historical interpretation of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) for purposes of this final action and did not propose an additional or different interpretation in the NPRM, including with respect to the interpretation of “area” and the potential impact of the Indiana portion of the Area. Therefore, EPA is denying the reclassification request for lack of continued attainment and to satisfy a consent decree obligation to take final action by January 20, 2026.

Comment 7: EPA received comments asserting that CAA section 301(a)(2)(A) requires EPA regions to process requests “with similar diligence and timeliness” and in a consistent “timeframe” while noting that the section requires the Administrator to “promulgate regulations” to “assure fairness and uniformity in the criteria, procedures, and policies applied by the various regions in implementing and enforcing the [CAA].” Commenters argue that Region 4's failure to act in a timeframe consistent with Region 5's handling of IDEM's request did not assure fairness and uniformity because Region 4 would have approved KDAQ's redesignation request based on 2019-2021 data had it followed Region 5's timeframe. EPA received comment asserting that the “primary difference between the two redesignation requests” is that IDEM's request was “timely reviewed,” but Region 4 “delayed making a final decision” on KDAQ's request.

A commenter asserts that CAA section 301(a)(2)(A) prohibits EPA regions from taking “separate actions on a multi-state nonattainment area” because doing so results in contradictory regulations, delayed action, and a lack of accountability and “introduces unnecessary complexity and inefficiency in the regulatory process.” The commenter further asserts that EPA “arbitrarily withdr[ew] the first attainment determination” which generates additional work and wastes taxpayer dollars. Another commenter contends that EPA cannot explain “how differently the two requests for redesignation requests were processed by Region [4] and Region [5].” A third commenter asserts that the CAA prohibits EPA from “ignor[ing] statutory deadlines depending on which of its offices processes a request.” Finally, commenters contend that “inconsistent determinations by EPA” or failing to act in a “uniform” timeframe are “arbitrary and capricious.”

Response 7: CAA section 301(a)(2) requires the EPA Administrator to promulgate regulations establishing general applicable procedures and policies to, among other things, assure fairness and uniformity in the criteria, procedures, and policies applied by the various regions in implementing and enforcing the CAA. See 42 U.S.C. 7601(a)(2)(A). EPA complied with this section by promulgating regional consistency regulations under 40 CFR part 56, including a regulation stating that it is EPA policy to “[a]ssure fair and uniform application by all Regional Offices of the criteria, procedures, and policies employed in implementing and enforcing the [CAA].” 40 CFR 56.3(a). As it relates to KDAQ's redesignation request, Region 4 is applying the same redesignation “criteria, procedures, and policies” that Region 5, and all other regions, follow. The different outcomes between KDAQ's request and IDEM's request is the result of EPA's application of its historical interpretation of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) to the particular facts and circumstances here.

Comment 8: One commenter asserts that it is “facially inconsistent” for the Kentucky portion of the Area to be designated nonattainment when the Indiana portion is designated attainment. This commenter also argues that it is “unlawful” for EPA to determine that the Kentucky portion of the Area is nonattainment “based on the same monitoring data” that Indiana submitted in support of its redesignation request. The commenter further contends that multistate nonattainment areas have historically “been treated as a single air quality management zone, with consistent actions applied across both states.” According to this commenter, the Louisville Area is the only multistate area that currently that has different attainment designations. The commenter argues that having a multistate area with differing attainment designations will undermine regional planning efforts and contends that “past and current practices” dictate that the Louisville Area be designated “as a single unit.” One commenter argues that Browner and Kentucky 1998 are inapplicable because they did not involve “a situation where the EPA's denial of a redesignation request results in a single air quality control region being split into two different attainment designations.”

EPA received comment asserting that differing attainment designations will result in the Kentucky portion of the Area facing stricter emissions regulations than the Indiana portion. Commenters contend this creates an economic disadvantage for businesses and the public in Kentucky. Commenters further argue that differing attainment designations will result in an unfair distribution of the regulatory burden when Kentucky and Indiana should be working together and sharing responsibility for ensuring clean air. They claim that a uniform designation for the Area is the only way to create a predictable regulatory structure and prevent economic imbalances.

Response 8: Each state must submit its own redesignation request for the portion of a multistate area within its borders, and EPA must assess those requests under the factors set out in CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). EPA is not denying KDAQ's redesignation request “based on the same monitoring data” that IDEM submitted in support of its request. EPA approved IDEM's redesignation request on July 5, 2022, because the Area's DV demonstrated attainment of the NAAQS. With respect to KDAQ's request, the facts and circumstances presented a different record. As discussed above, EPA is basing this decision on its historical interpretation of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) and did not propose a different or additional interpretation in the NPRM. EPA is denying the reclassification request for lack of continued attainment and to satisfy a consent decree obligation to take final action by January 20, 2026.

Comment 9: Several commenters argue that the contingency measures in the proposed maintenance plan KDAQ submitted along with its redesignation request would adequately correct the NAAQS violation that has occurred. A commenter asserts that EPA relies on a “semantic argument” in proposing to deny KDAQ's redesignation request, and that EPA's actions render the contingency measures in a maintenance plan “superfluous.” EPA received a comment asserting that EPA's “inability to act on Kentucky's redesignation request” will “result in a penalty for the Kentucky portion of the Louisville Area.” Another commenter claims that if the Area is “designated a nonattainment area as proposed by EPA,” Kentucky will face “sanctions” and be required to impose regulations that are more stringent than those in the proposed maintenance plan. This commenter states that EPA could still consider the monitored ozone exceedances and that “it may be appropriate for EPA to require Kentucky to determine if additional measures are necessary to maintain attainment.” Commenters assert that the contingency measures in the maintenance plan would be less burdensome than the statutory requirements for a nonattainment area. A commenter argues that the “harms” of nonattainment area requirements “can be avoided if EPA simply adopts the best reading of the [CAA].”

EPA received comment contending that EPA “acknowledged the redesignation request was approvable in a prior proposed action” and that EPA “could easily approve the redesignation request and allow the contingency measures to be implemented.” A commenter asserts that EPA would undermine the CAA by not “allowing the safeguards in the SIP to play out” and that states have no incentive to “prepare contingency measures” if EPA does not allow them to use those measures “to account for fluctuating design values.” This commenter claims that the Louisville situation is “likely to become the norm” because “the NAAQS continue to become more stringent.” The commenter further argues that EPA should show “faith in the [CAA] and faith in state and local air agencies to implement contengency [ sic ] measures effectively.”

Response 9: The Kentucky portion of the Area has been designated nonattainment since August 3, 2018. See 83 FR 25776, June 4, 2018. EPA is denying a redesignation to attainment because it concludes on these facts and circumstances that, under the Agency's historical interpretation of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i), KDAQ's request does not meet the statutory requirements. See 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(3)(E). CAA section 175A provides that nonattainment requirements “shall continue in force and effect” for “any area designated as a nonattainment area” until that “area is redesignated as attainment.” 42 U.S.C. 7505a(c).

An area cannot be redesignated unless a state prepares and submits “a maintenance plan for the area” as a SIP revision, the maintenance plan includes contingency measures, and EPA approves that plan. 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(3)(E)(iv), 7505a(a), (d). However, that does not mean an area can be redesignated without meeting the other requirements of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). The fact that KDAQ's proposed maintenance plan has contingency measures is not relevant to the question whether the Area has attained the NAAQS.

Comment 10: EPA received comments noting that the design of the CAA requires “cooperative federalism” with EPA working together with state and local agencies as co-regulators protecting human health and the environment. Commenters point out that EPA approved IDEM's request and argue that EPA would waste limited government resources by denying the KDAQ redesignation request. EPA received a comment asserting that EPA's “inaction” goes against the CAA's goal of cooperative federalism. Commenters assert that approving the redesignation request “upholds EPA's end of the [cooperative federalism] bargain.”

Response 10: EPA works closely with state and local agencies under the CAA's cooperative federalism framework. EPA worked with LMAPCD, KDAQ, IDEM and other regional partners on the redesignation requests for the Area. Part of the CAA's cooperative federalism structure allows each state to submit its own redesignation request for areas (or portions of areas) with the state. See 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(3)(D). For the reasons stated above, EPA is applying its historical interpretation of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) to the particular facts and circumstances presented here to deny the reclassification request for lack of continued attainment and to satisfy a consent decree obligation to take final action by January 20, 2026. This decision does not take away from the Commonwealth's considerable discretion in other respects under the statute to implement the NAAQS, and EPA is committed to further engagement with all relevant parties to further the CAA's cooperative federalism framework.

EPA is denying KDAQ's September 6, 2022 redesignation request because the Area has not met the first redesignation criterion. See 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(3)(E)(i). EPA is not taking action on KDAQ's accompanying maintenance plan SIP revision to fulfill the other redesignation criteria, given its denial of the request based on air quality data.

Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

This action is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866 and was therefore not subject to a requirement for Executive Order 12866 review.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 14192 because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA because it does not contain any information collection activities.

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). This action will not impose any requirements on small entities because it merely denies a redesignation request as not meeting federal requirements.

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

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.

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, because the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. Therefore, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it merely denies a redesignation request as not meeting federal requirements. Furthermore, EPA's Policy on Children's Health does not apply to this action.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

This action does not involve technical standards.

This action is subject to the CRA, and 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).