The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments using a method listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2026-0735; Project Identifier MCAI-2025-00162-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposal because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Frank Carreras, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3539; email: frank.carreras@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA issued AD 2024-24-10, Amendment 39-22900 (89 FR 97505, December 9, 2024) (AD 2024-24-10), for certain Airbus SAS Model A318 and A320 series airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, -133, -151N, -153N, and 171N airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -251N, -251NX, -252N, -252NX, -253N, -253NX, -271N, -271NX, -272N, and -272NX airplanes. AD 2024-24-10 was prompted by an MCAI originated by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA issued AD 2024-0046, dated February 19, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0046) (which corresponds to FAA AD 2024-24-10), to correct an unsafe condition.

AD 2024-24-10 requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate additional new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. The FAA issued AD 2024-24-10 to address the risks associated with the effects of aging on airplane systems. Such effects could change system characteristics. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in an increased potential for failure of certain life-limited parts, and reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

AD 2024-24-10 specifies that accomplishing the revision of the existing maintenance or inspection program required by that AD terminates the requirements of paragraphs (g) through (k) of AD 2018-23-02, Amendment 39-19488 (83 FR 59278, November 23, 2018). This proposed AD would therefore continue to allow that terminating action.

Since the FAA issued AD 2024-24-10, EASA superseded AD 2024-0046 and issued EASA AD 2025-0032, dated February 10, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0032) (also referred to as the MCAI), for all Airbus SAS Model A318 and A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -215, -216, -231, -232, -233, -251N, -252N, -253N, 271N, -272N, and -273N airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -251N, -251NX, -252N, -252NX, -253N, -253NX, -253NY, -271N, -271NX, -272N, and -272NX airplanes. Model A320-215 airplanes are not certificated by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type certificate data sheet; this proposed AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the applicability. The MCAI states that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations have been developed.

Airplanes with an original airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness issued after November 28, 2024, must comply with the airworthiness limitations specified as part of the approved type design and referenced on the type certificate data sheet; this proposed AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the applicability.

The FAA is proposing this AD to address the risks associated with the effects of aging on airplane systems. Such effects could change system characteristics. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in an increased potential for failure of certain life-limited parts, and reduced structural integrity of the airplane. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2026-0735.

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2025-0032. This material specifies new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and safe life limits.

This proposed AD would also require EASA AD 2024-0046, dated February 19, 2024, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of January 13, 2025 (89 FR 97505, December 9, 2024).

This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

This proposed AD would retain certain requirements of AD 2024-24-10. This proposed AD would also require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate additional new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, which are specified in EASA AD 2025-0032 already described, as proposed for incorporation by reference. Any differences with EASA AD 2025-0032 are identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.

This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions ( e.g., inspections). Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) according to paragraph (n)(1) of this proposed AD.

In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to retain the Incorporation by Reference (IBR) of EASA AD 2024-0046 and to incorporate EASA AD 2025-0032 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2024-0046 and EASA AD 2025-0032 through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2024-0046 and EASA AD 2025-0032 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this proposed AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2024-0046 and EASA AD 2025-0032. Material required by EASA AD 2024-0046 and EASA AD 2025-0032 for compliance will be available at regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2026-0735 after the FAA final rule is published.

The FAA's process of incorporating by reference MCAI ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with corresponding FAA ADs has been limited to certain MCAI ADs (primarily those with service bulletins as the primary source of information for accomplishing the actions required by the FAA AD). However, the FAA is now expanding the process to include MCAI ADs that require a change to airworthiness limitation documents, such as airworthiness limitation sections.

For these ADs that incorporate by reference an MCAI AD that changes airworthiness limitations, the FAA requirements are unchanged. Operators must revise the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in the new airworthiness limitation document. The airworthiness limitations must be followed according to 14 CFR 91.403(c) and 91.409(e).

The previous format of the airworthiness limitation ADs included a paragraph that specified that no alternative actions ( e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions and intervals are approved as an AMOC in accordance with the procedures specified in the AMOCs paragraph under “Additional AD Provisions.” This new format includes a “New Provisions for Alternative Actions and Intervals” paragraph that does not specifically refer to AMOCs, but operators may still request an AMOC to use an alternative action or interval.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 1,920 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the retained actions from AD 2024-24-10 to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate.

The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the new proposed actions to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. 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.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

SAIL250® Maryland & Airshow Baltimore (SAIL250) is planning a week-long celebration of maritime and aviation events in Baltimore's Inner Harbor between June 24-30, 2026. Among these events are flyovers and aviation demonstrations. They may include a U.S. Coast Guard Search and Rescue Drill and WWII-era “Warbird” flyovers.

To protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards arising from these activities in these navigable waters before, during, and after the air demonstrations, the Captain of the Port, Sector Maryland-National Capital Region (COTP) is proposing to establish a safety zone from 10 a.m. on June 24, 2026, through 6 p.m. on July 1, 2026. We are proposing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034.

Although the safety zone would be in effect for a week, it would only be subject to enforcement beginning thirty minutes prior to a demonstration and ending at the conclusion of that demonstration. It would cover all navigable waters of the Inner Harbor, encompassed by a line connecting the following points: beginning at Inner Harbor Pier 6 at position latitude 39°16′59″ N, longitude 076°36′12″ W, thence south to the Harborview Towers pier at latitude 39°16′41″ N, longitude 076°36′12″ W, thence northerly and easterly along the shoreline to and terminating at the point of origin located in Baltimore, MD. The dimensions of the safety zone are approximately 2,000 yards in length and 500 yards in width. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons.

This regulation will only impact a small area for a few hours at a time. In addition, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Marines via VHF FM marine channel 16, which will allow small entities to adjust their transit plans, and the rule allows vessels to request permission to enter the regulated area from the COTP.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this proposed rule would economically affect it.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this proposed rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Small businesses may send comments to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards by calling 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

This proposed rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.

Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this proposed rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.

This proposed rule is a safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.

We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments at https://www.regulations.gov . To do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2026-0018 in the search box and click “Search.” Next, look for this document in the Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment option. If you cannot submit your material by using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule for alternate instructions.

Viewing material in the docket. To view available documents, find the docket as described in the previous paragraph, and then select “Supporting & Related Material” in the Document Type column. We will post public comments in our online docket. Additional information is on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked Questions web page.

Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions to the docket in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

VA published a final rule in the Federal Register at 86 FR 54089 on September 30, 2021, that amended the portion of the rating schedule that addresses the cardiovascular system and added DC 7009 to evaluate symptomatic bradyarrhythmia that requires pacemaker implantation. Bradycardia is characterized by a resting heart rate slower than 60 beats per minute, and bradyarrhythmia is a slow heart rate resulting from an irregular heartbeat or arrhythmia. See “Bradyarrhythmia,” Cleveland Clinic, https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/23349-bradyarrhythmia (last visited January 12, 2026). Like other types of arrhythmias or heart conditions, providers may recommend pacemaker implantation to help regulate and maintain a healthy heartrate. Id.; see also “Pacemakers, Who Needs Them,” National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/pacemakers/who-needs (last visited January 12, 2026).

Prior to establishing this new DC, VA evaluated bradyarrhythmia requiring pacemaker implantation under DC 7018, Implantable cardiac pacemakers. Therefore, VA intended to mirror the criteria within DC 7018, which allowed VA to properly evaluate bradyarrhythmia while distinguishing it from other arrhythmias. However, VA did not provide a minimum evaluation under DC 7009.

VA is proposing to add a minimum 10% evaluation under DC 7009 after pacemaker implantation. Currently, VA uses DC 7009 to assign a temporary 100% evaluation for one month following hospital discharge for implantation or re-implantation of a pacemaker. Thereafter, VA evaluates the condition using the General Rating Formula for Diseases of the Heart with no minimum evaluation. However, under DC 7018, VA assigns a temporary 100% evaluation for one month following hospital discharge for implantation or re-implantation of a pacemaker, but thereafter VA evaluates the condition as supraventricular tachycardia (DC 7010), ventricular arrhythmias (DC 7011), or atrioventricular block (DC 7015) with a minimum 10% evaluation. Since both DCs involve pacemaker implantation, the criteria for DC 7009 should also include a minimum 10% evaluation after pacemaker implantation or re-implantation to align it with DC 7018. Additionally, this action is comparable to the assignment of 10% evaluation for other diseases of the heart when continuous medication is required. While it is possible that Veterans with bradyarrhythmia treated by a pacemaker may qualify for a 10% evaluation or higher under the General Rating Formula for Diseases of the Heart due to their metabolic equivalent workload, requirement for continuous medication, or evidence of cardiac hypertrophy or dilatation, VA is proposing to revise DC 7009 to ensure there is no disparity between DCs 7009 and 7018 regarding minimum evaluations.

VA is also proposing to remove Note (1) under DC 7009. Within Note (1), VA defines Bradycardia (bradyarrhythmia) as conduction abnormalities leading to a heart rate below 60 beats per minute and provides the five general classes of bradyarrhythmia, which are (1) sinus bradycardia, (2) atrioventricular (AV) junctional (nodal) escape rhythm, (3) AV heart block (second or third degree) or AV dissociation, (4) atrial fibrillation, or flutter with a slow ventricular response, and (5) idioventricular escape rhythm. VA originally added Note (1) to define bradycardia and aid rating personnel in comprehending and assessing bradycardia. While Note (1) is informative, it could potentially lead to confusion if the American Heart Association or some other authoritative organization proposes to change the definition or the bradyarrhythmia classes. Since it is not necessary to include a definition or the classifications of bradycardia within 38 CFR 4.104, the removal of Note (1) is appropriate. Due to the proposed removal of Note (1), VA must redesignate Note (2) as the only note under DC 7009.

VA examined the impact of this rulemaking as required by Executive Orders 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993) and 13563 (Jan. 18, 2011), which direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. This proposed rule is not expected to be an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866. The Regulatory Impact Analysis associated with this rulemaking can be found as a supporting document at www.regulations.gov.

The Secretary hereby certifies that the adoption of this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). This certification is based on the fact that small entities or businesses are not impacted by revisions to the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities . Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rule is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.

This proposed rule would not result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.

This proposed rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).

Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on January 27, 2026 and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, VA proposes to amend 38 CFR part 4 as set forth below:

Docket. The EPA established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0192. All documents in the docket are listed in www.regulations.gov/. Although listed, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only as PDF versions that can only be accessed on the EPA computers in the docket office reading room. Certain databases and physical items cannot be downloaded from the docket but may be requested by contacting the docket office at 202-566-1744. The docket office has up to 10 business days to respond to these requests. With the exception of such material, publicly available docket materials and a plain language summary of the proposed rule are available electronically at www.regulations.gov.

Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0192. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit electronically to www.regulations.gov any information that you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. This type of information should be submitted as discussed below.

The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission ( i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

The www.regulations.gov/website allows you to submit your comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should not include special characters or any form of encryption and should be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at www.epa.gov/dockets.

Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA through www.regulations.gov. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, note the docket ID, mark the outside of the digital storage media as CBI, and identify electronically within the digital storage media the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI directly to the public docket through the procedures outlined in Instructions above. If you submit any digital storage media that does not contain CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage media clearly that it does not contain CBI and note the docket ID. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2.

Our preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol (FTP), or other online file sharing services ( e.g., Dropbox, OneDrive, Google Drive). Electronic submissions must be transmitted directly to the Office of State Air Partnerships (OSAP) CBI Office at the email address oaqps_cbi@epa.gov and, as described above, should include clear CBI markings and note the docket ID. If assistance is needed with submitting large electronic files that exceed the file size limit for email attachments, and if you do not have your own file sharing service, please email oaqps_cbi@epa.gov to request a file transfer link. If sending CBI information through the postal service, please send it to the following address: U.S. EPA, Attn: OAQPS Document Control Officer, Mail Drop: C404-02, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0192. The mailed CBI material should be double wrapped and clearly marked. Any CBI markings should not show through the outer envelope.

Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this preamble the use of “we,” “us,” or “our” is intended to refer to the EPA. We use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:

Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is organized as follows:

On October 1, 2015, the EPA revised the primary and secondary 8-hour standards for ozone to 70 parts per billion (ppb) in the final rule entitled “National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone” (“2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS”). 1 States were required to provide ozone infrastructure SIP submissions to fulfill interstate transport obligations for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS by October 1, 2018. 2 Pursuant to the “good neighbor” or “interstate transport” provision of CAA section 110, the SIP submissions were required to include provisions sufficient to prevent emissions within the State that “contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other State with respect to [the NAAQS].”  3

In a series of memoranda released in 2018, the EPA provided guidance to States on the content of SIP submissions that address the interstate transport provision for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. In March 2018, we released modeling results that use a 2011 base year and a 2023 analytical year (“March 2018 memorandum”). 4 In August 2018, we issued further guidance advising that it “may be reasonable and appropriate for states to use a 1 ppb contribution threshold, as an alternative to a 1 percent threshold.” (“August 2018 memorandum”). 5 Many States, including States covered by this rulemaking, submitted SIP submissions that relied on the modeling and analysis in the March 2018 and August 2018 memoranda.

When acting on certain submissions in 2023, however, the EPA interpreted the March 2018 and August 2018 memoranda as allowing EPA to give greater weight to the EPA's latest modeling results (referred to as “2016v3”) when it showed linkages not identified in the March 2018 memorandum modeling and to apply a 1 percent of the NAAQS contribution threshold. Based on the SIP submissions, the EPA's interpretation of its memoranda, and the 2016v3 modeling, the EPA disapproved the SIP submissions from Alabama, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, and 16 other States in “Air Plan Disapprovals; Interstate Transport of Air Pollution for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards” (“SIP Disapproval Action”). 6 Using the same approach, the EPA also proposed to disapprove the SIP submissions from Arizona, New Mexico, and Tennessee, and proposed to error correct the previous approval of the SIPs from Iowa and Kansas to disapprovals in “Supplemental Air Plan Actions: Interstate Transport of Air Pollution for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Supplemental Federal `Good Neighbor Plan' Requirements for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards” (“Proposed Supplemental Air Plan Action”). 7

Many of the EPA's disapprovals were challenged in regional circuit courts and stayed. 8 The Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded the EPA's disapproval of Mississippi's SIP submission concluding that the EPA failed to recognize or reasonably explain its decision to consider the updated modeling in an “outcome determinative” way. 9 The Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded the EPA's disapproval of Kentucky's SIP in part for failing to address reliance interests Kentucky had in guidance provided by EPA to Kentucky, including specific feedback on a draft version of Kentucky's submission. 10 The challenges against the disapprovals of the SIP submissions from Alabama, Minnesota, and Nevada remain pending, but in abeyance, pending the EPA's reconsideration. 11

In light of the Fifth and Sixth Circuit judicial decisions and upon further review, the EPA now proposes to evaluate the relevant SIP submissions under policies related to the contribution threshold and choice of modeling consistent with the Fifth and Sixth Circuits' interpretation of the March 2018 and August 2018 memoranda. This proposed rule, if finalized, would approve the portion of SIP submissions addressing interstate transport for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS of eight States. Additionally, at the final stage of this rulemaking, the EPA anticipates withdrawing the proposed error correction of the EPA's past approvals for two additional States and withdrawing the proposed partial disapproval of SIP submissions for three States included in the EPA's Proposed Supplemental Air Plan Action under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), referred to as the “good neighbor” or the “interstate transport” provision of the CAA, for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

The EPA proposes to find that interstate transport of ozone precursor emissions from eight upwind States (Alabama, Arizona, Kentucky, Mississippi, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, and Tennessee) do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in other States. On that basis, we propose to approve the relevant portions of these States' SIPs, which do not need to impose additional restrictions to satisfy obligations under the interstate transport provision. We, therefore, propose to reconsider the previous full or partial disapprovals of the 2015 ozone NAAQS SIP submissions from Alabama, Minnesota, and Nevada included in the SIP Disapproval Action. In response to the circuit courts' remands of the EPA's disapprovals of the 2015 ozone NAAQS interstate transport SIP submissions from Kentucky and Mississippi, we are proposing to approve these SIPs. 12

The EPA previously proposed to partially disapprove the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS interstate transport SIP submissions from Arizona, New Mexico, and Tennessee. 13 The EPA also proposed error corrections related to the prior approval of Iowa and Kansas's 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS interstate transport SIPs. 14 For consistent treatment between States, the EPA anticipates withdrawing these prior proposals at the final stage of this rulemaking. For clarification, the EPA notes that the prior SIP approvals for Iowa and Kansas remain in place.

The EPA previously promulgated 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS interstate transport Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) for Alabama, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, and Nevada, 15 which have been stayed under the EPA's actions in response to various judicial stays of the SIP Disapproval Action and to the Supreme Court's stay of the Good Neighbor Plan. 16 If this action is finalized as proposed, the EPA would no longer have the authority or the intention to lift the current stay of those FIPs, or otherwise attempt to implement those FIPs, for these or any other States with approved SIPs with respect to the interstate transport obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 17

Taken together, these steps, if finalized, will fully resolve the included States' interstate transport obligations for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The EPA intends to take a subsequent action consistent with this proposal, subject to further public input, to address interstate transport obligations for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS for other States.

This proposed rule is relevant to 10 States. It affects five upwind States (Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Minnesota, and Nevada) with prior full or partial disapprovals and three upwind States (Arizona, New Mexico, and Tennessee) with proposed partial disapprovals of the portion of their SIP submittals addressing interstate transport for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS by approving their SIPs. The EPA finds that these States do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other State. In addition, this proposed rule explains why the EPA anticipates withdrawing the EPA's prior proposed error correction regarding Iowa and Kansas' 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS interstate transport SIPs. 18 For clarification, the EPA notes that the prior approvals for Kansas and Iowa's SIPs remain in place.

In this rule, as stated in Section I of this preamble, the EPA is proposing approval of the portion of SIP submissions addressing interstate transport for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS of eight States, including areas of Indian country located within the geographic bounds of the covered States. As part of these broader actions, the EPA is proposing to reconsider three prior final SIP actions and respond to the remand of two SIP actions to the EPA. At the final stage of this rulemaking, the EPA anticipates withdrawing the EPA's prior proposed error correction of past approvals for two additional States and withdrawing the proposed partial disapproval of SIP submissions for three States included in the Proposed Supplemental Air Plan Action. 19

This action does not propose any action on the “Federal `Good Neighbor Plan' for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards” (“Good Neighbor Plan”). 20 However, the EPA would no longer have the authority or the intention to lift the current stay of those FIPs, or otherwise attempt to implement the Good Neighbor Plan requirements, for these or any other State with approved SIPs with respect to the interstate transport obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

The EPA intends to address the Good Neighbor Plan, and the remaining States covered by that action which are not addressed in this action, in a future action. We anticipate that action will also address, as relevant, the applicability of any Good Neighbor Plan FIPs in areas in Indian country.

The statutory authority for this proposed action is provided by the CAA as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. ). Specifically, CAA section 110 provides the primary statutory underpinning for this action. The most relevant portions of CAA section 110 are subsections 110(a)(1), 110(a)(2) (including 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)), 110(k)(2), and 110(k)(3). The EPA has historically referred to SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the applicable requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as “infrastructure SIP” or “iSIP” submissions. CAA section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for iSIP submissions and CAA section 110(a)(2) provides more details concerning the required content of these submissions. 21 CAA section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that “[e]ach such plan” must address, including the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 22

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), also known as the “good neighbor” or “interstate transport” provision, provides the primary basis for this proposed action. It requires that each State's SIP include provisions sufficient to “prohibit[ ], consistent with the provisions of this subchapter, any source or other type of emissions activity within the state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will—(I) contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other State with respect to any [NAAQS].”  23 The EPA often refers to the emissions reduction requirements under this provision as “good neighbor obligations” or “interstate transport obligations” and submissions addressing these requirements as “good neighbor SIPs” or “interstate transport SIPs.”

CAA section 301(a)(1) gives the Administrator the general authority to prescribe such regulations as necessary to carry out functions under the CAA. 24 Pursuant to this section, the EPA has authority to clarify the applicability of CAA requirements and undertake other rulemaking action as necessary to implement CAA requirements.

CAA section 110(k)(2) gives the Administrator authority to act on a complete SIP submission in accordance with CAA section 110(k)(3), which gives the Administrator authority to approve in whole, disapprove, or approve in part and disapprove in part SIP submissions based on the EPA's determination whether the submission meets the relevant requirements of the CAA. 25 The authority to review and approve or disapprove submissions, based on the EPA's interpretation of the CAA, also implicitly includes the authority to reconsider the EPA's previous action on a SIP submission. Two judicial decisions described in Sections III.C.3 and 4 of this preamble have caused the EPA to reconsider key policies related to interstate transport requirements under CAA section 110(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 26 The EPA's new understanding is applicable not just to the States who were the subject of those judicial decisions but to other States as well.

In addition to the forgoing provisions, the EPA proposes this action consistent with agencies' authority to reconsider prior decisions. 27

On October 1, 2015, the EPA promulgated a revision to the ozone NAAQS, lowering both the primary and secondary standards to 70 ppb for the 8-hour standard. 28 CAA section 110(a)(1) requires States to submit, within three years after promulgation of a new or revised standard, SIP submissions meeting the applicable requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2). 29 One of these applicable requirements is found in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which generally requires that SIPs contain adequate provisions to prohibit in-state emissions activities from having certain adverse air quality effects on other States due to interstate transport of pollution. There are two so-called “prongs” within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). A SIP for a new or revised NAAQS must contain adequate provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity within the State from emitting air pollutants in amounts that will significantly contribute to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another State (Prong 1) or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in another State (Prong 2). The EPA and States must give independent significance to Prong 1 and Prong 2 when evaluating downwind air quality problems under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 30

On January 31, 2023, the EPA signed final disapprovals for 19 SIP submissions and partially approved and partially disapproved two SIP submissions addressing the good neighbor provision for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, including from Alabama, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, and Nevada. 31 On March 15, 2023, the EPA promulgated FIPs for Alabama, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, and Nevada in the Good Neighbor Plan, which were later stayed. On February 16, 2024, the EPA proposed partial disapproval of SIP submissions from Arizona, New Mexico, and Tennessee; proposed error corrections to change past approvals to partial disapprovals for Iowa and Kansas; and proposed FIPs for all five States. 32

In Ohio v. EPA, the Supreme Court stayed enforcement of FIPs promulgated in the Good Neighbor Plan as to certain parties pending judicial review. 33 The EPA complied with that order by staying the FIPs as to all sources in all the remaining 23 States not already under stays. 34 The EPA's disapprovals of the SIP submissions from Kentucky and Mississippi were later vacated and remanded back to the EPA by circuit courts, which means that the EPA has an outstanding duty to act on those SIP submissions consistent with the court opinions. 35 36

When evaluating interstate transport obligations, the EPA consistently utilizes the 4-step interstate transport framework (the “Framework”), which was developed to explicate the critical statutory terms in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and to provide a reasonable organization to the analysis of the complex air quality challenge of interstate ozone transport. The EPA addressed the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to implementation of prior NAAQS using the Framework in several regulatory actions, including the original Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), 37 which addressed interstate transport with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS as well as the 1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter standards, and the CSAPR Update  38 and the Revised CSAPR Update, 39 which addressed the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 40 For the 2015 8- hour ozone NAAQS, the EPA used this framework in evaluating SIP submissions (while considering any alternative approaches States may have put forth in the submission) and applied this framework in the Good Neighbor Plan. 41

Shaped by input from State air agencies  42 and other stakeholders on the EPA's prior interstate transport rulemakings and SIP submission actions, 43 as well as several court decisions, 44 the EPA developed and used the Framework to evaluate States' obligations to eliminate interstate transport emissions under the interstate transport provision for the ozone NAAQS:

(1) identify monitoring sites that are projected to have problems attaining and/or maintaining the NAAQS ( i.e., nonattainment and/or maintenance receptors);

(2) identify States that impact those air quality problems in other ( i.e., downwind) States sufficiently such that the States are considered to “contribute” ( i.e., are considered “linked”) to those receptors and whose emissions, therefore, warrant further review and analysis;

(3) identify the emissions reductions necessary (if any), applying a multifactor analysis, to eliminate each linked upwind State's significant contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance of the NAAQS at the locations identified in Step 1; and

(4) adopt permanent and enforceable measures needed to achieve those emissions reductions.

The EPA does not require States to use the Framework in interstate transport SIP submissions, but it is a useful organizational tool that has been upheld by the Supreme Court as “permissible, workable, and equitable.”  45

In this section, the EPA describes the process for identifying an appropriate analytic year for this proposed rule. Every State covered by this proposed rule utilized an analytic year of 2023. The EPA is retaining the 2023 analytical year used to inform past action on States' interstate transport SIP submissions, to ensure consistency and equitable treatment of all States, and to give consideration to the information and data available to States at the time they developed these SIP submissions. In the EPA's March 2018 memorandum, the EPA provided air quality information that States could use to identify receptors in Step 1 and evaluate interstate contributions in Step 2 using a 2023 analytic year. 46 The EPA selected the year 2023 because it was the last full ozone season before the August 3, 2024, Moderate area attainment date for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 47 Ozone seasons for purposes of interstate transport obligations run each year from May 1-September 30. 48 To demonstrate attainment by these deadlines, downwind States would be required to rely on design values calculated using ozone data from 2021 through 2023. 49 Areas that do not attain by the deadline may be “bumped up” to a higher nonattainment classification level per CAA sections 181 and 182, thereby incurring additional ongoing obligations. Thus, consistent with prior interstate transport rulemakings, the EPA's analysis focuses on the last full ozone season before the attainment dates ( i.e., 2023). The later versions of the EPA's modeling (2016v2, 2016v3) also used a 2023 analytic year.

The EPA recognizes that in applying the EPA's 2023 analytics to inform this action, see Section III.C.4 of this preamble, the EPA may be perceived as acting inconsistently with the EPA's previous policy of considering a future analytic year from the standpoint of the timing of the EPA's rulemaking action. The EPA's general policy has been to use forward-looking projections associated with a future analytic year, consistent with its interpretation that the interstate transport provision is a forward-looking statute. 50 Courts have generally upheld that interpretation. 51 However, no court has ruled (nor has the EPA interpreted) that the statute compels the EPA to always use a future analytic year from the standpoint of every particular interstate transport rulemaking. Here, the EPA proposes that several important, overriding considerations warrant retaining the 2023 analytic year in this rulemaking. Were the EPA to consider air quality information tied to year(s) after 2023, 52 the EPA would separately evaluate these States using different data than that which informed our prior evaluation of the State submissions, solely as a result of the timing of the EPA's action on these States.

Where the need for parity among States or other jurisdictions in like circumstances warrants it, courts have recognized that it may be appropriate for the EPA to rely on a unified dataset to ensure consistency in treatment. 53 Here, for two States, the EPA is acting on remand following adverse court rulings, and the EPA is otherwise conducting reconsideration as to the other States included in this action, taking those adverse decisions into account. Comparable to the situation in Weld County, it makes sense to conduct this re-evaluation using the existing information in the record, rather than become trapped in a cycle of constantly shifting analysis and output. Indeed, the court in Kentucky faulted the EPA for failing to consider States' reliance interests when switching to updated analytics in our disapproval of Kentucky's SIP submission, rather than evaluating the submission according to the EPA's March 2018 memorandum modeling, which was provided to States for use in drafting their plans if they chose. 54

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposes to revise its regulations governing site security and production handling and commingling applications to reflect Congress's direction in section 50101(d)(3) of the OBBB and policy direction in E.O. 14154, entitled, Unleashing American Energy and Ensuring Lawful Governance and; E.O. 14219, entitled, Implementing the President's “Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative; and policy guidance in S.O. 3418 entitled, Unleashing American Energy. The BLM is proposing to revise 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 3173.1, 3173.14, 3173.15, and 3173.16 to allow for commingling of production more broadly in order to promote oil and gas production on Federal, Indian, private, and State lands.

The BLM is proposing the revisions to these regulations to address barriers that limit the BLM's ability to approve commingling and allocation agreements (CAAs) that involve multiple sources. Commingling is the approved method for combining production from multiple leases, unit participating areas (PAs), and communitization areas (CAs) at one measurement point with an approved method to allocate production back to each lease, unit PA, or CA. The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 requires all production leaving a lease to be measured before it leaves the lease. Commingling allows production to leave a lease and be measured at an approved point off the lease. These agreements can be used to promote production in situations where either State spacing regulations or mixed ownership patterns may otherwise inhibit an operator's ability to develop our Nation's vital oil and natural gas resources. The existing regulations have resulted in significant operational costs, administrative burdens, and a backlog in the approval of these agreements. The proposed revisions are also intended to promote operational and business efficiency, foster responsible resource development, reduce environmental impacts, prevent the orphaning of wells from premature abandonment, and ensure that the public receives a fair return from the use of public resources. Broader commingling approvals allows more leases, unit PAs, and CAs to be combined at one facility reducing the overall facility cost and the number of points where production is transferred to buyers. Centralizing these facilities reduces the environmental impacts by reducing the number of sites where production processing occurs. Commingling can be used to move equipment out of sensitive environments to reduce the potential environmental impacts of the oil and gas development.

The Department undertakes this rulemaking pursuant to section 50101(d)(3) of the OBBB, which requires the BLM to approve applications for commingling of production if the applicant agrees to one of three standard practices to ensure accurate royalty allocation. In addition, section 226(q) of the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA), 30 U.S.C. 226 et seq., which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to enter into agreements apportioning production or royalties among tracts of land when they cannot be independently developed and the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act (FOGRMA), 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq., authorizes the Secretary to enforce regulations governing inspection of production activities on Federal and Indian lands.

In fiscal year (FY) 2024, onshore Federal oil and gas leases produced about 675 million barrels of oil and 4.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, with a market value of more than $70 billion and generating royalties of almost $9.3 billion. Nearly half of these revenues were distributed to the States in which the leases are located.

Given the magnitude of this production and the BLM's statutory and management obligations, it is critically important that the BLM ensure that operators accurately measure, properly report, and account for that production and, where appropriate, allow for the commingling of production from Federal and Indian oil and gas leases with production from other sources.

The BLM is proposing updates to existing commingling regulations because: (1) the OBBB statutory direction to the Secretary states that he “shall approve applications allowing for commingling of production from 2 or more sources” if the applicant agrees to use one of three methods for production measurement and allocation, and (2) the regulatory updates are necessary to reflect changes in oil and gas measurement practices and technology since the existing regulations were first promulgated in 2016. Technology is more precise today than it was in 2016. This leads to better measurement equipment, such as Coriolis meters and ultrasonic meters. The OBBB modifies how BLM should address commingling approvals and allocation methodologies to address today's demands. Specifically, this proposed rule is designed to ensure the proper and secure handling of production from Federal and Indian oil and gas leases when commingled with production from other sources.

In the proposed rule, the BLM is proposing to update 43 CFR 3173.14, and codify the requirements for commingling, as explained below, consistent with section 50101(d)(3) of the OBBB and the authority granted under 30 U.S.C. 226(q). Specifically, the proposed changes to the regulations would allow the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, to consider proposed commingling applications based on a variety of possible methodologies referred to in 30 U.S.C. 226(q). These proposed changes are intended to account for advancements in technology and industry practices that have occurred since the existing regulations were first issued in 2016 are expected to:

1. Increase clarity and predictability for industry operators by codifying uniform approval criteria;

2. Reduce administrative delays for commingling requests;

3. Maintain robust royalty accuracy and transparency through high-precision metering or well testing; and

4. Support integrated reservoir development and reduce unnecessary surface disturbance by encouraging centralized production infrastructure.

The proposed changes to 43 CFR 3173.14, “Conditions for commingling and allocation approval (surface and downhole),” are intended to remove conditions in the existing regulations that can limit the circumstances under which the BLM can approve a commingling application. For example, under the existing regulations, in instances when the production proposed for inclusion in the application includes production from leases, unit participating areas (PAs), or CAs, where the Federal interests are disproportionate to one another, the BLM would not allow commingling. For example, under one CA the government may own 100 percent of the minerals while only owning 50 percent on another CA. Under the current regulations, the minerals produced from these leases may not be commingled. However, under the proposed rule, such production could be commingled if certain conditions outlined in the statute are met. The BLM expects that more leases, unit PAs, and CAs could be included in commingling agreements under the proposed rule, thereby promoting additional production, particularly through the combination of producing wells and marginal wells or stripper wells. This supports the statutory directive that the BLM does not waste Federal minerals and ensures that resources are developed efficiently.

Further, the changes made to 43 CFR 3173.15, “Applying for a Commingling and Allocation Approval,” are intended to account for certain uncertainties associated with measurement and ensuring that the uncertainty percentage meets the requirements proposed in 43 CFR 3173.14. The changes made to 43 CFR 3173.16, “Existing Commingling and Allocation Approvals,” would allow for all existing CAAs to remain in effect unless the operator adds or removes wells or modifies the facility layout, in which case the operator would need to submit a Sundry Notice Form 3160-5 to the BLM. This is important, for example, because individual wells may report to different leases, unit PAs, or CAs and can cause the uncertainty in measurement to change, resulting in a change to the allocation methodology for production reporting.

This rule could benefit industry by improving economic efficiency at the wellsite by allowing operators to share production facilities across leases such that each lease can reduce operating costs needed to produce Federal or Indian oil and gas.

The BLM estimates that it would spend $352,170 per year in processing the additional commingling applications. The BLM has further assumed that applicants would need an additional 10 hours per application to provide a complete application to the BLM. This is represented in the Administrative Burden column on the table below.

In the benefit cost analysis of this rule, royalty payments are not considered a cost or a benefit but rather as recurring income to the United States and Indian mineral owners and costs to the operator or lessee. As such, they are transfer payments that do not affect the total resources available to society. An important but sometimes difficult problem in cost estimation is distinguishing between real costs and transfer payments. While transfers should not be included in the economic analysis estimates of the benefits and costs of a regulation, they may be important for describing the distributional effects of a regulation. This proposed rule would allow a variance or error in measuring commingled production of up to ±5 percent. At the extremes, if commingling happened at all Federal and Indian oil and gas leases, this rule could increase or decrease royalties from Federal onshore leases by $365 million relative to the royalties based upon the true level of production and increase or decrease (depending on whether the uncertainty is positive or negative) royalties from Indian leases by $54 million per year relative to the royalties based upon the true level of Indian production. These two examples are extreme because it is highly unlikely that every Federal and Indian lease would be commingled, and that the measurement uncertainty would also vary by the maximum of ±5 percent. The change in royalties could, however, be within those two extreme bounds.

If you wish to comment on this proposed rule, you may submit your comments to the BLM by mail, personal or messenger delivery, or through https://www.regulations.gov (see the ADDRESSES section). Please note that comments on this proposed rule's information collection burdens should be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget as described in the ADDRESSES section.

Please make your comments on the proposed rule as specific as possible, confine them to issues pertinent to the proposed rule, and explain the reason for any changes you recommend. Where possible, your comments should reference the specific section or paragraph of the proposal that you are addressing. The BLM is not obligated to consider or include in the administrative record for the final rule comments that we receive after the close of the comment period (see DATES ) or comments delivered to an address other than those listed above (see ADDRESSES ).

Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the address listed under ADDRESSES : Personal or messenger delivery” during regular hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays. Before including your address, telephone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Because of the increasing reliance on directional drilling through lands owned by varying entities, it has become more important for operators to commingle production from leases, unit PAs, and CAs. The BLM is proposing the revisions to these regulations to conform with the statutory direction in section 50101(d)(3) of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (Pub. L. 119-21) (OBBB) and to address barriers in the current regulations that limit the BLM's ability to approve these types of CAAs. Because of the BLM's limitations, these agreements have been underutilized by the regulated community as the application process is burdensome under the current regulations. As revised, the process would be streamlined and allow for more diverse mineral interests to be commingled, especially in situations where either State spacing regulations or mixed ownership patterns may otherwise inhibit an operator's ability to develop our Nation's vital oil and natural gas resources.

The Secretary of the Interior has the authority to undertake these regulations pursuant to Congress's direction in section 50101(d)(3) of the OBBB and his authority under section 226(q) of the MLA, which authorizes the Secretary to enter into agreements apportioning production or royalties among tracts of land when they cannot be independently developed. In addition, the FOGRMA, 30 U.S.C. 29, authorizes the Secretary to enforce regulations governing inspection of production activities on Federal and Indian lands. The Secretary has delegated this authority to the BLM. 235 DM 1.1.

The BLM is undertaking this rulemaking for two primary reasons: (1) To reflect Congress's direction provided in section 50101(d)(3) of the OBBB and policy direction provided in recently issued E.O.s and S.O.; and (2) To remove existing barriers to the commingling of oil and gas production to promote the development of oil and gas to meet the energy needs of the American public. As documented in S.O. 3418 released in February 2025, 1 the BLM aims to reduce barriers to the use of Federal lands for energy development, consistent with the principle of multiple use.

The Secretary of the Interior manages Federal oil and gas resources pursuant to the MLA; FOGRMA; Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; and other statutes. The BLM is the agency within DOI responsible for regulating onshore oil and gas leasing activities for federally managed lands and the subsurface mineral estate. The BLM also regulates oil and gas development on Indian (except Osage Tribe) lands for the Secretary. The Department regulations governing site security and production allocation for onshore oil and gas are set out in 43 CFR subpart 3173. The BLM is proposing to revise some of the definitions in § 3173.1 to align with the proposed changes to the regulations governing commingling applications and is proposing to revise § 3173.14, Conditions for Commingling and Allocation Approval (Surface and Downhole); § 3173.15, Applying for a Commingling Approval and Allocation to simplify the procedures to promote the development of needed oil and gas resources: and § 3173.16, Existing Commingling and Allocation Approvals.

By revising these regulations, the BLM is removing barriers to oil and gas development thereby providing greater flexibility to oil and gas operators to coordinate their operations and reduce overall costs of producing oil and gas. The existing regulations have resulted in significant operational costs, administrative burdens, and a backlog in the approval of these agreements. The proposed revisions are also intended to promote operational and business efficiency, foster responsible resource development, reduce environmental impacts, prevent the stranding of oil and gas resources from premature abandonment, and ensure that the public receives a fair return from the use of public resources.

The proposed modifications to §§ 3173.1, 3173.14, 3173.15 and 3173.16 are described in more detail in the section-by-section analysis below.

The following discussion addresses proposed changes to the regulations. If a provision is not presented in this section-by-section analysis, then the provision remains unchanged from the current regulatory language.

1. Section-by-section for changes to 43 CFR subpart 3173.

The BLM has added a new definition for “acceptable methodology” to clarify the level of measurement uncertainty that would be allowed when determining a method to allocate production from each source to be included in the commingling approval. The proposed rule would require a 2 percent measurement uncertainty or up to 5 percent measurement uncertainty if there are appropriate technical or economic justifications provided by the applicant and approved by the BLM.

The BLM has revised the definition of “access” by including a new paragraph that addresses the need for the BLM to have access to facilities that may be located on State or private lands so it can ensure the proper accounting of produced Federal and Indian oil and gas resources. Any such access would be limited to ensuring that the requirements of these regulations are met and would not provide the BLM with any more general inspection authority as that is beyond the scope of these regulations.

The BLM proposes to remove the definition of “economically marginal property” as this concept is no longer a factor in the BLM's analysis of a commingling application.

The BLM proposes to add a new definition for “overriding considerations” to allow the BLM to consider approval of a commingling application in situations that do not specifically meet the regulatory requirements in 43 CFR 3173.14(a).

The BLM proposes to remove the definition of a “payout period” as this definition is no longer needed based on the BLM's proposed changes to 43 CFR 3173.14.

The BLM proposes to remove the definition of “royalty net present value” as this concept is no longer needed based on the BLM's proposed changes to 43 CFR 3173.14.

The BLM is soliciting feedback on whether any additional definitions would be useful to implement Congress' direction to BLM to allow for increased use of commingling.

The BLM proposes to revise this section in its entirety to remove conditions in the existing regulations that can limit the circumstances under which the BLM can approve a commingling application. For example, under the existing regulation at § 3173.14(a)(3), the applicant for a CAA must demonstrate that each lease, unit PA or communitization agreement (CA) to be included in the commingling application is capable of production in paying quantities. By removing this provision, the BLM expects that more leases and CAs could be included thereby promoting additional production. By allowing for the approval of more commingling applications, the BLM expects that some leases and CAs that are not currently capable of producing in paying quantities would become capable of producing in paying quantities. This is due to the fact an approved CAA would allow an operator to reduce the number of measurement facilities thereby reducing the day-to-day operating expenses of the lease or CA such that the lease or CA would become capable of producing in paying quantities. BLM is seeking comments from operators on this point, particularly the effect on the day-to-day operating costs due to facility consolidation. The BLM has retained the existing requirement that all facility measurement points (FMPs) for the proposed CAA measure production originating only from the leases, unit PAs, or CAs that are proposed for inclusion in the CAA. The BLM has proposed a new provision to specifically address an application that proposes to include Indian leases. In this instance, the BIA must first approve the inclusion of that production in the CAA. Overall, the BLM's proposed revisions to § 3173.14 (a) would allow for commingling, consistent with 30 U.S.C. 226(q), regardless of the nature of the Federal, Indian, State or private mineral interests, royalty rates or revenue distribution thereby promoting greater production while also providing the opportunity for operators to reduce their overall costs of production.

If the production proposed for inclusion in the application includes production from leases, unit PAs or CAs where the Federal interests are disproportionate to one another (for example, if there are varying royalty rates), this production can still be commingled if certain enumerated conditions are met. The production must be measured by an FMP that meets the requirements of subparts 3174 (Measurement of Oil) and 3175 (Measurement of Gas) and the allocation methodology must demonstrate the inclusion of measurement devices that can meet measurement uncertainties as set out in the regulations.

The BLM has also proposed revising this section to include requiring the applicant to provide notice to all interest owners that their production is proposed for inclusion in a commingling agreement and to clarify what information is needed for the application to be complete.

The BLM is proposing a new paragraph (b) that would allow the BLM to approve a commingling application if it does not meet the requirements of paragraph (a). The BLM is proposing four conditions, under which, if an applicant meets at least one of the enumerated conditions, the BLM would still approve the application. The first condition would allow the BLM to approve the application if the production to be included is 1,000 cubic feet (Mcf) per month or less over the preceding 12-month period for gas or 100 barrels (bbls) per month or less for oil. The second condition would allow the BLM to approve the application if it includes Indian leases, unit PAs, or CAs, and has been authorized under tribal law or otherwise approved by a Tribe or the allottees of the allotted lease. The third condition would allow the BLM to approve the application if it covers the downhole commingling of production from multiple formations that are covered by separate leases, unit PAs, or CAs, and the BLM has determined that the proposed commingling from those formations is an acceptable practice for the purpose of increasing ultimate economic recovery and resource conservation. The fourth condition would allow the BLM to approve the application if there are overriding considerations that indicate the BLM should approve a commingling application: (i) If it is in the public interest, notwithstanding potential negative royalty impacts from the allocation method, unless Indian leases or mineral interests are to be included, in which case the CAA cannot be approved; (ii) If the operator reasonably demonstrates that approval is necessary to prevent waste or increase ultimate recovery, but only to the extent that such considerations outweigh the possibility of incremental error in measurement of the quantity or quality of production, unless Indian leases or mineral interests are to be included, in which case the CAA cannot be approved; and (iii) Under either (i) or (ii), the BLM may approve a CAA if the Indian mineral owner consents to the CAA and has been made aware of the potential negative royalty impact. The BLM is solicitating feedback on whether these conditions are appropriate and whether there are any other conditions that should be considered.

The BLM is also proposing to revise paragraph (c), addressing the timing for the BLM's approval of an application. Under the proposed regulation, the BLM would approve a complete application within 60 days of receipt, unless additional time is needed to complete any required environmental analysis. The BLM is soliciting feedback on whether approving the application in 60 days from receipt is the appropriate timeframe.

The BLM is soliciting feedback on whether there are additional conditions for commingling and allocation approvals that should be included in light of the broad mandate in the OBBBA to allow for commingling.

The BLM is proposing changes to the process of applying for a commingling allocation and approval. In § 3173.15(c), the BLM is proposing to add “with a calculated uncertainty percentage” to demonstrate that the uncertainty percentage meets the proposed requirements in § 3173.14. The definition of acceptable methodology places a bound of no more than 5 percent uncertainty in the reported production. The operator would be required to demonstrate in their application that the proposal is within 5 percent uncertainty or there would be overriding considerations the BLM should account for in the decision. In § 3173.15(d), the BLM is proposing to add State or private lease numbers to the list of leases, unit PAs and CAs as the BLM is now proposing to allow inclusion of these types of leases in an application under this section. The BLM proposes to revise § 3173.15(f) which requires the submittal of a Sundry Notice in certain situations by deleting “BLM managed lands” and adding instead “Federal or Indian” to address the proposed changes to the types of leases that may now be included in an application.

The BLM is proposing to substantially revise § 3173.15(k) while still maintaining the BLM's ability to ensure that production streams proposed for commingling are compatible. Instead of the current requirement to provide all gas analyses or oil gravities, depending on the type of production proposed for commingling, the BLM is revising this provision to require only the most recent gas analysis or oil gravity. The BLM is also proposing new language in this section to provide more flexibility and to address those situations for which the BTU or gravity is unknown. In this case, the applicant may provide the BLM with BTU or gravity obtained from nearby wells, unit PAs or CAs.

The BLM is also proposing to add three new paragraphs to address the expansion of the types of mineral interests that can be included in an application. In § 3173.15(l), the BLM would require the submittal of documentation that the mineral interest owners have consented to the CAA and to the BLM's inspection of any equipment required for compliance with this subpart. In § 3173.15(m), the BLM proposes to require documentation that the operator has secured access from the surface owners to allow BLM personnel to access the measurement facilities to verify production and royalty. In many cases, the surface owners and the mineral owners are different requiring consent from multiple parties to carry out the requirements of this part. Paragraph (n) addresses those situations in which the measurement equipment is not located on a Federal or Indian lease. In this instance, the operator would be required to provide documentation that the measurement equipment will be maintained in accordance with subparts 3174 and 3175.

The BLM is soliciting feedback on whether any additional changes to this section should be made in light of the broad mandate in the OBBBA to allow for commingling.

The BLM is proposing to significantly revise this section as most of it is no longer applicable. Under the BLM's proposal, all existing CAAs would remain in effect unless the operator adds or removes wells or modifies the facility layout. In this case, the operator would need to submit a Sundry Notice Form 3160-5 to the BLM. Any changes to the existing leases, unit PAs, or CAs included in an existing CAA would require the operator to submit a new application meeting the requirements of the new regulations.

The BLM is soliciting feedback on whether the requirements above are those necessary to effectuate the purposes of the OBBBA.

DOI has examined this proposed rulemaking and has determined that it is consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O. 14154 “Unleashing American Energy,” and E.O. 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation.” This proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, is expected to be an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.

Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is significant.

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The E.O. directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

This proposed rule revises the BLM's regulations governing applications for and approval of commingling application agreements which are contained in 43 CFR subparts 3173, 3173.14, 3173.15 and 3173.16. The BLM developed this proposed rule in a manner consistent with the requirements in E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563.

This rule would have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). Many of the operators affected by this rule are considered small businesses and the rule would have a significant overall effect. The effect would be positive as it would reduce the regulatory burden and overall expenses for small businesses. Please refer to the Regulatory Impact Analysis attached to this rulemaking for detailed information regarding the impacts and benefits to small businesses.

This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector, because it does not impose any costs on these entities. Therefore, a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) is not required.

This rule does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630. The proposed rule would revise portions of the BLM's current rules governing measurement and site security which are contained in 43 CFR subpart 3173 and more specifically 3173.1, 3173.14, 3173.15 and 3173.16. These terms in the regulations are not considered a taking of private property as such operations are subject to the existing lease terms which expressly require that subsequent lease activities be conducted in compliance with subsequently adopted Federal laws and regulations. The proposed rule is not a government action capable of interfering with constitutionally protected property rights. Therefore, the BLM has determined that the rule would not cause a taking of private property or require further discussion of takings implications under E.O. 12630. A takings implication assessment is therefore not required.

Under the criteria in section 1 of E.O. 13132, this proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement; therefore, a federalism impact statement is not required.

The proposed rule would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the levels of government. It would not apply to States or local governments or State or local governmental entities. The rule would affect the relationship between operators, lessees, and the BLM, but it would not directly impact the States. Therefore, in accordance with E.O. 13132, the BLM has determined that this proposed rule would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

This rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. Specifically, this rule meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.

The Department strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under the Department's consultation policy and under the criteria in E.O. 13175 and have identified the potential for substantial direct effects on federally recognized Indian tribes from this proposed rule.

This proposed rule could have an effect on Indian tribes as it would allow for production from Indian leases to be commingled with production from Federal, State and private leases potentially negatively impacting royalty payments to Indian Tribes or allottees. Conversely, though, it could extend the productive life of tribal wells and hence the royalties to Tribes by reducing some operating costs. However, the proposed rule does require the consent of Indian tribes prior to any production from Indian leases being included in a commingling agreement and requires the approval of the BIA if production from Indian leases is proposed for inclusion in a commingling agreement. Accordingly, we will consult with the affected tribe(s) on a government-to-government basis.

The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) generally provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor and, not withstanding any other provision of law, a person is not required to respond to a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Collections of information include any request or requirement to obtain, maintain, retain, or report information to an agency, or disclose information to a third party or to the public (44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c)).

This proposed rule contains revised information collection requirements that are subject to review by OMB under the PRA. OMB has approved the existing information collection requirements contained in 43 CFR parts 3170 and pertaining to CAAs, specifically 43 CFR 3173.15 and 3173.16, under OMB control number 1004-0137. Additionally, certain information collection requirements contained in 43 CFR part 3170 make use of the standard form, SF-299, Application for Transportation, Utility System, Telecommunications and Facilities on Federal Lands and Property. OMB has approved Form SF-299 under OMB Control Number 0596-0249. The U.S. Forest Service administers OMB Control Number 0596-0249. This proposed rule would not result in changes to Form SF-299.

Currently, there are 102,439 total annual responses and 278,904 total annual burden hours approved under OMB Control Number 1004-0137. While the proposed revisions would introduce certain efficiencies and potential cost savings for both operators and the BLM, we do not anticipate that the burden would change because of the revisions contained in this proposed rule. The proposed revisions to the information collection requirements, along with the projected burden changes, are discussed below.

1. Request for Approval of a CAA—43 FR 3173.15.

In addition to the current information collection requirements contained in § 3173.15 for CAAs, the proposed rule would add the following additional requirements:

• The most recent gas analysis performed, including BTU content (if the CAA request includes gas), and the most recent oil gravity data (if the CAA request includes oil) from each of the leases, units, unit PAs, or CAs proposed for inclusion in the CAA. In lieu of the requirements in paragraph, the operator or operators may instead submit a CAA for BLM consideration using analogous BTU content and/or oil gravity data from nearby wells for instances where BTU content and/or oil gravity are not explicitly known for the given leases, unit PAs or CAs.

• Documentation demonstrating that all other interest owners, such as private, State, or Indian, consent to both the CAA and the BLM's inspection of the equipment to ensure compliance with 43 CFR 3173, 3174 and 3175.

• Documentation demonstrating that the operator has secured all necessary access rights from the surface owner(s), whether private, State, or Indian, to ensure that BLM staff may access the measurement facilities within the CAA for conducting and verifying production, measurement and royalty.

• Documentation demonstrating that the operator maintains and operates the measurement equipment in accordance with 43 CFR 3174 and 3175 for production equipment that is not on a federal lease.

The BLM believes that this revision would introduce efficiencies for operators by revising the gas and oil analysis submission by requiring only the most recent analysis instead of all analyses for the last 6 years. The BLM is broadening the scope of operations that can be included in a CAA to include lands that do not fall under the authority of the existing regulations. This results in additional requirements from the proponent of the CAA to ensure the BLM has the ability to inspect and verify production from non-federal and non-Indian lands.

2. Additions, Removals, or Modifications of Facility Layout (Form 3160-5)—43 CFR 3173.16.

The proposed rule would replace the current information collection requirements pertaining to the operator's requirements to address any inconsistencies or deficiencies with the following information collection requirements:

• If the operator adds or removes wells or modifies the facility layout, a Sundry Notice Form 3160-5 notice would be required.

• Modifications to existing leases, unit PAs, or CAs within the approved CAA would require the operator to reapply for commingling approval in accordance with the existing regulations prior to implementing the proposed changes.

The revised regulations would reduce additional efficiencies and potential cost savings on both operators and the BLM by allowing existing approvals to remain in effect unless modified. The current regulations require a review and renewal of existing CAAs upon implementation of the rule.

The resulting new estimated total burdens for OMB Control Number 1004-0137 are provided below.

Title of Collection: Onshore Oil and Gas Operations and Production (43 CFR part 3170).

OMB Control Number: 1004-0137.

Form Numbers: BLM Form 3160-005 and SF-299 (OMB Control Number 0596-0249).

Type of Review: Extension with revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Oil and gas operators on public lands and some Indian lands.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 864.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 102,439.

Estimated Completion Time per Response: Varies depending on activity.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 278,904.

Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.

Frequency of Collection: On occasion; One-time; and Monthly.

Total Estimated Annual Non-hour Burden Cost: None.

The complete information-collection request that has been submitted to OMB for this proposed rule is available at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this information collection by selecting “Currently under Review—Open for Public Comments” or by using the search function. If you want to comment on the information-collection requirements of this proposed rule, please send your comments and suggestions on this information-collection by the date indicated in the DATES and ADDRESSES sections as previously described.

A detailed environmental analysis under NEPA is not required because the proposed rule would be covered by a categorical exclusion (see 43 CFR 46.205). This proposed rule meets the criteria set forth at 43 CFR 46.210(i) for a Departmental categorical exclusion in that this proposed rule is “of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature.” We have also determined that the proposed rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under NEPA. Environmental analysis under NEPA is not required because the proposed rule would be covered by a categorical exclusion (see 43 CFR 46.205).

Under E.O. 13211, agencies are required to prepare and submit to OMB a Statement of Energy Effects for significant energy actions. This statement is to include a detailed statement of “any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use (including a shortfall in supply, price increases, and increase use of foreign supplies)” for the action and reasonable alternatives and their effects.

Section 4(b) of E.O. 13211 defines a “significant energy action” as “any action by an agency (normally published in the Federal Register ) that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking: (1)(i) that is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (2) that is designated by OIRA as a significant energy action.”

We conclude that this proposed rule would not warrant preparation of a Statement of Energy Effects.

We are required by E.O. 12866 (section 1 (b)(12)), E.O. 12988 (section 3(b)(1)(B)), and E.O. 13563 (section 1(a)), and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:

(a) Be logically organized;

(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;

(c) Use common, everyday words and clear language rather than jargon;

(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and

(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.

If you believe that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs that you find unclear, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

The principal author(s) of this rule are Matthew Warren, Senior Petroleum Engineer and Natalie Eades, Attorney-advisor, Office of the Solicitor; Technical support provided by Scott Rickard, Economist.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Bureau of Land Management proposes to amend 43 CFR part 3170 as follows:

Diagnostic images, including, but not limited to, radiographic, photographic, and video images produced by light, radiation, sound waves, or magnetic resonance, are critical to supporting care in a variety of health care settings and are routinely used by health care providers to help determine a patient's course of treatment. 1 Diagnostic images are often stored in systems external to an electronic health record (EHR), 2 such as picture archiving and communication systems (PACS), vendor neutral archives (VNAs), and other imaging platforms. While health care providers ( e.g., radiologists, ophthalmologists, dermatologists, and pathologists) who work within the same organization generally have direct access to the diagnostic images obtained by the organization, access to such images by health care providers from outside the organization can be nonexistent, inconsistent, and highly dependent on several technical, operational, and organizational factors. In some cases, organizations' vendors use proprietary formats that impede exchange and external access by “outside” providers. In other cases, outside providers are denied access to full-resolution Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine® (DICOM®) files, and are instead given access to low resolution, incomplete, or inferior ( e.g., encapsulated PDF) images through web-based viewers. They may also be denied access to prior imaging studies. In addition, originating organizations frequently refuse to securely electronically transmit diagnostic images despite the source organization's technical capability to do so. Ultimately, the burden to “exchange” these images is placed on the patient or their caregiver. In such instances, patients too are often unable to access their own imaging directly or with a patient-facing application (app). Consequently, patients and their caregivers are left to carry around physical media ( e.g., CDs and DVDs), or printed images and reports, from provider to provider. These outcomes are far from ideal, particularly due to the quality of the images and even sometimes due to the lack of provider hardware to view the images stored on CDs and DVDs.

Enhanced access to diagnostic images can improve care and health outcomes, decrease the need for duplicative imaging tests, and reduce costs within the United States (U.S.) health care system. Therefore, we seek comments on whether the adoption of technical standards and/or certification criteria for health IT would improve the access, exchange, and use of diagnostic images for both providers and patients.

On March 7, 2012, the Secretary of HHS issued a proposed rule with request for comments titled “Health Information Technology: Standards, Implementation Specifications, and Certification Criteria for Electronic Health Record Technology, 2014 Edition; Revisions to the Permanent Certification Program for Health Information Technology” (77 FR 13832) (2014 Edition Proposed Rule), which proposed new and revised standards, implementation specifications, and certification criteria. In the 2014 Edition Proposed Rule, we proposed certification to the 2014 Edition “imaging” certification criterion (§ 170.314(a)(12)) without use of the DICOM standard but requested comments on using the standard (77 FR 13838). We also proposed to require EHR technology that would be certified to the 2014 Edition “view, download, and transmit to 3rd party” (VDT) certification criterion (§ 170.314(e)(1)) to be capable of enabling images formatted according to the DICOM standard to be downloaded and transmitted to a third party (77 FR 13839 and 13840).

On September 4, 2012, the Secretary published a final rule titled “Health Information Technology: Standards, Implementation Specifications, and Certification Criteria for Electronic Health Record Technology, 2014 Edition; Revisions to the Permanent Certification Program for Health Information Technology” (77 FR 54163) (2014 Edition Final Rule). In the 2014 Edition Final Rule, we adopted an “image results” certification criterion (without the DICOM standard) to support the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs (now referred to as the Medicare Promoting Interoperability Program and the Merit-based Incentive Payment System Promoting Interoperability performance category) requirement, also known as the Meaningful Use or “MU Stage 2 Objective” requirement. The MU Stage 2 Objective required eligible clinicians, hospitals, and critical access hospitals to have access to imaging results and information through Certified EHR Technology (77 FR 54172 and 54173). The associated MU Stage 2 Objective certification criterion required a Health IT Module to be capable of indicating the availability of a patient's images and narrative interpretations and enable access to those images and narrative interpretations. We stated that the requirements of the certification criterion could be met via the capability to directly link to images stored in the EHR system or by providing a context-sensitive link to an external application which provided access to images and their related narrative. We also stated in the 2014 Edition Final Rule that the use of the DICOM standard (or any other imaging standards) was unnecessary to meet the functional requirement expressed in the image results certification criterion (77 FR 54172 and 54173). Instead, we reiterated our understanding, stated in the 2014 Edition Proposed Rule, that the adoption of standards was unnecessary to enable users to electronically access images and their narrative interpretations, as required by this certification criterion (77 FR 13838). Further, in the 2014 Edition Final Rule, after considering the comments received and the complexity and potential burden identified by commenters, we removed the requirement that images be made available for download and transmission to a third party as part of the VDT certification criterion (77 FR 54183).

On February 26, 2014, the Secretary published a proposed rule titled “Voluntary 2015 Edition Electronic Health Record (EHR) Certification Criteria; Interoperability Updates and Regulatory Improvements” (79 FR 10880) (Voluntary Edition Proposed Rule). The proposed rule proposed a voluntary edition of certification criteria that was designed to enhance interoperability, promote innovation, and incorporate “bug fixes” to improve upon the 2014 Edition (79 FR 10880). In the proposed rule, we contemplated improvements that could be made to the VDT certification criterion in § 170.314(e)(1) for the “2017 Edition” (79 FR 10907). We requested public comments on whether we should again propose (in the future) to require that images be part of this certification criterion. More specifically, we requested comment on: (1) whether images for patients need to be of diagnostic quality; (2) whether they should be viewable and downloadable, but not required to be transmitted; and (3) whether cloud-based technology could allow for a link to the image to be made accessible (79 FR 10907). On September 11, 2014, a final rule was published titled “2014 Edition Release 2 Electronic Health Record (EHR) Certification Criteria and the ONC HIT Certification Program; Regulatory Flexibilities, Improvements, and Enhanced Health Information Exchange” (79 FR 54430) (2014 Edition Release 2 Final Rule), which did not include any updates to the VDT certification criterion related to diagnostic imaging (79 FR 54439 and 54465).

On March 30, 2015, the Secretary of HHS published a proposed rule titled “2015 Edition Health Information Technology (Health IT) Certification Criteria, 2015 Edition Base Electronic Health Record (EHR) Definition, and ONC Health IT Certification Program Modifications” (80 FR 16804) (2015 Edition Proposed Rule). In the 2015 Edition Proposed Rule, we proposed to maintain the image results certification criterion (80 FR 16822). While some commenters supported this proposal, we ultimately removed the image results certification criterion in the 2015 Edition Final Rule (80 FR 62602), published October 16, 2015, because the associated CMS EHR Incentive Programs objective (now referred to as Promoting Interoperability objectives) was removed and no longer required technological support (80 FR 62683).

On August 5, 2024, we published a proposed rule titled “Health Data, Technology, and Interoperability: Patient Engagement, Information Sharing, and Public Health Interoperability” (89 FR 63498) (HTI-2 Proposed Rule) to revise the certification criteria adopted in § 170.315(b)(1), (e)(1), (g)(9), and (g)(10) to include new certification requirements to support access, exchange, and use of diagnostic images via imaging links. On December 29, 2025, the Secretary published a withdrawal notice titled “Health Data, Technology, and Interoperability: Patient Engagement, Information Sharing, and Public Health Interoperability; Withdrawal” (90 FR 60602) (HTI-2 Proposed Rule Withdrawal Notice) to withdraw the remaining proposals that were not finalized from the HTI-2 Proposed Rule, including our proposed revisions to the certification criteria adopted in § 170.315(b)(1), (e)(1), (g)(9), and (g)(10).

ASTP/ONC's joint Request for Information (RFI) with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) (90 FR 21034), published May 16, 2025, sought input from the public regarding the market of digital health products for Medicare beneficiaries as well as the state of data interoperability and broader health technology infrastructure. Responses to the RFI covered a broad range of topics, including ways to increase patient access to effective digital capabilities needed to inform health decisions and increase data availability for health care providers and patients. Among these comments were the identification of challenges specific to the access, exchange, and use of diagnostic images, including: (1) a fragmented ecosystem where diagnostic image exchange is manual, burdensome, and unreliable; (2) continued reliance on physical media (such as CDs and DVDs), which is generally inefficient, not secure, and presents barriers to timely care; and (3) lack of patient access to their own diagnostic images through modern, application programming interface (API)-driven tools.

The access, exchange, and use of diagnostic images is crucial for timely and accurate diagnosis, leading to better patient outcomes and lower treatment costs. As we evaluate the best and least burdensome ways to support the access, exchange, and use of electronic health information (EHI), including diagnostic images, through the adoption of standards and the certification of health IT under the Certification Program, we invite public comment to help us further explore how we can achieve these goals for the purpose of accessing, exchanging, and using diagnostic images.

We encourage interested parties to share their responses for as many of the questions below as possible. The questions are not intended for a specific audience but are meant to solicit feedback from multiple individuals and groups. To aid in our understanding of submitted responses, please prioritize clarity and conciseness and annotate your responses with question label(s) (for example, PM-1).

We acknowledge there are certain outlying use cases and circumstances where access via physical media may be more appropriate than internet-based access to diagnostic images ( e.g., locations with inadequate internet capabilities). However, we believe the health care ecosystem's continued default to physical media and the slow shift from this practice is due to a combination of limited investment in image exchange standards, business practices that silo images within systems, and a lack of policy drivers to reinforce a shift to electronic access and exchange of diagnostic images.

Ultimately, the status quo creates a perfect storm of administrative burden, unnecessary costs, and uncoordinated care for providers and patients alike. For example, health care providers often rely on imaging to evaluate how well treatments are working. When a health care provider assumes the care of a new patient, access to prior imaging from outside facilities is a key component for accurate treatment planning. However, patients may not always have physical media ( e.g., CDs and DVDs) or access to online diagnostic images to share with their providers. In time-sensitive situations, this lack of access may result in delayed or inappropriate treatment or unnecessary health care costs through duplicative testing.

PM-1. What barriers do patients experience with electronic access to diagnostic images? Are there examples today where patients can successfully access, exchange, and use diagnostic images outside of a particular hospital or network system without use of physical media?

PM-2. What existing policies do you believe limit or interfere with diagnostic image access, exchange, and use? What policies would you introduce to accelerate the transition to electronic, standards-based diagnostic image access and exchange and to reduce the practice of imaging silos that impede electronic access, exchange, or use of diagnostic images?

• PM-2A. What other policy or financial barriers do providers face in accessing diagnostic images from outside facilities? For example, are there concerns about compliance with health care facility policies or procedures ( e.g., security or overall policies on data sharing outside the facility), state laws, or malpractice liability?

• PM-2B. What technical/interoperability concerns exist, such as compatibility between systems, authorization issues from external sources, or issues with the provenance of diagnostic images?

PM-3. What technical, operational, and policy approaches can best support health care providers in transitioning from physical media ( e.g., CDs and DVDs) to secure, electronic exchange-based methods for sharing diagnostic images outside of their operating environment/health care organization system? If possible, please be detailed in your response.

PM-4. Do health care providers and/or patients (including patient-facing apps) need access to the full resolution diagnostic images stored in PACS or is a reference image ( e.g., a DICOM image rendered as a JPEG) sufficient for clinical decision-making and use by health care providers and patients? Does this vary by clinician specialty or by type(s) of care provided to the patient? Please feel free to elaborate with rationale.

PM-5. Do health care providers and/or patients need access to quantitative parameters  3 derived from images for clinical decision-making and use by providers and patients? Please feel free to elaborate with rationale.

The Certification Program  4 is a voluntary program under which health IT developers can obtain ONC certification for their health IT products that meet certain requirements. Requirements for certification are established by standards, implementation specifications, and certification criteria adopted through rulemaking by the Secretary of HHS. The Certification Program supports the availability of certified health IT for use by health care providers under other federal, state, and private programs.

Health IT developers often rely on custom interfaces and connections for individual customer ( e.g., health care provider) systems resulting in incompatibilities between different health IT developers' technology platforms. For example, survey findings suggest that although many U.S. children's hospitals have electronic image-sharing platforms, substantial challenges in radiologic image sharing persist, primarily due to ongoing reliance on CDs and the lack of interoperability between existing image-sharing platforms. 5

SC-1. What technical approaches are currently in use to enable access and/or exchange of diagnostic images between health care systems and health information networks? To what extent are these methods based on standards ( e.g., DICOM, DICOMweb TM , FHIR®, IHE® XDS-I, IHE® XCA-I) versus proprietary or custom integrations?

SC-2. What metadata and other information is currently associated with diagnostic images for purposes of access and exchange, including images exchanged using different standards and custom integrations? Please feel free to elaborate on the use of artificial intelligence tools in adding metadata to images and additional information to accompany an image.

SC-3. What technical barriers, such as proprietary interfaces or ambiguous standards, limit the access, exchange, and use of diagnostic images across health IT systems (including by patient-facing apps), and should existing technical standards be further modified (please identify the standard)?

SC-4. How do certified health IT and/or EHRs enable or facilitate access, exchange, and use of diagnostic images today? Specifically, do EHRs play an active role in diagnostic image exchange, or is the functionality primarily driven by imaging systems such as PACS and VNAs?

SC-5. Should ASTP/ONC update the Certification Program to support the access, exchange, and use of diagnostic images? For example, an image access requirement could be added to the existing VDT certification criterion or additional imaging data elements could be included in the United States Core Data for Interoperability (USCDI). 6

SC-6. Should there be a focus on particular, individual diagnosis and treatment use cases ( e.g., ocular imaging)? Are there specific requirements that need to be considered for use cases in other fields?

SC-7. Could image management systems, such as PACS and VNAs, be certified to specific certification criteria that would improve interoperability between these systems and EHRs and make access to diagnostic images available to “outside” providers and patients (including patient-facing apps)? What standards and capabilities should these certification criteria include?

SC-8. Beyond or absent the certification of health IT to specific technical standards, what diagnostic image-related standards should ASTP/ONC adopt on behalf of HHS to improve interoperability and health IT alignment?  7

SC-9. Are there unique privacy and security concerns related to the access, exchange, and use of diagnostic images that may not exist with other types of health information?

SC-10. Would further development and adoption of the SMART® Imaging Access draft specification  8 help address the access, exchange, and use of diagnostic images, as well as any specific privacy and security concerns related to such access, exchange, and use?

In accordance with the implementing regulations of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), specifically 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(4), and OMB guidance, we believe this general solicitation is exempt from the PRA. Facts or opinions submitted in response to general solicitations of comments from the public, published in the Federal Register or other publications, regardless of the form or format thereof, provided that no person is required to supply specific information pertaining to the commenter, other than that necessary for self-identification, as a condition of the agency's full consideration, are not generally considered information collections and therefore not subject to the PRA.