The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments using a method listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2026-4665; Project Identifier MCAI-2026-00553-E” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, 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 final rule 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 final rule.

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 AD 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 AD, 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 AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Barbara Caufield, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Transport Canada AD CF-2026-23, dated May 29, 2026 (Transport Canada AD CF-2026-23) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition on P&WC Model PW210A, PW210A1, and PW210S engines. The MCAI states that operators reported circumferential cracks at the turbine exhaust frame external surface. A manufacturer investigation revealed that the cracks originated from a turbine exhaust frame wall found below the minimum required thickness, with subsequent crack initiation and growth caused by thermal stress from engine starts. To address this unsafe condition, the manufacturer published service material that specifies procedures for repetitive visual inspections of the turbine exhaust frame. This condition, if not addressed, could result in turbine exhaust frame failure, which could lead to loss of axial containment, release of parts, and damage to the helicopter.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2026-4665.

The FAA reviewed Transport Canada AD CF-2026-23, which specifies procedures for repetitive visual inspections of the turbine exhaust frame for cracks and replacement of the turbine exhaust frame. 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 (CAA) 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 AD after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in Transport Canada AD CF-2026-23, described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.

The FAA considers this AD to be an interim action. If final action is later identified, the FAA might consider further rulemaking.

In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some 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, Transport Canada AD CF-2026-23 is incorporated by reference in this AD. This AD requires compliance with Transport Canada AD CF-2026-23 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. Material required by Transport Canada AD CF-2026-23 for compliance will be available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2026-4665 after this AD is published.

Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency, for “good cause,” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a final rule without providing notice and seeking comment prior to issuance. Further, section 553(d) of the APA authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days, upon a finding of good cause.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies forgoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because multiple circumferential cracks at the turbine exhaust frame external surface have been reported, and investigation revealed that the cracking was associated with thermal stress linked to engine starts. Crack propagation of the turbine exhaust frame could result in turbine exhaust frame failure, which could lead to loss of axial containment, release of parts, and damage to the helicopter. At this time, the growth rate of the turbine exhaust frame cracking has not been determined. For these reasons, on certain helicopters, the initial actions required by this AD must be accomplished within 5 hours time-in-service or 20 engine starts after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first. The compliance time in this AD is shorter than the time necessary for the public to comment and for publication of the final rule. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days, for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forgo notice and comment.

The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without prior notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 48 engines of U.S. registry.

The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Helicopters Model H160-B helicopters. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on November 20, 2025 (90 FR 52264). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2024-0063, dated March 7, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0063) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. The MCAI states that during a maintenance operation, several self-locking nuts of the window jettisoning system could be loosened by hand. The MCAI further states that the function of these nuts is to hold the threaded axis and the associated cable tightly together, as part of the passenger window jettisoning system. The MCAI also states that certain cable kits which are part of the window jettisoning system may not be in conformance with applicable specifications.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require modifying each affected window into a serviceable window. The NPRM also proposed to prohibit installing an affected window or an affected door on any helicopter. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of the jettisoning function of the window which, if not addressed, could result in the inability to evacuate helicopter occupants during an emergency situation.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-5026.

The FAA received comments from the Citizens Rulemaking Alliance. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA either provide its justification for finding good cause to bypass notice and comment procedures, convert this action to an NPRM, or at a minimum reopen the comment period to allow comments. The commenter asserted the FAA has not adequately justified use of the good cause exemption to bypass notice and comment and the 30-day delayed effective date.

The FAA notes the comment was submitted in response to an NPRM for which the FAA provided a 45-day comment period. This final rule is effective 35 days after its publication in the Federal Register . Therefore, no change to this AD is necessary.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested the FAA to either supplement the docket with a factual basis that complies with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) or withdraw the certification and conduct an initial regulatory flexibility analysis. The commenter stated that the analysis should consider the costs related to parts, labor, aircraft downtime, and the impact on small entities, and should involve reopening the comment period. Furthermore, the commenter asked the FAA to explore less burdensome options for small operators, such as implementing phased inspection intervals, extending compliance periods, granting credit for previous actions, and providing alternative methods of compliance (AMOC) templates.

The FAA has considered the AD's impact on small entities and provides the following factual basis for its RFA certification.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, Public Law 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164 (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857, Mar. 29, 1996) and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-240, 124 Stat. 2504, Sept. 27, 2010), requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses and 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.

The FAA identified two domestic entities, one pharmaceutical preparation manufacturer and one nonscheduled air transportation operator, that will be affected by this AD. Based on the Small Business Administration (SBA) size standard (displayed in the following table), both entities are large businesses.

If an agency determines that a rulemaking action will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the head of the agency may certify under section 605(b) of the RFA. Therefore, as provided in section 605(b) and based on the RFA, the head of the FAA certifies that this AD will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, the FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA clarify whether the AD contains any reporting requirements and revise the AD to comply with the PRA if reporting is required or suspend any reporting provisions until PRA requirements are satisfied.

The FAA notes that paragraph (i) of this AD specifies that this AD does not require reporting. If an AD were to require reporting, the preamble of the AD would include a paragraph titled “Paperwork Reduction Act” that would provide the applicable OMB control number, required PRA statements, and the estimated time to collect the required information (burden). Any costs associated with the reporting requirement would be included in the Costs of Compliance section in the preamble of the AD. Therefore, the FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance stated that the FAA's current practices for IBR frequently fail to meet the legal and regulatory standards for reasonable availability. The commenter called on the FAA to guarantee that all IBR materials are easily and freely accessible to the public during the comment period and to reopen the comment period for at least 30 days after access is provided. Alternatively, the commenter requested that the FAA provide a detailed appendix summarizing all substantive requirements provided in the IBR material.

The FAA clarifies that this AD only incorporates by reference EASA AD 2024-0063, not the manufacturer service information referenced in that EASA AD. The FAA posted EASA AD 2024-0063 to the AD docket when the NPRM was published in the Federal Register making it available during the comment period. The material referenced in EASA AD 2024-0063 may only be posted before the final rule's publication if it is already publicly available or if there is written consent from the owner of that material. Additionally, the FAA provided notice in the NPRM that the material referenced in EASA AD 2024-0063 will be available in the AD docket after this AD is published. Therefore, the FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA add to the AD docket a fuller analysis of the estimated costs of the proposed AD and reopen the comment period for public input on the additional cost information, especially from small operators.

The FAA recognizes that, in doing the actions required by an AD, operators might incur indirect or incidental costs in addition to the direct costs. The cost analysis in an AD typically describes only the direct costs of the specific actions required by an AD, which does not include indirect or incidental costs such as downtime, loss of revenue, planning, or time necessitated by other administrative actions since those costs might vary significantly among operators. The number of work hours necessary to do the required actions of an AD is provided by the manufacturer. This number represents the time necessary to perform only the actions actually required by an AD. The cost of parts or special tools, if necessary, to complete the actions required by an AD is also provided by the manufacturer. Further, when the FAA is informed that the manufacturer may cover some or all of the estimated costs of an AD under warranty, the FAA indicates that in the AD.

In the Costs of Compliance section of the proposed AD, the FAA disclosed the estimated number of work hours, the number of helicopters affected on the U.S. registry (which has been updated in this final rule), estimated parts cost, and the aggregate costs for the U.S. fleet. Since the FAA has assessed and disclosed the total known costs of the AD requirements in the Costs of Compliance section of the proposed AD, and the commenter did not provide additional cost data for the FAA to consider in its cost analysis, it is not necessary to reopen the comment period or provide additional information in the AD docket.

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 reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, a correction to the revision level of Vision Systems Vendor Service Bulletin No. 02-050-015 from Revision 10 to Revision 0 and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2024-0063, which specifies procedures for replacing each affected passenger window with a serviceable window or modifying an affected window into a serviceable window, which consists of removing and installing a certain part-numbered cable kit. EASA AD 2024-0063 also prohibits installing an affected window or an affected door on any helicopter. 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.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 10 helicopters of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD.

The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.

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.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 that this AD:

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

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

(3) Will 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 amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Airbus Helicopters Model AS-350B, AS 350BA, AS 350B1, AS 350B2, AS 350B3, and AS-350D helicopters. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on November 18, 2025 (90 FR 51620). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2025-0036, dated February 12, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0036) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. The MCAI states that a non-conformity issue concerning the gap between the filler and the side plates on the cargo hook of a helicopter was reported. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in loosening of the cargo hook, loss of the load, and consequent injury to people on the ground.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require procedures for inspecting certain cargo hooks to measure the gap between the filler and the front and rear side plate assemblies and, depending on the results, replacing the cargo hook with a cargo hook that is not affected. In the NPRM, the FAA also proposed to prohibit installing an affected cargo hook on any helicopter. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-3999.

The FAA received comments from the Citizens Rulemaking Alliance. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

The commenter asserted that the FAA bypassed notice and comment and requested that the FAA convert this action to an NPRM or provide at a minimum a 60-day delayed effective date to allow the FAA to evaluate comments. The commenter asserted the FAA has not adequately justified use of the good cause exception to bypass notice and comment and the 30-day delayed effective date.

The FAA notes the comment was submitted in response to an NPRM for which the FAA provided a 45-day comment period. This final rule is effective 35 days after its publication in the Federal Register . Therefore, no change to this AD is necessary.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance stated that the FAA's current practices for IBR frequently fail to meet the legal and regulatory standards for reasonable availability. The commenter called on the FAA to guarantee that all IBR materials are freely and electronically accessible to the public and to condition future IBR approval in rotorcraft ADs on original equipment manufacturer commitment to free public access during the life of the AD.

The FAA clarifies that this AD only incorporates by reference EASA AD 2025-0036, not the manufacturer service information referenced in that EASA AD. The FAA posted EASA AD 2025-0036 to the AD docket when the NPRM was published in the Federal Register . The material referenced in EASA AD 2025-0036 may only be posted before the final rule's publication if it is already publicly available or if there is written consent from the owner of that material. Additionally, the FAA provided notice in the NPRM that the material referenced in EASA AD 2025-0036 will be available in the AD docket after this AD is published. Therefore, the FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA add to the AD docket an explicit statement supporting its conclusion that the AD is not significant under Executive Order 12866 and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). The commenter stated that the FAA should also provide the parts cost and any assumed downtime or out-of-service impacts. The commenter also requested that the FAA invite small-entity feedback on practical compliance alternatives.

In the Costs of Compliance section of the proposed AD, the FAA disclosed the number of affected helicopters on the U.S. registry, the estimated work hours, and the estimated cost of parts. The labor and parts estimates were provided by the manufacturer. Additionally, the FAA considered the impact that this AD will have on affected operators and determined this AD will not trigger any downtime costs because the requirements of this AD can be performed during regularly scheduled maintenance. Since the FAA assessed and disclosed the total known costs of the AD requirements in the Costs of Compliance section of the proposed AD, and the commenter did not provide additional cost data for the FAA to consider in its cost analysis, it is not necessary to provide additional information in the AD docket.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, Public Law 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164 (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857, Mar. 29, 1996) and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-240, 124 Stat. 2504, Sept. 27, 2010), requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses and 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.

The FAA used the definition of small entities in the RFA for this analysis. The RFA defines small entities as small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, or small organizations. In 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the RFA defines “small business” to have the same meaning as “small business concern” under section 3 of the Small Business Act. The Small Business Act authorizes the Small Business Administration (SBA) to define “small business” by issuing regulations.

The SBA (2023) has established size standards for various types of economic activities, or industries, under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). These size standards generally define small businesses based on the number of employees or annual receipts. The following table provides the SBA size standards for all industries with at least one entity impacted by this AD. Note that the SBA definition of a small business applies to the parent company and all affiliates as a single entity.

To identify small entities, the FAA first identified the primary NAICS of the entity or parent company, and then used data from different sources ( e.g., company annual reports, Bureau of Transportation Statistics) to determine whether the entity meets the applicable size standard. The table below provides the estimated number of small entities affected by this AD:

The FAA estimates operators will incur either a one-time inspection cost of $85 or an inspection and one-time replacement cost of $62,561 per helicopter. The FAA has no way to determine if each helicopter will require this replacement cost. The FAA analyzes the cost of each compliance method with the annual revenue of each small entity. The following table shows the estimated compliance costs by each NAICS industry.

FAA evaluated the alternative of not promulgating this AD but determined that taking no regulatory action would allow a significant safety hazard to persist. A non-conformity exists regarding the gap between the filler and the side plates on the helicopter's cargo hook. This unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in the loosening of the cargo hook, loss of the external load, and consequent injury to people on the ground.

Based on the analysis, this AD is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or UMRA. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

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 reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2025-0036, which specifies procedures for inspecting certain cargo hooks to measure the gap between the filler and the front and rear side plate assemblies and, depending on the results, replacing the cargo hook with a cargo hook that is not affected. Additionally, EASA AD 2025-0036 prohibits installing an affected cargo hook on any helicopter. 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.

The MCAI applies to Airbus Helicopters Model AS 350BB helicopters, whereas this AD does not because that model does not have an FAA type certificate.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 898 helicopters of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD.

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any replacements required based on the results of the inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of helicopters that might need this replacement.

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.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 that this AD:

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

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

(3) Will 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 amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus SAS Model A321-251NX, -252NX, -253NX, -271NX, and -272NX airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on April 15, 2026 (91 FR 20081). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2025-0067, dated March 28, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0067) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. The MCAI states that, during a review of the cold working process on the assembly line, a deviation to the manufacturing process was detected, which could adversely affect the fatigue life of the affected area ( i.e., center fuselage frame (FR) foot joint connections at FR37 to FR41 inclusive, between stringers (STR) STR21 to STR23, on both left-hand and right-hand sides). This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to crack initiation and propagation, possibly resulting in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require repetitive inspections for the nominal design condition of the fastener holes in certain center fuselage frame foot joint connections and, as applicable, an inspection for cracking at the frame foot joint connections and corrective actions, as specified in EASA AD 2025-0067. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2026-3485.

The FAA received a comment from an anonymous commenter who supported the NPRM without change.

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 reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

EASA AD 2025-0067 specifies procedures for repetitive inspections for any discrepancy of the fastener holes, which consists of doing a check to determine if the fastener holes in the affected area are not in nominal design condition. Nominal design condition is that fasteners installed have a nominal diameter as specified in the material referenced in EASA AD 2025-0067. EASA AD 2025-0067 also specifies procedures for a rototest inspection of the fastener holes for any discrepancy ( i.e., cracking) at each affected area and corrective actions, as applicable. Corrective actions include contacting Airbus for approved repair instructions and accomplishing those instructions. EASA AD 2025-0067 also specifies procedures for repairing fastener holes, which would terminate the repetitive inspections.

EASA AD 2025-0067 also specifies accomplishment of a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection around the fastener holes at an affected area is an acceptable method of compliance for the rototest inspection for that affected area.

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.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 22 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2019-09-03, Amendment 39-19637 (84 FR 22693, May 20, 2019) (AD 2019-09-03), and AD 2021-05-15, Amendment 39-21458 (86 FR 17290, April 2, 2021) (AD 2021-05-15). AD 2019-09-03 and AD 2021-05-15 applied to certain Airbus Helicopters Model AS332C, AS332C1, AS332L, and AS332L1 helicopters.

AD 2019-09-03 required a one-time inspection of the jettisoning mechanism of the cabin lateral sliding plug doors. AD 2021-05-15 required repetitive inspections, modifying the release system of each cabin lateral sliding plug door, or modifying the design of the jettison system of each cabin lateral sliding plug door.

The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on March 23, 2026 (91 FR 13794). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2021-0139R1, May 10, 2023 (EASA AD 2021-0139R1) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. The MCAI states the manufacturer received additional reports regarding the difficulty of installing the MOD 0725366 on certain helicopters, and the manufacturer developed MOD 0729230 as a prerequisite to installing MOD 0725366 for certain helicopter configurations. In addition, the manufacturer determined that the compliance time to incorporate the modifications could be extended from within 1,100 flight hours or 27 months to within 1,325 flight hours or 40 months.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require modifying the release system of each cabin lateral sliding plug door or modifying the design of the jettison system of each cabin lateral sliding plug door as a terminating action for the repetitive inspections. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent the jettison handle cable from interfering with the cable clamps, which could lead to jamming of the door jettisoning mechanism, preventing the jettisoning of the affected door in an emergency situation with possible obstruction of occupant evacuation.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2026-2720.

The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the costs.

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 reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2021-0139R1, which specifies procedures for inspecting the jettisoning mechanism of the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) side of the cabin lateral sliding plug doors, and ensuring the cables are not contacting the cable clamps and accomplishing the applicable corrective actions. EASA AD 2021-0139R1 also specifies procedures for modifying the release system of each cabin lateral sliding plug door or modifying the design of the jettison system of each cabin lateral sliding plug door. EASA AD 2021-0139R1 specifies that the modification is a terminating action for the repetitive inspections and gives credit for the modification if it was accomplished using certain previously issued service material.

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.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 12 helicopters of U.S. registry.

The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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 has determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 that this AD:

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

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

(3) Will 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 amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Upon request, FDA (the Agency or we) has classified the medial knee implanted shock absorber into class II (special controls), which we have determined will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. In addition, we believe this action will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens by placing the device into a lower device class than the automatic class III assignment.

The automatic assignment of class III occurs by operation of law and without any action by FDA, regardless of the level of risk posed by the new device. Any device that was not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, is automatically classified into, and remains within, class III and requires premarket approval unless and until FDA takes an action to classify or reclassify the device (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)). We refer to these devices as “postamendments devices” because they were not in commercial distribution prior to the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).

FDA may take a variety of actions in appropriate circumstances to classify or reclassify a device into class I or II. We may issue an order finding a new device to be substantially equivalent under section 513(i) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c(i)) to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. We determine whether a new device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device by means of the procedures for premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807).

FDA may also classify a device through “De Novo” classification, a common name for the process authorized under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act (see also part 860, subpart D (21 CFR part 860, subpart D)). Section 207 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-115) established the first procedure for De Novo classification. Section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144) modified the De Novo classification process by adding a second procedure. A device sponsor may utilize either procedure for De Novo classification.

Under the first procedure, the person submits a premarket notification (510(k)) for a device that has not previously been classified. After receiving an order from FDA classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person then requests a classification under section 513(f)(2).

Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a 510(k) and then a request for classification, if the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence, that person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act.

Under either procedure for De Novo classification, FDA is required to classify the device by written order within 120 days. The classification will be according to the criteria under section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. Although the device was automatically placed within class III, the De Novo classification is considered to be the initial classification of the device.

We believe this De Novo classification will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens. When FDA classifies a device into class I or II via the De Novo process, the device can serve as a predicate for future devices of that type, including for 510(k)s (see section 513(f)(2)(B)(i) of the FD&C Act). As a result, other device sponsors do not have to submit a De Novo request or premarket approval application to market a substantially equivalent device (see section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, defining “substantial equivalence”). Instead, sponsors can use the less burdensome 510(k) process, when necessary, to market their device.

On June 6, 2022, FDA received Moximed, Inc.'s request for De Novo classification of the MISHA Knee System. FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act.

We classify devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls that, in combination with the general controls, provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use (see section 513(a)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act). After review of the information submitted in the request, we determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA has determined that these special controls, in addition to the general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.

Therefore, on April 10, 2023, FDA issued an order to the requester classifying the device into class II. In this final order, FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 888.3610. 1 We have named the generic type of device “medial knee implanted shock absorber,” and it is identified as a device implanted outside of the knee capsule extending from the distal femur to the proximal tibia. It is intended to reduce loads on the intra-articular medial joint surface to improve symptoms of osteoarthritis. The device employs a shock absorbing mechanical system and is biomechanically stabilized by plates and screws. The device is not intended to span the lateral knee.

FDA has identified the risks to health associated with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks in table 1.

FDA has determined that special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. For a device to fall within this classification, and thus avoid automatic classification in class III, it would have to comply with the special controls named in this final order. The necessary special controls appear in the regulation codified by this final order.

Under the FD&C Act, submission of a premarket notification under section 510(k) is required to reasonably assure the safety and effectiveness of class II devices unless FDA determines that the device type should be exempt under section 510(m) of the FD&C Act. At this time FDA has not made this determination for medial knee implanted shock absorbers. This device is therefore subject to premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act.

The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not normally have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations and guidance. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in part 860, subpart D, regarding De Novo classification have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0844; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts A through E, regarding premarket approval have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 regarding quality management system regulation have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801 regarding labeling have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 888 is amended as follows:

The Coast Guard received a request under 33 CFR 100.15 from the Manistee Area Chamber for a Marine Event Permit to host a duck race. The event will be held from noon through 1 p.m. on July 4, 2026, in Manistee, MI. The event will include approximately 2 vessels and 1 spectator craft. During the duck race, thousands of yellow rubber ducks will be dropped into the Manistee River from the Maple Street Bridge, floating to the finish line near Elks Lodge, Manistee, MI.

The Captain of the Port Sector Lake Michigan (COTP) is issuing this Special Local Regulation under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041. The COTP has determined that the duck race and associated vessels above may impede and otherwise cause hazards for boaters and members of the public in the duck race area. The purpose of this rulemaking is to protect event participants, non-participants, and transiting vessels before, during, and after the scheduled event.

Because of these potential hazards, the Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior notice and comment. As is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. We must establish this SLR by July 4, 2026, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment. Therefore, we have do not have enough time to solicit and respond to comments.

For the same reason, the Coast Guard finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

This rule establishes a temporary SLR from noon until 1 p.m. on July 4, 2026. The SLR will cover the Manistee River from the Maple Street Bridge to Elks Lodge. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP or their designated representative.

We developed this 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 analysis provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to rules that are not subject to notice and comment. Because the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived the notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's flexibility analysis provisions do not apply here.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this 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). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This 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 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 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 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 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 et seq. ), 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 rule is a special local regulation. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background and Authority

The Coast Guard received notification that a high-speed hydroplane vessel event, the Richland Regatta Hydroplane races, will be held outside of their approved regulatory date window of the “Second weekend in June” as per Table 1 of 33 CFR 100.1302. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Columbia River has determined that potential hazards associated with this high-speed hydroplane race event are a safety concern for anyone between River Miles 337 and 338 of the Columbia River. Therefore, the COTP is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034, which is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone.

Because of these potential hazards, the Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior notice and comment. As is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. A separate Final Rule, Docket Number USCG-2026-0274, grants the event sponsor to conduct their marine event during the dates outlined in this rule, but will not have gone into effect by June 27, 2026, when this safety zone must be established to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment. Therefore, we do not have enough time to solicit and respond to comments.

For the same reason, the Coast Guard finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

This rule establishes a safety zone from June 27, 2026 through June 28, 2026 from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. each day. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Columbia River in the vicinity of Howard Amon Park, between River Miles 337 and 338. Vessels and persons will not be allowed to enter the zone during this time, unless authorized by the COTP.

We developed this 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 analysis provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to rules that are not subject to notice and comment. Because the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived the notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's flexibility analysis provisions do not apply here.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this 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). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This 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 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 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 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 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 et seq. ), 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 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.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

The Coast Guard will enforce regulations in 33 CFR 165.508 for the zone locations identified in paragraph (a)(6) of that regulation from 6 a.m. on July 2, 2026, until 6 a.m. on July 5, 2026. This action is being taken to protect government officials, reduce the chance of potential terrorist acts and other incidents, and enhance public and maritime safety and security immediately before, during, and after this event.

Our regulation titled “Security Zone; Potomac River and Anacostia River, and Adjacent Waters; Washington, DC,” § 165.508(a)(6), specify the location for this security zone as an area that includes all navigable waters described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3), which includes areas designated as Zones 1, listed next.

• Zone 1. all navigable waters of the Potomac River, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the north by the Francis Scott Key (US-29) Bridge, at mile 113, and bounded to the south by a line drawn from the Virginia shoreline at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, at 38°51′21.3″ N, 077°02′00.0″ W, eastward across the Potomac River to the District of Columbia shoreline at Hains Point at position 38°51′24.3″ N, 077°01′19.8″ W, including the waters of the Boundary Channel, Pentagon Lagoon, Georgetown Channel Tidal Basin, and Roaches Run.

During the enforcement period, entry into or remaining in these zones is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region, as specified in § 165.508(b). Public vessels and vessels already at berth at the time the security zone is implemented do not have to depart the security zone. All vessels underway within the security zone should plan to have departed the regulated area by the time the enforcement period begins. Commercial vessels can seek permission to transit the zone by contacting the Patrol Commander on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Other Coast Guard vessels enforcing this security zone can be contacted on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation. If the Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene patrol personnel determines the security zone need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to suspend enforcement and grant general permission to enter the security zone.

In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners, and marine information broadcasts.

The Coast Guard was notified on June 5, 2026 that fireworks will be launched from multiple locations on the Potomac River, in Washington, DC, between the 14th Steet Bridge Complex and the Francis Scott Key bridge in Georgetown, and from Anacostia Park (between the Frederick Douglas Bridge and the 11th Street Bridge) on the Anacostia River. The Captain of the Port, Maryland—National Capital Region (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks are a safety concern for anyone within 100 yards of the fireworks display.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior notice and comment. As is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. There is not enough time before June 24 to publish an NPRM and finalize it to establish a safety zone which must be in place by June 24, 2026, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from the potential hazards of fireworks.

For the same reasons, the Coast Guard finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . The Coast Guard is establishing these safety zones under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034.

This rule establishes a 100-yard safety zone around any vessel employed in the loading, transiting, and set up of the Salute to America 250 fireworks display on July 4th, 2026. The barges will be loaded in Woodbridge Virginia and transit on the Potomac River to a location off Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling where they will be anchored while show set up occurs. The barges will then be towed north of the 14th Street Bridge Complex to their show locations. The vessels' hull numbers are U804, U798, U801, U802, 8028, 8029, 8018, SMC195-1 and any associated tugboats or pusher boats.

On the Anacostia River, a second show will occur establishing a safety zone for all waters of the Anacostia River between the Frederick Douglas Bridge and the 11th Street Bridge. Vessels and persons will not be allowed to enter the zone during this time, unless authorized by the COTP.

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

The regulatory flexibility analysis provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to rules that are not subject to notice and comment. Because the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived the notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's flexibility analysis provisions do not apply here.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this 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). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This 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 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 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 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 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 et seq. ), 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 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.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background and Authority

The Coast Guard received notification that there will be a boat parade on Presque Isle Bay, Erie, PA, on July 2, 2026. The Captain of the Port Sector Eastern Great Lakes (COTP) has determined that the potential for increased risk from vessel traffic transiting Presque Isle Bay to see the SSV NIAGARA, a historic tall ship sailing vessel that will be leading a parade of ships, combined with increased holiday port congestion requires a safety zone around the SSV Niagara. Therefore, the COTP is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034, which is needed to protect personnel and vessels in the navigable waters within the safety zone.

Because of these potential hazards, the Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior notice and comment. As is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The Coast Guard was notified of the need for a safety zone June 2, 2026, but we must establish this safety zone by July 2, 2026, to protect personnel and vessels. Therefore, we do not have enough time to solicit and respond to comments.

For the same reason, the Coast Guard finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

This rule establishes a safety zone on July 2, 2026, from 12 p.m. until 2 p.m. The safety zone will cover certain navigable waters within 100 yards of the SSV NIAGARA in Presque Isle Bay, Erie, PA. Vessels and persons will not be allowed to enter the zone during this time, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port. If the SSV NIAGARA is operating in a confined area such as a small harbor and there is not adequate room for vessels to stay out of the safety zone because of a lack of navigable water, then vessels will be permitted to operate within the safety zone and must travel at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course. Vessels operating in these confined areas may not operate within 25 yards of the SSV NIAGARA, unless they receive authorization from the COTP or a designated representative. The navigation rules apply at all times within the safety zone.

We developed this 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 analysis provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to rules that are not subject to notice and comment. Because the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived the notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's flexibility analysis provisions do not apply here.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this 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). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This 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 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 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 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 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 et seq. ), 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 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.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

The Coast Guard received notification that fireworks will be launched from a barge on the Lower Mississippi River near Vidalia, LA. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Sector Lower Mississippi River has determined that potential hazards associated with fireworks are a safety concern for anyone within a half mile of the fireworks display. Therefore, the COTP is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034, which is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone.

Because of these potential hazards, the Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior notice and comment. As is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The Coast Guard was notified of this event on May 10, 2026, but we must establish this safety zone by July 4, 2026, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment. Therefore, we do not have enough time to solicit and respond to comments. For the same reason, the Coast Guard finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

This rule establishes a safety zone on July 4, 2026, from 8 p.m. through 11 p.m. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters, from surface to bottom, in the Lower Mississippi River between mile markers 363.5 and 364.5. Vessels and persons will not be allowed to enter the zone during this time, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port.

We developed this 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 analysis provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to rules that are not subject to notice and comment. Because the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived the notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's flexibility analysis provisions do not apply here.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this 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). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This 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 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 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 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 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 et seq. ), 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 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.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone listed in item (5) of Table 2 to 33 CFR 165.941 for the Toledo Country Club 4th of July Fireworks event, from 8:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 5, 2026. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on certain navigable waters of the Maumee River. Our regulation for recurring marine events within the COTP Detroit zone in § 165.941, in item (5) to Table 2, specifies the location of the regulated area. During the enforcement period, if you are the operator of a vessel in the regulated area, you must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background and Authority

The Coast Guard received notification that fireworks will be launched from the Endom Bridge near West Monroe, LA. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Sector Lower Mississippi River has determined that potential hazards associated with fireworks are a safety concern for anyone on the Ouachita River within a half mile of the fireworks display. Therefore, the COTP is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034, which is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone.

Because of these potential hazards, the Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior notice and comment. As is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The Coast Guard was notified of this event on May 15, 2026, but we must establish this safety zone by July 4, 2026, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment. Therefore, we do not have enough time to solicit and respond to comments.

This rule establishes a safety zone on July 4, 2026, from 8 p.m. through 11 p.m. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters, from surface to bottom, in the Ouachita River between mile markers 166.5 and 167.5. Vessels and persons will not be allowed to enter the zone during this time, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port.

We developed this 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 analysis provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to rules that are not subject to notice and comment. Because the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived the notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's flexibility analysis provisions do not apply here.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this 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). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This 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 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 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 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 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 et seq. ), 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 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.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean 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. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

The EPA is redesignating the Cleveland area to attainment of the 2015 ozone standard, in accordance with Ohio EPA's December 8, 2025, submission. The Cleveland area includes Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain, Medina, Portage, and Summit Counties. The background of this action was discussed in detail in the EPA's proposal dated April 10, 2026 (91 FR 18355). In that proposal, we noted that, under the CAA, the EPA may redesignate nonattainment areas to attainment if complete, quality-assured data show that the area has attained the standard and the area meets the other CAA redesignation requirements in section 107(d)(3)(E). The proposed rule provides a detailed discussion of how Ohio has met these CAA requirements and the EPA's rationale for approving the redesignation request.

As discussed in the proposed rule, quality-assured and certified monitoring data for 2023-2025 show that the area has attained the 2015 ozone standard, and the EPA has determined that attainment is due to permanent and enforceable measures. The EPA is approving, as a revision to the Ohio SIP, the State's maintenance plan for the area. The maintenance plan is designed to keep the Cleveland area in attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS through 2038. Additionally, the EPA is finding adequate and approving Ohio's newly adopted 2032 and 2038 motor vehicle emissions budgets for NO X and VOC in the area that are supported by Ohio's maintenance demonstration.

The EPA is also adjusting the deadline for Ohio to submit Serious SIP revisions for the Cleveland area to no later than December 5, 2026. Finally, as discussed in the proposed rule, the EPA is approving several elements which meet section 110 and part D of the CAA and the EPA's regulations for an area which is classified as Serious nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. These elements include Enhanced I/M certification and CFVP certification SIP revisions submitted by Ohio EPA on December 19, 2025, and supplemented on January 12, 2026. In separate actions, the EPA is approving Ohio's VOC and NO X reasonably available control technology (RACT) submissions as meeting the requirements for Moderate nonattainment areas. With these approvals of Ohio's SIP submissions, all SIP requirements applicable to redesignation are fully approved.

After publication of the proposed redesignation rule, the EPA finalized an additional rulemaking related to attainment of the 2015 ozone standard in the Cleveland nonattainment area. The EPA issued a determination that the area is attaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS based on air quality monitoring data from 2023 through 2025, i.e., a clean data determination (CDD), on May 14, 2026 (91 FR 27211). In issuing the CDD, the EPA took notice and comment on its concurrence with a December 8, 2025, exceptional event demonstration submitted by Ohio EPA. The demonstration requested exclusion of wildfire event-influenced data from the 2023-2025 design value period for the 2015 ozone NAAQS for the Cleveland nonattainment area.

The EPA finds that the Cleveland area is meeting the requirements for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. The EPA is changing the legal designation of the Cleveland area from nonattainment to attainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS in accordance with Ohio EPA's December 8, 2025, request. The EPA is approving the State's plan for maintaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS in the Cleveland area through 2038. As part of the maintenance plan, the EPA is finding adequate and approving the newly established 2032 and 2038 motor vehicle emissions budgets for the Cleveland area. The EPA is adjusting the deadline for Ohio to submit Serious SIP revisions for the Cleveland area to no later than December 5, 2026. Finally, pursuant to section 110 and part D of the CAA, the EPA is approving the Enhanced I/M certification and CFVP certification SIP revisions submitted by Ohio EPA on December 19, 2025, and supplemented on January 12, 2026.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), the EPA finds there is good cause for these actions to become effective immediately upon publication. This is because a delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the nature of a redesignation to attainment, which relieves the area from certain CAA requirements that would otherwise apply to it. The immediate effective date for this action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that rulemaking actions may become effective less than 30 days after publication if the rule “grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction,” and section 553(d)(3), which allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in section 553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. This rule, however, does not create any new regulatory requirements such that affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule takes effect. Rather, this rule relieves the State of planning requirements for this ozone nonattainment area. For these reasons, the EPA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for these actions to become effective on the date of publication of these actions.

The EPA provided a 30-day review and comment period for the April 10, 2026 (91 FR 18355) proposed rule. The comment period ended on May 11, 2026. The EPA received one supportive and two adverse comment submissions. Summaries of the adverse comments and the EPA's responses are provided below. All comments submitted during the public comment period are available in the docket of this action.

Comment: A commenter raises several issues and calls for supplementing the record for greater transparency. The commenter requests further explanation of the exceptional event days related to attainment and a discussion of how the affected days approved or not would impact the design value calculation.

Response: These comments appear to be based on a misunderstanding of this action. This action is finalizing the proposed approval of Ohio EPA's December 8, 2025, request to redesignate the Cleveland area based on attaining monitoring data for 2023-2025, and the EPA's determination that the area meets all other requirements for redesignation at CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). In a separate final action, a CDD, the EPA determined that the Cleveland area is attaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS, in accordance with 40 CFR 50.19 and appendix U of part 50, based on three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air quality data for all monitoring sites in the area. See 91 FR 27211, May 14, 2026. Per the CDD, the EPA took final agency action on Ohio EPA's exceptional events request submitted on December 8, 2025, and the EPA's concurrence issued on January 12, 2026. The EPA's technical support document and Ohio EPA's exceptional events demonstration data and analysis are included in the docket of that action. Comments regarding the explanation of exceptional event days and impact on the design value calculation fall outside of the scope of this action. These concerns would have been more appropriately raised in the context of the Cleveland CDD notice.

Comment: The commenter requests information on why the EPA believes the design value threshold is sufficient to support approval of the redesignation and maintenance plan approval through 2038.

Response: Regarding the sufficiency of the design value threshold, the design values are consistent with the individual NAAQS as described in 40 CFR part 50 and are used to assess progress towards meeting the NAAQS. To attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS, the ozone design value for the area must not exceed 0.070 parts per million (ppm) at each monitor, calculated as the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations when truncated after the thousandth decimal place, at all of the ozone monitoring sites in the area. See 40 CFR 50.19 and appendix U to 40 CFR part 50. Under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i), for redesignation of a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires the EPA to determine that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS. The statute does not require the EPA to assess by what margin the area is attaining. The Cleveland area's 3-year ozone design value for 2023-2025 is 0.070 ppm, which meets the 2015 ozone NAAQS, and is therefore supportive of a redesignation. The margin by which the area (or monitor) attains the NAAQS is not relevant to the question of whether or not the area is attaining the NAAQS and furthermore, its eligibility for redesignation.

As stated in the proposed rule, CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) provides that the Administrator must fully approve a “maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of sections 175A.” CAA section 175A sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment, including a demonstration of continued attainment of the NAAQS for at least 10 years after the Administrator approves a redesignation to attainment. Ohio has demonstrated maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS for the Cleveland area through 2038 by projecting that current and future emissions of VOC and NO X , the pollutant precursors that contribute to ozone formation, remain at or below attainment year emission levels. The requirement for a maintenance plan includes the requirement for contingency provisions to be triggered should an area violate the NAAQS after redesignation, which illustrates that the CAA anticipates some possibility that areas may in the future violate the NAAQS despite meetings all requirements under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). In this final rule, the EPA finds the design values sufficient to support redesignation and approves Ohio's plan for maintaining the NAAQS through 2038, as described in the proposed rule.

Comment: The commenter requests information on contingencies available in case future monitoring changes prior to final action.

Response: With respect to the contingencies available in case of future monitoring changes, as stated in the proposed rule, the EPA will not take final action to redesignate the Cleveland area to attainment if the design value of a monitoring site in the area violates the NAAQS prior to final approval of the redesignation. Further, any modification to a State's ambient air quality monitoring network is subject to review and approval by the Regional Administrator. See 40 CFR 58.14 and appendix D to 40 CFR part 58. Also, as demonstrated by the contingency provisions required by section 175A(d), the CAA clearly anticipates and provides for situations where an area might monitor a violation of the NAAQS after having been redesignated to attainment, and leaves it to the Administrator to determine whether redesignation to nonattainment and a new nonattainment plan SIP submission is necessary in such cases. Ohio's maintenance plan also accounts for this possibility by including a violation of the NAAQS as an action level trigger requiring the implementation of control measures to reduce ozone precursor emissions and bring the area back into attainment.

Comment: The commenter requests further clarification of the EPA's rationale behind extending the deadline for Ohio's Serious SIP revisions.

Response: As stated in the proposed rule and further explained in our responses below, the EPA outlined in detail the reasoning for an adjustment of the Serious SIP submission deadline. The EPA's interpretation of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) has informed State and Federal implementation of redesignations for more than three decades. Under this interpretation, the State assembled and invested considerable resources finalizing their redesignation to attainment request for the Cleveland area, including considerable technical analyses and providing a public inspection period. Given that the State submitted its request on Monday, December 8, 2025, only three days after the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision, Ohio's redesignation request did not address the Serious SIP requirements.

Under its statutory and regulatory authority stated in the proposed rule, the EPA is making a one-time adjustment of the Serious SIP submission deadline for the Cleveland area from January 1, 2026, to December 5, 2026, allowing the EPA to review the redesignation request consistent with Ohio's expectations at the time it submitted its request.

Comment: A commenter requests the EPA make the basis of the 2032 and 2038 motor vehicle emissions budgets easier to evaluate.

Response: As stated in the proposed rule, under the CAA, States are required to submit control strategy SIPs, which include motor vehicle emissions budgets for criteria pollutants, including ozone and their precursor pollutants (VOC and NO X ), to address pollution from onroad transportation sources. Per 40 CFR 93.118(b)(2), a maintenance plan establishes a budget for the last year of the maintenance plan at a minimum and could also establish budgets for other years. In this case, the area's 2015 ozone NAAQS maintenance plan establishes NO X and VOC budgets for the last year it covers, 2038, and for an earlier year, 2032. The term, “motor vehicle emissions budget” is defined at 40 CFR 93.101. Ohio EPA developed their VOC and NO X budgets for the area through an interagency consultation process that included Federal, State, and local agencies, consistent with the control strategy provisions. The State submitted all analyses and assumptions of the 2032 and 2038 budgets for the EPA's review. See “Main Document—Cleveland Ozone Redes Request” and “Appendix C—Cleveland Ozone Redes Request.” In the proposed rule, the EPA listed the adequacy criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and stated that the budgets met them. The EPA included all appropriate analyses and documentation in the docket of this action to ease further review.

Comment: Some commenters assert that the EPA's proposed extension contravenes the recent Sixth Circuit decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 161 F.4th 934 (6th Cir. 2025) (“ Sierra Club” ). The commenters claim that the EPA cannot rely on the Sierra Club decision to justify its proposed adjustment of the Serious SIP deadline, and that a proposed extension would simply mean that Serious area nonattainment plan would not be overdue yet. The commenters note that the current deadline for Serious area SIP submissions is January 1, 2026, established via rule on January 17, 2025, meaning Serious area SIP requirements have been “applicable” to the Cleveland area since then. See 90 FR 5651, January 17, 2025. Therefore, the commenters contend that Serious area SIP requirements apply to the Cleveland area and the EPA is barred from approving a redesignation request.

Response: The SIP and planning requirements added to the CAA by the 1990 amendments became final on November 15, 1990. On September 4, 1992, less than two months before some of those requirements were set to take effect, the Director of the EPA's Air Management Division John Calcagni issued a memo outlining the EPA's procedures and standards of review for redesignating areas to attainment in the midst of these new statutory requirements. 1 For more than 30 years, the EPA and States have relied on the “Calcagni Memorandum” as a guidepost for the timelines and cooperative exchanges outlined by the CAA for redesignation requests. One important component of the memo was its interpretation of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v), that a State will have satisfied that criterion if it has met all the applicable requirements in section 110 and Part D that were due as of the time of the State's redesignation request. On Friday, December 5, 2025, the Sixth Circuit rejected that longstanding interpretation of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). On Monday, December 8, 2025, Ohio submitted its redesignation request. Less than one month later, the Serious SIP submittal deadlines passed.

The EPA does not dispute the commenters' assertion that the EPA's January 17, 2025, rule established a January 1, 2026, deadline for Serious SIP submissions. However, nothing in CAA section 182(i) states that the EPA is limited to extending deadlines under that provision only once for reclassified areas. Section 182(i) states that the EPA “may adjust any applicable deadlines” consistent with the provision. And the EPA's position, as outlined in its proposal, is that upon finalization of this action, the Serious area SIP deadlines would be extended. Once the EPA's extension is finalized, no party (the EPA or the public) would be able to enforce the original deadline that has now been extended—the State would now have until the extended deadline to meet those requirements. 2

As stated in the proposed rule, the assembly and preparation of a redesignation request requires many months, and sometimes years. All that time, Ohio's work towards its redesignation request relied on an interpretation that the EPA had consistently applied over three decades.

Comment: The commenters contend that the EPA cannot suggest that the 6th Circuit ruling in Sierra Club authorizes a proposed delay of the Cleveland 2015 ozone Serious area nonattainment deadline. The commenters cite the 6th Circuit's decision, which notes that “if the EPA grants a redesignation before the stricter reclassification) requirements come due, the problem (of the applicability of those requirements for purposes of redesignation) is avoided entirely,” and contends that in the context of the decision, this is not a free pass to extend deadlines for purposes of beating out the clock on a redesignation request. The commenters assert that while the court acknowledged that EPA has “some leeway” in setting nonattainment plan deadlines for reclassified areas (the RACT SIP deadlines, in that case), the court did not hold that the EPA can arbitrarily extend the nonattainment plan deadlines for the purpose of allowing a State to avoid those deadlines before redesignation. The commenters also contend that the EPA's extension of the Serious SIP submittal deadline is inconsistent with the EPA's authority under CAA section 182(i).

Response: The EPA does not agree with the commenters' interpretation of the 6th Circuit's decision. Instead, the EPA interprets the section of the decision as a potential implementation pathway that harmonizes some of the practical difficulties, which the EPA alluded to in its brief, of requiring States to meet requirements potentially coming due after submission of their request. See brief for Respondent at 54-56, Sierra Club, 161 F.4th 934 (6th Cir. 2025) (No. 23-3583). The court acknowledged that extension of deadlines was an area in which the EPA had some authority and “leeway” and that granting a request prior to a deadline would avoid the applicability issue “entirely.” The EPA's extension of the Serious SIP deadlines is consistent with the 6th Circuit's ruling. Sierra Club at 950-951.

Comment: The commenters argue that the EPA is exceeding its authority to adjust deadlines under CAA section 182(i). While commenters acknowledge that the EPA is permitted under CAA section 182(i) to “make such adjustment to the extent it is necessary or appropriate to assure consistency among the required Submissions under the applicable Moderate, Serious, and Severe nonattainment SIP requirements of CAA sections 182(b)-(d),” they claim that the EPA does not provide a “satisfactory” explanation of how the proposed adjustment is “necessary or appropriate to ensure consistency” among 182(c) Serious requirements that apply to Cleveland. Commenters further contend that the EPA's explanation, centered on Ohio's reliance interests in pre- Sierra Club understanding of what requirements it would need to meet in order to be redesignated is insufficient and outside the statutory criteria of CAA section 182(i). The commenters reject the EPA's analogy to Wildearth Guardians v. EPA, 830 F.3d 529, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2016)(“ Wildearth Guardians” ) as “inaccurate and misplaced.” The commenters assert that two key circumstances were present in that case that are not present in this one: the EPA was exercising its general rulemaking and “gap-filling” authority under CAA section 301(a), and without an adjustment in the deadline, States would have otherwise been subject to overdue mandatory deadlines.

Response: The EPA disagrees with these comments. CAA section 182(i) states that States containing reclassified ozone areas shall meet the requirements of section 182(b) through (d) according to the schedules prescribed in connection with such requirements, “except that the Administrator may adjust any applicable deadlines (other than attainment dates) to the extent such adjustment is necessary or appropriate to assure consistency among the required submissions.” Commenters contend that the Agency “correctly” exercised its authority under this provision in setting the original January 1, 2026, Serious area SIP deadline. In establishing that deadline, the EPA had noted that the deadline was “consistent with the overall schedule of the submission of substantive requirements” and “informed by the need to ensure that the reductions resulting from the Act's requirements are consistently due in time to influence an area's attainment by the attainment date, to the extent the applicable controls are necessary to achieve attainment by that date.” 90 FR 5651, 5653 (January 17, 2025).

But the grant of authority in CAA section 182(i) is drafted in a manner that clearly confers upon the agency flexibility and discretion in carrying it out, and in setting deadlines for different areas with different circumstances, it naturally follows that there is more than one way to exercise that authority. In Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court stated, “[i]n a case involving an agency, of course, the statute's meaning may well be that the agency is authorized to exercise a degree of discretion,” and cited statutes using “a term or phrase that `leaves agencies with flexibility,' . . . such as `appropriate' or `reasonable' ” as the classic examples of when the best reading of a statute is that it delegates discretionary authority to an agency. 603 U.S. 369, 394-95 (2024). CAA section 182(i) is just such a provision. Other than attainment dates, which the EPA may not change, the statute grants the Administrator authority to adjust “any” applicable deadline, with the limitations on that adjustment cabined by broad and expansive terms identified by the Supreme Court in Loper Bright. Congress did not specify precisely what it meant by “consistency” nor which required submissions it was referring to. The thrust of the provision, which covers establishment of deadlines for any nonattainment area reclassified from Moderate to Severe for any ozone NAAQS, is a broad grant of authority to the Administrator to accommodate adjustment of deadlines under these many varied circumstances.

The EPA previewed its view that its authority under CAA section 182(i) was sufficiently expansive to accommodate different situations; in the 2025 rule establishing the “default” Serious area SIP submissions deadline of January 1, 2026, the EPA explicitly stated that “the default SIP submission deadlines could be adjusted where such adjustment is appropriate or necessary, through future notice-and-comment rulemaking in specific EPA actions.” See 90 FR 5651, 5654 (January 17, 2025). One of the chief concerns informing the EPA's establishment of the January 1, 2026, deadline—namely, setting a deadline for nonattainment areas such that “reductions resulting from the Act's requirements are consistently due in time to influence an area's attainment by the attainment date, to the extent the applicable controls are necessary to achieve attainment by that date”   3 —is no longer applicable in the situation of the Cleveland-OH nonattainment area. This area has attained the NAAQS prior to its statutory and regulatory attainment date without the benefit of reductions associated with the Serious area requirements; while that does not render those requirements inapplicable, it does obviate the strict necessity of having those reductions in place to influence attainment by the attainment date, i.e., one of the primary stated reasons for the default January 1, 2026, deadline. With those facts in mind and with the consideration of Ohio's reliance and expectation that they could be redesignated absent the Serious area requirements, there are appropriate reasons to differentiate, even if the result is some inconsistency, between Cleveland and other areas subject to the January 1, 2026, deadline that have not yet attained the NAAQS.

The EPA acknowledges that the precise circumstances present in the fact pattern at issue in Wildearth Guardians differs from the circumstances here, in that the subpart 4 implementation deadlines and reclassification timeframes had passed as of the time of the D.C. Circuit's ruling directing the EPA to implement particular matter requirements under subpart 4 in NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013) and as of the time of the 6th Circuit's issuance of Sierra Club in December 2025, Ohio had not yet made its redesignation submission and the Serious area deadline had not yet passed. However, the EPA finds the commenters are overly focused on the technicality of the passed deadline; in reality, Ohio's redesignation request and maintenance SIP, which was submitted to the EPA on Monday December 8 following the 6th Circuit's issuance of Sierra Club on Friday, December 5, was clearly prepared under the previous framework that the request could be approved absent the Serious area requirements. While that Serious area deadline had not yet passed as of the Court's issuance of the Sierra Club decision, it would in a matter of weeks. And even if Ohio understood that the framework was currently subject to litigation and could be overturned, as commenters contend, that is no different than the States implementing particulate matter requirements under the incorrect subpart of the CAA. Those States also could have addressed precursors and requirements specific to subpart 4 in anticipation of the EPA receiving an adverse ruling, and elected instead to rely on the Agency's understanding of the statute. But it is entirely reasonable for a State or regulated party to rely upon the operating framework—particularly one that has been in place for decades—until there is clarity from a court that that framework is incorrect.

We therefore do not agree with commenters' contention that extending the Serious area SIP requirements deadline for the Cleveland area is outside the EPA's statutory authority or arbitrary and capricious.

Comment: The commenters claim that Ohio has not met all the applicable requirements to the Cleveland 2015 ozone Serious nonattainment area under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) as Ohio does not have a fully approved SIP under CAA section 110(k), therefore, barring the EPA from finalizing its proposed approval of Ohio's redesignation request. The commenters state the EPA failed to provide the “required reasonable rationale” to the claim that certain CAA section 110 elements are not applicable to the Cleveland nonattainment area for purposes of redesignation. The commenters request that the EPA assess whether Ohio has met its Good Neighbor obligations under 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS which they allege the EPA incorrectly claims as not applicable to the area. They allege since the EPA has not fully approved the applicable SIP under CAA section 110(k)(3) and Ohio has not met all the requirements under CAA section 110, the EPA is barred under CAA sections 107(d)(E)(3)(ii) and (v) from finalizing Ohio's redesignation request.

Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenters' remarks. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain measures to prevent sources in a State from significantly contributing to air quality problems in another State. While the EPA noted in the proposed rule that programs such as the NO X SIP Call, Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), and Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) were established to address transport of air pollutants, we also clearly stated that the section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a State are not linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification. Further, the EPA concludes that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. Therefore, because the section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements apply to a State regardless of the designation of any one particular area in the State, the EPA further concludes that these requirements should not be construed to be applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. The EPA is not taking any action, in this rulemaking, to determine whether the State of Ohio has satisfied the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

As previously stated, the EPA stands by its position that section 110 elements that are not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked with an area's attainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. A State remains subject to these requirements after an area is redesignated to attainment. We conclude that only the section 110 and part D requirements which are linked with a particular area's designation and classification are the relevant measures which we may consider in evaluating a redesignation request. This approach is consistent with the EPA's existing policy on applicability of certain requirements for redesignation purposes, as well as with section 184 ozone transport requirements. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174 through 53176, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See also the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio ozone redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ozone redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19, 2001), and in the St. Louis 1-hour ozone redesignation 68 FR 25418, 25426 through 27 (May 12, 2003). Both the 6th and 7th Circuits have agreed that the CAA provides the EPA with leeway to determine what is an “applicable requirement” for purposes of redesignation. Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding the EPA's interpretation of “applicable requirements.” Therefore, the EPA finds the redesignation request for the 2015 ozone NAAQS submitted by the State meets the applicable CAA section 110(k)(3) requirements and Ohio appropriately satisfies section 110 requirements applicable to the area. Therefore, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), the EPA is finalizing the proposed approval of Ohio's redesignation request.

Comment: The commenters contend that Ohio's redesignation request violates CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v)'s mandate, further stressed in the Sierra Club decision, as the area has not met all the applicable requirements under Part D for Cleveland before it can be redesignated. Specifically, the commenters assert that the area has not met the following requirements: CAA section 182(c)(2) attainment and Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) demonstrations; Serious area NO X and VOC RACT; CAA section 182(a)(1) emissions inventories; CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) emissions statement regulations; Serious area Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR); CAA section 172(c)(9) and section 182(c)(9) contingency measures.

Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenters' assertions. The EPA reviewed Ohio's 2015 ozone standard redesignation request for the Cleveland area and found that it met all the applicable requirements under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). With respect to CAA section 182(c)(2) requirements for areas classified as Serious, including the cited attainment and Reasonable Further Progress demonstrations, the EPA disagrees with the commenters' remarks.

On May 14, 2026 (91 FR 27211), the EPA determined that the Cleveland nonattainment area is meeting the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, these elements are not needed to redesignate the Ohio portion because the area has attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS. This rationale is outlined in 40 CFR 51.1318, the General Preamble, and the Calcagni Memorandum at 6 (“The requirements for reasonable further progress and other measures needed for attainment will not apply for redesignations because they only have meaning for areas not attaining the standard.”). The EPA concludes it is reasonable to interpret these provisions as not requiring areas that are meeting the ozone standard to make the SIP submissions to the EPA described in the provisions as long as the areas continue to meet the standard. The EPA notes that if such an area were to monitor a violation of the standard prior to being redesignated to attainment, however, the area would have to address the pertinent requirements and submit the SIP revisions described in those provisions to the EPA.

With respect to the Serious area NO X and VOC RACT requirement, the EPA is adjusting the Serious SIP submission deadline for the Cleveland area, providing Ohio with the necessary and appropriate time to address any submissions it determines necessary, including Serious RACT SIP requirements. The EPA's adjustment of the SIP submittal deadline to December 5, 2026, and the redesignation of the Cleveland area prior to that date, render the NO X RACT at the Serious major source threshold as not applicable for purposes of redesignation because they have not become due.

With respect to emissions inventories, by meeting the section 182(a)(1) emission inventory requirement, Ohio has also met the section 172(c)(3) requirement for a comprehensive, accurate, and current emissions inventory. The Calcagni Memorandum states that emissions inventory requirements of section 172(c) of the CAA are satisfied by the inventory requirements of the maintenance plan. ( See the Calcagni Memorandum at 6). As stated in the proposed rule, the EPA approved Ohio's base year emissions inventory for the Cleveland area on March 3, 2021 (86 FR 12270) and July 7, 2025 (90 FR 29742) as required by CAA section 182(a)(1), contrary to the commenters' remarks.

Further, with respect to the emission statement regulations, Ohio will continue to update its emissions inventory at least once every three years consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart A, and in 40 CFR 51.122, in accordance with section 182(a)(3). The EPA approved Ohio's emission statement SIP for the Cleveland area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS on July 11, 2017 (82 FR 31913).

With respect to Serious area Nonattainment NSR, since Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements will apply after redesignation, areas being redesignated need not comply with the requirement that a part D NSR program be approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the NAAQS without a part D NSR program. A more detailed rationale for this view is described in the October 14, 1994, policy memorandum from Mary D. Nichols entitled “Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment” (Nichols Memorandum). PSD, a program that is the corollary of part D NSR for attainment areas, goes into effect in lieu of part D NSR upon redesignation. PSD requires that new sources demonstrate that emissions from their construction and operation will not cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS or PSD increment. The EPA most recently approved revisions to Ohio's PSD program on February 25, 2010 (75 FR 8496). The State has demonstrated that the areas will be able to maintain the standard without Part D NSR in effect, and the State's PSD program will become effective in the area upon redesignation to attainment. See the rationale set forth at length in the Nichols Memorandum, as well as the discussions of why full approval and retention of NSR is not required in redesignation actions in the following redesignation rulemakings: 60 FR 12459, 12467 through 12468 (March 7, 1995) (Detroit, MI); 61 FR 20458, 20469 through 20470 (May 7, 1996) (Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH); 66 FR 53665, 53669 (October 23, 2001) (Louisville, KY); 61 FR 31831, 31836 through 31837 (June 21, 1996) (Grand Rapids, MI); 73 FR 29436, 29440 through 29441 (May 21, 2008) (Kewaunee County, WI); 77 FR 34819, 34826 through 34827 (June 12, 2012) (Illinois portion of St. Louis, MO-IL).

With respect to CAA section 172(c)(9) and section 182(c)(9) contingency measure requirements, in the context of redesignations, the EPA has interpreted requirements related to attainment as not applicable for purposes of redesignation. For example, in the “General Preamble for the Interpretation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” (General Preamble) 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16, 1992), the EPA stated that: “[t]he section 172(c)(9) requirements are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by the applicable date. These requirements no longer apply when an area has attained the standard and is eligible for redesignation. Furthermore, section 175A for maintenance plans . . . provides specific requirements for contingency measures that effectively supersede the requirements of section 172(c)(9) for these areas.” See also Calcagni Memorandum at 6 (“The requirements for reasonable further progress and other measures needed for attainment will not apply for redesignations because they only have meaning for areas not attaining the standard.”).

Further, CAA section 182(c)(9) refers to contingency measures applicable should an area fail to meet the applicable milestones needed for attainment. These nonattainment area requirements no longer apply after an area has attained the standard and are not applicable for purposes of redesignation. Under section 175A of the CAA, maintenance plans must contain contingency provisions, “as deemed necessary by the Administrator,” and it is these contingency provisions that apply to the area after redesignation to attainment. Ohio included such provisions in its maintenance plan which the EPA is approving in this action. Therefore, Ohio has satisfied the applicable requirements under CAA section 172(c)(9) and CAA section 182(c)(9). Based on the aforementioned, the State's redesignation request for the Cleveland area meets the requirements under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v).

Comment: The commenters contend that the EPA has not finalized its proposed CDD for the Cleveland area, rendering the suspended nonattainment SIP elements such as an attainment demonstration, RFP, RFP contingency measures, and a transportation control demonstration, applicable as required under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v).

Response: As previously mentioned, on May 14, 2026 (91 FR 27211), the EPA determined that the Cleveland nonattainment area is meeting the 2015 ozone NAAQS, effectively suspending the requirements to submit an attainment demonstration and associated Reasonable Available Control Measures (RACM), RFP plans, contingency measures, and other planning SIPs related to attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS, for as long as the area continues to attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS, as stated under the EPA's Clean Data regulation, 40 CFR 51.1318. See 83 FR 62998, December 6, 2018. This regulation, which embodies the EPA's interpretation under its “Clean Data Policy,” has been upheld by the D.C. Circuit. NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009). 4 Because the EPA determined that the Cleveland area is attaining the standard ( see 91 FR 27211, May 14, 2026) and because the area continues to meet that standard, the State is not currently obligated to submit an attainment demonstration, RACM, RFP plans, contingency measures for failure to attain or make reasonable progress, and other planning SIPs related to attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS, for as long as the area continues to attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

Comment: The commenters argue Ohio's SIP does not include the State's Enhanced Monitoring Plan (EMP) as required under CAA section 182(c)(1), and that the EPA does not indicate that the SIP otherwise contains the required enhanced monitoring of NO X and VOC for the Cleveland nonattainment area.

Response: The EPA's adjustment of the deadline for Serious SIP revisions includes the EMP requirements under 182(c)(2). Therefore, and for the reasons discussed elsewhere, the EPA finds that the Ohio submittal met all the CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) requirements under part D applicable for redesignation. The EPA is within its authority under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) to approve Ohio's redesignation request for the Cleveland nonattainment area. The EPA will take action on the State's submitted EMP requirements in a future rulemaking.

Comment: The commenters argue that the EPA cannot finalize the approval of the redesignation request, the maintenance plan, or nonattainment SIP, since the redesignation requirement under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), maintenance demonstrations required under CAA section 175A, and the transportation conformity and motor vehicle emissions budgets (budgets) required under CAA section 176(c) of Ohio's request rely on greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for mobile sources rules repealed by the EPA. The commenters contend the EPA cannot approve the projected emissions inventories and transportation conformity budgets in Ohio's maintenance plan, as they rely on now-repealed Federal rules that are no longer permanent and enforceable. Therefore, Ohio cannot rely on those rules to decrease emissions and, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) and (v), the EPA is prohibited from finalizing approval of either the maintenance plan and nonattainment SIP.

Response: Ohio prepared its maintenance demonstration, the onroad mobile source emissions projections, and the associated budgets using the EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator, version 5 (MOVES5), which was the EPA's latest approved motor vehicle emissions model available for SIP and transportation conformity purposes at the time the State developed its submittal. The EPA policy and longstanding practice direct states to use the most current approved version of MOVES available at the time emissions analyses are performed for SIP development.

On February 12, 2026, the EPA finalized the rescission of the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Endangerment Finding and repealed all associated GHG vehicle emissions standards (Endangerment Finding Rescission Rule). 5 As noted above, the Cleveland maintenance demonstration was prepared using MOVES5, which includes the effects of Federal vehicle standards that were repealed by this rule. A maintenance demonstration relies on the overall projected emissions inventory and modeled future-year emissions reductions, and the EPA notes the commenters did not provide additional documentation that the resulting emissions inventories and projections fail to satisfy the applicable maintenance planning requirements of CAA section 175A. The EPA conducted an additional analysis to consider the potential effects of the repealed vehicle rules the commenters reference. In this analysis, the EPA used MOVES5 to estimate the effect of no further electric vehicle growth in the fleet, an overly conservative assumption to account for the potential impact of the Endangerment Finding Rescission Rule on projected emissions of NO X and VOCs in the Cleveland area. 6 This conservative assumption reflects no change in EV market penetration from current 2026 levels to demonstrate the possible maximum impact of these rule changes. The technical support document in the docket of this action contains further details on the methods and results of this analysis. 7 The analysis indicates that overall NO X and VOC emissions in the Cleveland 2015 ozone NAAQS area are expected to continue to decrease through 2038, even when accounting for the effects of the Endangerment Finding Rescission Rule.

Comment: The commenters contend the EPA cannot approve the Enhanced I/M requirements as they rely on now-repealed Federal rules.

Response: As stated above, earlier this year, the EPA finalized the rescission of the GHG Endangerment Finding and repealed all associated GHG vehicle emissions standards. 8 Per the I/M rule, performance standard modeling (PSM) analyses are intended to demonstrate the performance of the I/M program through the applicable attainment date, and the EPA does not expect any impacts related to MOVES modeling from the Endangerment Finding Rescission Rule in the 2026 PSM analysis year because there are no expected impacts on criteria pollutant emissions estimates for this year. In addition, an I/M performance standard analysis is a relative comparison between an actual implemented I/M program and the applicable Federal model benchmark program. As such, in general, any potential impacts as the result of regulatory changes would similarly impact both the implemented and Federal model benchmark programs in a PSM analysis.

Comment: The commenters argue that the EPA's approval of the Cleveland area redesignation without approval of a Serious nonattainment NSR program contradicts the requirements of the law. They contend that the Cleveland area must first meet CAA section 182(c) Serious area nonattainment NSR requirements, including the de minimis rule under 182(c)(6) and special rules under 182(c)(7) and (8).

Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenters. As discussed above, since PSD requirements will apply after redesignation, areas being redesignated need not comply with the requirement that a part D NSR program (including the requirements found in section 182(c), including 182(c)(6), 182(c)(7)) be approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the NAAQS without a part D NSR program. The EPA's longstanding rationale for this policy is set forth at length in the Nichols Memorandum. The State has demonstrated that the area will be able to maintain the standard without part D NSR in effect, and the State's PSD program will become effective in the area upon redesignation to attainment.

Comment: While the commenters acknowledge the EPA's approval of moderate nonattainment NSR requirements for the Cleveland area, they note Ohio's maintenance plan does not include nonattainment NSR as a contingency provision. They argue this prohibits the EPA from approving the maintenance plan under CAA section 175A(d) since this provision requires Serious area nonattainment NSR requirements to be in the SIP before the EPA redesignates an area.

Response: Part D NSR need not be retained in the SIP as a section 175A(d) contingency measure. The Nichols Memorandum clearly states, the “EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret `measure,' as used in section 175A(d), not to include part D NSR.” Congress used the undefined term “measure” differently in different provisions of the CAA, which indicates that the term is susceptible to more than one interpretation and that the EPA has the discretion to interpret it in a reasonable manner in the context of section 175A. See Greenbaum v. United States EPA, 370 F. 3d 527, 535 through 38 (6th Cir. 2004). (Court “find[s] persuasive the EPA's argument that the very nature of the NSR permit program supports its interpretation that it is not intended to be a contingency measure pursuant to section 175A(d).”). It is reasonable to interpret “measure” to exclude part D NSR in this context because PSD, a program that is the corollary of part D NSR for attainment areas, goes into effect in lieu of part D NSR upon redesignation. Under section 175A of the CAA, maintenance plans must contain contingency provisions, “as deemed necessary by the Administrator,” and it is these contingency provisions that apply to the area after redesignation to attainment. Ohio included such provisions in its maintenance plan which the EPA is approving in this action.

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

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

• Is not an Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 28, 2026. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. ( See section 307(b)(2).).

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows: