Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the Air Traffic Service (ATS) route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.

Colored Federal Airway A-16 previously extended between the White Rock, BC, Canada, NDB and the Active Pass, BC, Canada, NDB. NAV CANADA has decommissioned the White Rock NDB, rendering A-16 unusable. Although the route transitions United States airspace, it does not use any route points located within the United States. Additionally, the route is not published on aeronautical charts.

Colored Federal Airways are published in paragraph 6009 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11J, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11J is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

FAA Order JO 7400.11J lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by revoking A-16 in the northern United States. This action is due to the decommissioning of the White Rock, BC, Canada, NDB.

A-16: Prior to this final rule, A-16 extended between the White Rock NDB and the Active Pass, BC, Canada, NDB, excluding the airspace within Canada. Due to the decommissioning of the White Rock NDB, A-16 has become unusable. This action revokes A-16 in its entirety.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) authorizes agencies to dispense with ordinary notice and comment requirements for rules when the agency for “good cause” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This action revokes a colored federal airway that is not currently charted or capable of being used. This amendment will not impose any additional substantive restrictions or requirements on the persons affected by these regulations as it revokes an airway that is not in use. Therefore, the FAA finds that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary.

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

The FAA has determined that this action of revoking Colored Federal Airway Amber 16 (A-16) qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the National Airspace System (NAS) as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic.

The FAA published a NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2024-2672 in the Federal Register (89 FR 101545; December 16, 2024), proposing to amend VOR Federal Airways V-161, V-163, and V-568; and establish United States RNAV Route T-545 due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Three Rivers, TX, VORTAC NAVAID. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

VOR Federal Airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) and United States Area Navigation Routes are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11J, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024. FAA Order JO 7400.11J is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.

FAA Order JO 7400.11J lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending VOR Federal Airways V-161, V-163, and V-568; and establishing United States RNAV Route T-545 due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Three Rivers, TX, VORTAC NAVAID. The Air Traffic Service (ATS) route changes are described below.

V-161: Prior to this final rule, V-161 extended between the Three Rivers, TX, VORTAC and the Center Point, TX, VORTAC; between the Millsap, TX, VORTAC and the Tulsa, OK, VORTAC; and between the Butler, MO, VORTAC and the Gopher, MN, VORTAC. The airway segment between the Three Rivers VORTAC and the Center Point VORTAC is removed. As amended, the airway is changed to now extend between the Millsap VORTAC and the Tulsa VORTAC, and between the Butler VORTAC and the Gopher VORTAC.

V-163: Prior to this final rule, V-163 extended between the Matamoros, Mexico, VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) and the Gooch Springs, TX, VORTAC, excluding the airspace within Mexico. The airway is amended by removing the Three Rivers, TX, VORTAC and the intersection of the Three Rivers VORTAC 345° and San Antonio, TX, VORTAC 168° radials (YENNS Fix) route points and replacing them with a new route point at the intersection of the Corpus Christi, TX, VORTAC 314° and San Antonio VORTAC 168° radials (SLENA Fix). Additionally, the airway width reduction between the Brownsville, TX, VORTAC and the Corpus Christi VORTAC is removed. As amended, the airway continues to extend between the Matamoros, Mexico, VOR/DME and the Gooch Springs VORTAC, excluding the airspace within Mexico.

V-568: Prior to this final rule, V-568 extended between the Corpus Christi, TX, VORTAC and the Stonewall, TX, VORTAC; and between the Millsap, TX, VORTAC and the Wichita Falls, TX, VORTAC. The airway segment between the Corpus Christi VORTAC and the San Antonio, TX, VORTAC is removed. As amended, the airway is changed to now extend between the San Antonio VORTAC and the Stonewall VORTAC, and between the Millsap VORTAC and the Wichita Falls VORTAC.

T-545: T-545 is a new United States RNAV route established by this rule to extend between the Brownsville, TX, VORTAC and the Gooch Springs, TX, VORTAC. The new route provides an RNAV alternative to the V-163 airway segment amendment between the Corpus Christi, TX, VORTAC and the San Antonio, TX, VORTAC. Additionally, the route provides positive RNAV navigational guidance for aircraft to remain clear of the Kingsville 4, TX, and the Randolph 1B, TX, Military Operations Areas.

The NAVAID radials listed in the VOR Federal Airway V-163 description in the regulatory text of this final rule are stated in degrees True north.

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

The FAA has determined that this action amending VOR Federal Airways V-161, V-163, and V-568; and establishing United States RNAV Route T-545, due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Three Rivers, TX, VORTAC NAVAID, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq. ) and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points); and paragraph 5-6.5i, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review the establishment of new or revised air traffic control procedures conducted at 3,000 feet or more above ground level (AGL); procedures conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not cause traffic to be routinely routed over noise sensitive areas; modifications to currently approved procedures conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not significantly increase noise over noise sensitive areas; and increases in minimum altitudes and landing minima. As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

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

The Delaware River Basin Commission (“DRBC” or “Commission”) is a Federal-interstate compact agency charged with managing the water resources of the Delaware River Basin on a regional basis without regard to political boundaries. Its members are the governors of the four basin states—Delaware, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania—and on behalf of the Federal Government, the North Atlantic Division Commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

In accordance with 18 CFR 401.43(c), on July 1 of every year, the Commission's regulatory program fees as set forth in tables 1, 2 and 3 of that section are subject to an annual adjustment, commensurate with any increase in the annual April 12-month Consumer Price Index (CPI) for Philadelphia published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics during that year. Pursuant to 18 CFR 420.41(c), the same indexed adjustment applies to the Commission's schedule of water charges for consumptive and non-consumptive withdrawals of surface water within the basin. The referenced April 12-month CPI for 2025 showed an increase of 2.88%. Commensurate adjustments are thus required.

This notification is made in accordance with 18 CFR 401.43(c) and 420.41(c), which provide that a revised fee schedule will be published in the Federal Register by July 1. The revised fees also may be obtained by contacting the Commission during business hours or by checking the Commission's website.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Delaware River Basin Commission amends parts 401 and 420 of title 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

In a document published in the Federal Register of August 21, 2014 (79 FR 49465), FDA announced that we had filed a food additive petition (animal use) (FAP 2285) submitted by Zinpro Corp., 10400 Viking Dr., Suite 240, Eden Prairie, MN 55344. The petition proposed that the regulations for food additives permitted in feed and drinking water of animals be amended to provide for the safe use of zinc L-selenomethionine as a source of selenium in complete feed for broiler chickens.

FDA concludes that the data establish the safety and utility of zinc L-selenomethionine as a source of selenium in complete feed for broiler chickens and that the food additive regulations should be amended as set forth in this document. This final order is expected to result in expanded production options and is considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.

In accordance with § 571.1(h) (21 CFR 571.1(h)), the petition and documents we considered and relied upon in reaching our decision to approve the petition will be made available for public disclosure (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). As provided in § 571.1(h), we will delete from the documents any materials that are not available for public disclosure.

We have determined under 21 CFR 25.32(r) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

If you will be adversely affected by one or more provisions of this regulation, you may file with the Dockets Management Staff (see ADDRESSES ) either electronic or written objections. You must separately number each objection, and within each numbered objection you must specify with particularity the provision(s) to which you object, and the grounds for your objection. Within each numbered objection, you must specifically state whether you are requesting a hearing on the particular provision that you specify in that numbered objection. If you do not request a hearing for any particular objection, you waive the right to a hearing on that objection. If you request a hearing, your objection must include a detailed description and analysis of the specific factual information you intend to present in support of the objection in the event that a hearing is held. If you do not include such a description and analysis for any particular objection, you waive the right to a hearing on the objection.

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 573 is amended as follows:

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port, Sector Virginia DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section SLR Special Local Regulation U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

On February 26, 2025, the Coast Guard received a request, under 33 CFR 100.15, from the County of York, for a Marine Event Permit to host a high-speed boat race to be held on June 1, 2025, from noon until 2 p.m., on the York River in Yorktown, VA. The sponsor plans to host this event annually thereafter, on the first Sunday of June. This year's high-speed boat race will include approximately 35 participants and 200 spectator craft.

On April 23, 2025, in response to the application, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Special Local Regulation; York River, Yorktown, VA” (90 FR 17024). There, we stated why we had issued the NPRM and we invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this SLR. During the comment period that ended May 8, 2025, we received 3 comments.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule is impracticable because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with a high-speed boat race that will occur on June 1, 2025.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port, Sector Virginia (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with a high-speed boat race will be a safety concern for anyone within the racing area. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels and the navigable waters in the regulated area before, during, and after the scheduled event.

We received three submissions on our proposed rule, published April 23, 2025. During the comment period, we also received a minor technical correction to the coordinates of the SLR from the event sponsor. The first submission was in favor of the proposed regulation, highlighting the need for additional safety measures during high-speed boat races in the area. The commenter stated that this rule would have minimal to no impact on businesses or recreational waterway users. The second submission was also in support of the regulation and stated that this rule will help to ensure the event will be protected from potential negative impacts.

The third submission complained of a lack of specificity regarding the analysis of any impact on businesses that require passage through the restricted waters, regarding any alternate route those businesses would need to take, and regarding when, and how often the broadcast notice to mariners will be broadcasted. In response, we note that this event does not impede the navigable channel and that all vessels (including small boats and Naval vessels) would be able to navigate the York River during the event. The size of the regulated area is no more than 550 yards long by 200 yards wide, and there is ample water within the York River to transit around it. We therefore view the impact on vessels traveling around the regulated waters for two hours on a Sunday once a year as de minimis. The broadcast to mariners will be released two days prior to the event and can be read on the U.S. Coast Guard Navigation Center's website. In addition, it will be broadcasted over the VHF FM Channel 16 twice a day. And the U.S. Coast Guard Sector Virginia Command Center will read it over the VHF FM Channel 16 one hour prior to the event and every 30 minutes thereafter for the duration of the event. Furthermore, there will be a U.S. Coast Guard Patrol Commander on scene notifying all mariners of the regulated area.

As the result of technical corrections provided by the event sponsor during the comment period, we have made minor changes to the coordinates provided in the NPRM. The difference in the coordinates is negligible and does not increase the size or significantly change the location of the regulated area from that described in the NPRM. We have included a chart showing the original and final location of the regulated area in the docket to illustrate how minor the changes are. To view it, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2025-0262 in the search box and click “Search.” Next, look for this document in the Search Results column, and click on it. Then select “Supporting & Related Material” in the Document Type column. There are no other changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the text of the proposed rule.

This rule establishes a special local regulation which will be subject to enforcement from noon until 2 p.m. on June 1, 2025, and annually on the first Sunday in June in future years. The special local regulation will cover a portion of the York River in Yorktown, VA, on a designated, marked course. The coordinates of the regulated area are provided in the language of the rule, provided below. The duration of the enforcement period for the SLR zone was chosen to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the boat race, which is scheduled from noon to 2 p.m. this year. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The SLR is incorporated into 33 CFR 100.501 and the general provisions of that rule apply to it.

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.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the special local regulation. Vessel traffic would be able to safely transit around this special local regulation which would impact a small, designated area of the York River for no more than 2 hours a year, during a time when vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the special local regulation may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 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).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

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.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

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. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a special local regulation lasting 2 hours that would prohibit entry within a race area. 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:

On August 7, 2024, the Coast Guard published a temporary interim rule (TIR) temporarily modifying the drawbridge operation regulation for the Florida East Coast Railroad Bridge, across the Okeechobee Waterway, mile 7.41, at Stuart, FL (89 FR 64367). The Coast Guard published the temporary rule to be effective through December 31, 2024. That action was necessary to allow for continuity of drawbridge operations while the Coast Guard evaluated documentation received for a request to permanently change the drawbridge operation regulation. Allowing the drawbridge to return to its regular operating schedule would not meet the reasonable needs of navigation given the increase in railway traffic.

On February 7, 2025, the Coast Guard published a TIR reinstating the temporarily modified drawbridge operation regulation for the Florida East Coast Railroad Bridge, across the Okeechobee Waterway, mile 7.41, at Stuart, FL (90 FR 9126). The Coast Guard reinstated the TIR to be effective through May 31, 2025. This action invited comments on the TIR while providing additional time to properly evaluate documentation associated with the permanent drawbridge operation regulation change request and maintain continuity in drawbridge operations. During the comment period that ended March 10, 2025, we received 22 comments. Those comments are under review and will be addressed in future regulatory actions.

On March 25, 2025, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Okeechobee Waterway, mile 7.41, at Stuart, FL” in the Federal Register (90 FR 13573). There we stated why we issued the NPRM and invited comments on the proposed regulation. During the comment period that ended April 24, 2025, we received two comments. Those comments are under review and will be addressed in future regulatory actions.

The Seventh Coast Guard District Commander has determined the extension of the TIR is warranted as the temporary drawbridge operation regulation has provided predictable and reliable drawbridge openings.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule under the authority in 5 U.S.C. 553(b). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. We have not had sufficient time to adequately review and mitigate comments received from the TIR reinstatement and the NPRM. Allowing the drawbridge to return to its regular operating schedule would not meet the reasonable needs of navigation given the increase in railway traffic. The regular operating schedule does not provide predictable and reliable drawbridge openings. The existing TIR ends on May 31, 2025. For these reasons, it is impracticable for us to issue a proposed rule to extend the temporary deviation before May 31, 2025.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective in less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . For reasons presented above, delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest due to the fact that the bridge's regular operating schedule does not meet the reasonable needs of navigation and does not provide predictable and reliable drawbridge openings.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 499. The FEC Railroad Bridge across the Okeechobee Waterway, mile 7.41, at Stuart, FL, is a single-leaf bascule bridge with a six-foot vertical clearance at mean high water in the closed position. The normal operating schedule for the bridge is found in 33 CFR 117.317(c).

The regular drawbridge regulation, 33 CFR 117.317(c), states that the draw is normally in the fully open position when a train approaches the bridge the draw lowers and locks and remains down for a period of eight minutes or while the approach track circuit is occupied. The Coast Guard has determined that allowing the drawbridge to return to its regular operating schedule would not meet the reasonable needs of navigation given the increase in railway traffic. The regular operating schedule does not provide predictable and reliable drawbridge openings. The Coast Guard needs sufficient time to review and mitigate comments and other documentation, while providing continuity in the operation of the drawbridge.

This rule extends the effective period of the temporary deviation to the drawbridge operation regulation for the FEC Railroad Bridge for an additional four months until September 30, 2025. This temporary rule allows continuity in drawbridge operations providing predictable and reliable drawbridge openings. We list the temporary drawbridge schedule at the end of this rule in the regulatory text.

If a final rule is published before September 30, 2025, this temporary final rule will be cancelled.

We developed this temporary 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.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This regulatory action determination is based on the fact that little or no commercial or recreational vessel traffic will be impacted by this rule. Furthermore, the drawbridge, as of date of the publication of this rule, cannot resume its regular operating schedule as it does not meet the reasonable needs of navigation given the increase in railway traffic. The regular operating schedule does not provide predictable and reliable drawbridge openings.

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

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 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 calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

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.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01, Rev.1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1 (series) which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The Coast Guard has 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 promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges and is categorically excluded from further review, under paragraph L49, of Chapter 3, Table 3-1 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.

Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum for the Record are required for this rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

This action may be relevant to you if you are an owner or operator of a facility in certain segments of the petroleum and natural gas systems industry that reports—or will report—more than 25,000 metric tons (mt) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2 e) pursuant to the requirements codified at 40 CFR part 98 and report emissions under subpart W (Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems) (hereafter referred to as “part 98, subpart W”). The industry segments, as they are defined under part 98, subpart W, to which the 2024 WEC Final Rule may have applied are offshore petroleum and natural gas production, onshore petroleum and natural gas production, onshore natural gas processing, onshore gas transmission compression, underground natural gas storage, liquefied natural gas storage, liquefied natural gas import and export equipment, onshore petroleum and natural gas gathering and boosting, and onshore natural gas transmission pipeline. Revisions to part 98, subpart A, also contained in the 2024 WEC Final Rule, may have applied to all of the aforementioned segments and natural gas distribution, as defined in part 98, subpart W. These categories and entities include, but are not limited to, those listed in table 1 of this preamble:

Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive but rather provides a guide for readers regarding facilities that may have been affected by the 2024 WEC Final Rule. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular facility, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

On January 26, 2024, the EPA published in the Federal Register (FR) a notice of proposed rulemaking to facilitate implementation of the provisions of the WEC, following the requirements of CAA section 136(c)-(g) (89 FR 5318). The EPA published the 2024 WEC Final Rule in the FR on November 18, 2024 (89 FR 91094) and codified associated regulations at 40 CFR parts 2, 98 (subpart A), and 99.

The United States House of Representatives passed a joint resolution (H.J. Res. 35) on February 26, 2025, disapproving the 2024 WEC Final Rule under the CRA (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ). The United States Senate passed H.J. Res. 35 on February 27, 2025. President Donald J. Trump signed the joint resolution of disapproval into law as Public Law (Pub. L.) 119-2 on March 14, 2025. Under the joint resolution and by operation of the CRA, the 2024 WEC Final Rule has no legal force or effect.

This final action revises the CFR to remove the now null amendments that were codified under the 2024 WEC Final Rule. This action removes 40 CFR part 99 (Waste Emissions Charge) and reverts to the text in effect immediately prior to the effective date of the 2024 WEC Final Rule for the amended paragraphs of 40 CFR part 2, subpart B (Public Information—Confidentiality of Business Information) and 40 CFR part 98, subpart A (Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting—General Provisions). The amendments to 40 CFR part 2, subpart B included revisions to 40 CFR 2.301(d) to include references to part 99. The amendments to 40 CFR part 98, subpart A included the addition of 40 CFR 98.3(c)(14), which required additional reporting for facilities subject to part 98, subpart W; the addition of 40 CFR 98.4(o), which specified alternative provisions for responsibility for part 98 report submissions and revisions related to changes in owners and operators for facilities that report under subpart W; revisions to 40 CFR 98.4(g) and (h) to include cross-references to paragraph 98.4(o); and revisions to 40 CFR 98.4(n)(2) to clarify responsibilities following certain types of facility acquisitions.

The EPA is taking this action as a final rule without providing an opportunity for public comment or a public hearing because the EPA finds that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) “good cause” exemption applies. The EPA has determined that there is good cause here because the correction of the CFR is a ministerial act to effectuate H.J. Res. 35 and the operation of the CRA. The CRA joint resolution was signed on March 14, 2025, at which point the 2024 WEC Final Rule ceased to have any legal force or effect. As such, public notice and comment is unnecessary and would serve no useful purpose.

For these reasons, the EPA finds good cause to issue a final rulemaking without undergoing public notice and comment, in conformance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

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

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

This action is considered an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action that results in $7,540,709 in cost savings associated with information collection and EPA implementation. Details on the estimated cost savings of this final rule can be found in the Information Collection Request (ICR) as part of the final WEC rule (89 FR 91094).

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. This final action is ministerial in nature and does not contain any information collection activities.

This action is not subject to the RFA. The RFA applies only to rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other statute. This rule is not subject to notice and comment requirements because the Agency has invoked the APA “good cause” exemption under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

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

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action is ministerial in nature. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order.

Therefore, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk. Since this action does not concern human health, EPA's Policy on Children's Health also does not apply.

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

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

As discussed above, this action reflects the effect of the joint resolution to disapprove the 2024 WEC Final Rule under the CRA.

Under CAA section 307(b)(1), any petition for review of this final rule must be filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by July 18, 2025.

Under the authority of the Congressional Review Act and Public Law 119-2, 139 Stat. 3, the EPA amends title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

On August 5, 2013 (78 FR 47191), EPA designated the Detroit area within the State of Michigan as nonattainment for the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS, in conjunction with designating multiple areas in other states as nonattainment.

On March 18, 2016 (81 FR 14736), EPA published an action finding that Michigan had failed to submit the required SO 2 nonattainment plan by the submittal deadline. This finding initiated deadlines under CAA section 179(a) for the potential imposition of 2-to-1 NSR offset and Federal highway funding sanctions. Additionally, under CAA section 110(c), the finding triggered a requirement that EPA promulgate a FIP within two years of the finding unless, by that time, (a) the State had made the necessary complete submittal, and (b) EPA had approved the submittal as meeting applicable requirements.

On May 31, 2016, Michigan submitted a Detroit SO 2 attainment plan and on June 30, 2016, submitted associated final enforceable measures. Michigan's submission of a complete attainment plan terminated the deadlines for imposing sanctions, pursuant to 40 CFR 52.31(d)(5), but it did not terminate EPA's FIP obligation.

On March 19, 2021 (86 FR 14827), EPA partially approved and partially disapproved Michigan's SO 2 plan as submitted in 2016. EPA's March 19, 2021, action approved the enforceable control measures for two facilities, approved the base-year emissions inventory, and affirmed that the NSR requirements for the area had previously been met on December 16, 2013 (78 FR 76064). In the same March 19, 2021, action, EPA disapproved the attainment demonstration, as well as the requirements for meeting reasonable further progress (RFP) toward attainment of the NAAQS, reasonably available control measures/reasonably available control technology (RACM/RACT), and contingency measures. Additionally, EPA disapproved the plan's control measures for two facilities as insufficient to demonstrate attainment. These disapprovals started new sanctions clocks under CAA section 179(a).

On January 28, 2022 (87 FR 4501), EPA issued a finding of failure to attain for the Detroit SO 2 nonattainment area, determining that the area failed to attain the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of October 4, 2018, and established a requirement that Michigan submit a revised SIP by January 30, 2023, that provides for expeditious attainment of the NAAQS within the time period specified in CAA sections 179(d)(3) and 172(a)(2).

On October 12, 2022 (87 FR 61514), EPA promulgated a FIP for the Detroit SO 2 nonattainment area, which satisfied EPA's duty to promulgate a FIP for the area under CAA section 110(c) that resulted from the March 18, 2016, finding of failure to submit. While EPA's FIP for the Detroit area met the requirements for SO 2 nonattainment area plans, the FIP did not relieve Michigan of the previously discussed CAA requirement to submit a plan that provides for attainment of the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS for the Detroit nonattainment area. On December 20, 2022, Michigan submitted a revised attainment plan for the Detroit SO 2 nonattainment area mirroring EPA's FIP in order to remedy Michigan's 2016 plan deficiencies specified in EPA's March 19, 2021, rulemaking partially approving and partially disapproving Michigan's SIP.

Michigan's revised plan, as submitted on December 20, 2022, depended, in part, upon permits that had not yet been issued but would include limits and associated requirements for the United States Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel), EES Coke Battery (EES Coke), and Dearborn Industrial Generation (DIG) facilities that are no less stringent than those set forth in EPA's FIP, codified at 40 CFR 52.1189. On February 21, 2023, Michigan submitted a clarification letter committing to submit the necessary permits by April 30, 2024. On March 23, 2023 (88 FR 17488), EPA proposed to conditionally approve Michigan's plan, conditioned upon the issuance of and submission for incorporation into the SIP the applicable permits for the U.S. Steel, EES Coke, and DIG facilities. Also on March 23, 2023 (88 FR 17376), EPA issued an interim final determination to stay and defer sanctions in the Detroit SO 2 nonattainment area based on EPA's proposed conditional approval. In this final action, EPA is finalizing the determination that the conditions articulated in 40 CFR 52.31(d) have been met, thereby terminating the sanctions clocks resulting from EPA's March 19, 2021, partial disapproval of the prior SIP.

On December 14, 2023, the State submitted three applicable permits for the U.S. Steel, EES Coke, and DIG facilities. On April 2, 2024, the State submitted the final applicable permit for the DIG facility, along with a request that EPA approve its revised plan. On April 29, 2024, EPA issued a completeness letter, included in the docket for this action, determining that Michigan's submittal had satisfied the completeness criteria set forth at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V and met the requirement for a SIP submittal that provides for expeditious attainment set forth in EPA's January 28, 2022, finding of failure to attain.

EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking on October 3, 2024 (89 FR 80439), proposing to approve Michigan's revised SIP submission, which the State submitted to EPA on December 20, 2022, and supplemented on February 21, 2023, December 14, 2023, and April 2, 2024, for attaining the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS for the Detroit area and for meeting other nonattainment area planning requirements of CAA sections 110, 172, 179 and 192. EPA proposed approval of Michigan's demonstration that these requirements provide for attainment of the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS in Detroit. Finally, EPA proposed approval of the other applicable requirements for nonattainment areas, including requirements for RACM/RACT, RFP, and contingency measures. The proposal followed a previous action in which EPA approved emissions inventories for the Detroit area and nonattainment area NSR.

EPA received one adverse comment and one partially adverse comment during the comment period on the proposed action. The adverse comments are summarized below along with EPA's responses.

Comment: The commenter expresses concern with the compliance timelines, particularly for the U.S. Steel Boilerhouse 2 stack construction, and urges EPA and Michigan to accelerate the timelines.

Response: All compliance dates included in Michigan's plan have passed. The latest compliance date was for U.S. Steel Boilerhouse 2 on November 14, 2024, which allowed 90 days for the owner or operator to submit a construction permit application to the State of Michigan, as well as time for the State of Michigan to issue the permit, the owner or operator to send out requests for proposal and award a construction contract and procure materials, and for completion of construction. EES Coke, the current operator of U.S. Steel Boilerhouse 2, commenced operation of Boilerhouse 2 using the newly constructed stack and a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) on October 25, 2024, ahead of the November 14, 2024, deadline. The notification of completion of installation of the Boilerhouse 2 stack is included in the docket for this action.

Comment: The commenter states that Michigan and EPA have significantly delayed SO 2 attainment in the Detroit area since the promulgation of the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS. As the FIP was promulgated in 2022 and new technology was not considered in Michigan's plan, the commenter contends that Michigan adopting the requirements set forth in EPA's FIP is insufficient to fulfill the RACM/RACT requirement. The commenter states that the RACM/RACT requirement is particularly important for SO 2, as SO 2 pollution is driven primarily by emissions from industrial facilities, unlike other pollutants such as ozone and particulate matter, and argues that Michigan and EPA have not shown that the emission limits included in Michigan's plan continue to qualify as RACM/RACT. The commenter states that recent advancements in technology could result in additional SO 2 reductions. The commenter also states that Michigan has not shown that the requirements set forth in EPA's FIP will continue to result in attainment of the SO 2 NAAQS. As EPA's modeling relies on meteorological data from 2016-2020, the commenter contends that Michigan must update the modeling with more recent meteorological data to account for any changes. The commenter urges EPA to disapprove Michigan's SIP submission and require that Michigan resubmit with an updated control technology analysis and updated attainment modeling.

Additionally, the commenter contends that EPA approval of Michigan's plan would only address Michigan's requirement to submit an attainment plan following the 2013 nonattainment designation and would not address Michigan's requirement to submit a revised plan for the Detroit area following EPA's 2022 finding of failure to attain by the applicable attainment date. The commenter argues that under CAA section 179(d), the finding of failure to attain requires a SIP submission that addresses additional measures beyond the general nonattainment SIP requirements, “including all measures that can be feasibly implemented in the area in light of technological achievability, costs, and any non-air quality and other air quality-related health and environmental impacts.” The commenter argues that such additional measures should include an updated analysis of technologies that would reduce SO 2 emissions as well as an examination of whether there are additional RACM/RACT control requirements that should apply or other additional control measures that would further reduce SO 2 emissions. To fulfill its requirements under CAA section 179(d), the commenter suggests that Michigan consider additional control measures at the Carleton Farms Landfill and Carmeuse Lime, which the commenter states are among the top ten emitters of SO 2 in Wayne County. The commenter contends that five of the sources addressed in Michigan's plan are part of the Wayne County steel supply chain and that the plan must address the technological advances in steel production such as direct reduced iron and electric arc furnace technology, which would greatly reduce SO 2 and other pollutant emissions in the Detroit area. The commenter argues that the Cleveland-Cliffs Steel Corporation is transitioning one of its other facilities to cleaner steel production and that making the transition at this facility would result in strong benefits to the health and environment of surrounding communities with environmental justice concerns, create jobs, and help Michigan meet its carbon neutrality goals.

The commenter concludes that EPA should disapprove the nonattainment SIP.

Response: Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA provides that nonattainment plans “shall provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology) and shall provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standards.” EPA has long defined RACT for SO 2 as that control technology which will achieve the NAAQS within statutory timeframes. See State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990; Proposed Rule, 57 FR 13498, 13547 (April 16, 1992) (General Preamble); see also, SO 2 Guideline Document, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, EPA-452/R-94-008, February 1994 (SO 2 Guideline), at 6-39. Since SO 2 RACT is already defined as the technology necessary to achieve the SO 2 NAAQS, control technology which failed to achieve the NAAQS would fail to be SO 2 RACT. EPA intends to continue defining RACT for SO 2 as that control technology which will achieve the NAAQS, as it has in numerous SIP actions since promulgating the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS. Here, the emission limits and other associated requirements in Michigan's plan provide for such NAAQS attainment, as demonstrated by the plan's modeling analysis. Consequently, under EPA's longstanding approach to SO 2 RACT, the CAA section 172(c)(1) RACM/RACT requirement is met. CAA section 172(c)(6) also requires plans to include enforceable emission limits and control measures as may be necessary or appropriate to provide for attainment. The emission limits and associated requirements included as part of Michigan's plan show attainment of the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb), because the modeling analysis shows a maximum concentration of 73.6 ppb. Thus, further controls are not necessary to satisfy the requirement for RACT. 1

EPA disagrees that updated modeling is required for Michigan's attainment plan. The commenter did not present any evidence or argument to suggest that the meteorological data EPA used in the FIP modeling analysis is no longer representative, and EPA notes that when comparing the wind roses of the Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport's 2016-2020 wind data and the 2019-2023 wind data, the wind roses are very similar in wind direction frequency and wind speed classes. 2 There also have not been any major bug fixes to AERMET, the AERMOD preprocessor with which meteorological data is processed, since EPA's FIP modeling was completed. Moreover, the Carleton Farms Landfill that the commenter points to is located outside of the nonattainment area and EPA's modeling domain approximately 23 kilometers to the southwest of the Allen Park monitor. While EPA would not expect such long-range transport to impact receptors within the nonattainment area, any SO 2 emissions from the source would be captured in the background concentrations due to the prevailing southwest winds. Therefore, EPA would not expect any significant changes in SO 2 concentrations in the Detroit nonattainment area if Michigan were to complete an updated modeling analysis.

EPA disagrees that approval of Michigan's SIP does not address Michigan's requirement to submit a revised plan for the Detroit area following EPA's January 28, 2022, finding of failure to attain by the applicable attainment date. EPA's 2014 SO 2 Nonattainment Guidance states that a revision required under CAA section 179 “is to achieve attainment of the 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable.” Michigan's revised SIP, as submitted on December 20, 2022, and supplemented on February 21, 2023, December 14, 2023, and April 2, 2024, provides for attainment of the SO 2 NAAQS, and all compliance dates included in the plan have passed. Therefore, on April 29, 2024, EPA issued a finding of completeness, included in the docket for this action, determining that Michigan's plan satisfies the completeness criteria set forth at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V and meets the requirement set forth in EPA's January 28, 2022, finding of failure to attain that Michigan submit a complete revision to its SIP that, among other elements, provides for expeditious attainment of the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS.

EPA is approving Michigan's revised SIP submission, which the State submitted to EPA on December 20, 2022, and supplemented on February 21, 2023, December 14, 2023, and April 2, 2024, for attaining the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS for the Detroit area and for meeting other nonattainment area planning requirements of CAA sections 110, 172, 179 and 192. This SO 2 attainment plan includes Michigan's attainment demonstration for the Detroit area. The plan also addresses requirements for RFP, RACT/RACM, enforceable emission limits and control measures, and contingency measures. EPA previously concluded that Michigan has addressed the requirements for emissions inventories for the Detroit area and nonattainment area NSR. EPA is determining in this action that Michigan's Detroit SO 2 attainment plan meets applicable requirements of sections 110, 172, 179, and 192 of the CAA.

Michigan's Detroit SO 2 attainment plan is based on enforceable emission limits and associated requirements, which include the Carmeuse Lime emission limits specified in Permit to Install 193-14A, the DTE Trenton Channel emission limits specified in Permit to Install 125-11C, the U.S. Steel limits specified in Permit to Install 110-23 and Permit to Install 108-23, the EES Coke emission limits specified in Permit to Install 51-08C, the Cleveland-Cliffs Steel Corporation emission limits specified in Permit MI-ROP-A8640-2016a, and the DIG emission limits specified in Permit 253-02A and Permit to Install 109-23. The Carmeuse Lime and DTE Trenton Channel permits have already been incorporated into Michigan's SIP, so EPA is not re-incorporating them into 40 CFR part 52 here.

EPA is incorporating Permit to Install 110-23 and Permit to Install 108-23, governing U.S. Steel SO 2 emissions; Permit to Install 51-08C, governing EES Coke SO 2 emissions; Permit MI-ROP-A8640-2016a, governing Cleveland-Cliffs Steel Corporation SO 2 emissions; and Permit to Install 109-23 and the cover sheet, section 5.1d (SO 2 emission limit), and sections 5.2-5.10 (Special Conditions) of Permit 253-02A, governing DIG SO 2 emissions into Michigan's SIP in this action.

This approval terminates the sanctions clock started under CAA section 179 resulting from EPA's March 19, 2021, partial disapproval of the prior SIP.

In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Michigan Regulations described in section III of this preamble and set forth in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through https://www.regulations.gov, and at the EPA Region 5 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation. 3

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, 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 subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) because SIP actions are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. 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 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 July 18, 2025. 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 part 52 is amended as follows:

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

The EPA finalized the PEA Rule on November 24, 2020 (85 FR 74890) to clarify permitting requirements for existing major stationary sources. An existing major stationary source proposing a physical change or a change in the method of operation ( i.e., a “project”) must determine whether that project is a major modification subject to major NSR preconstruction permitting requirements by following a two-step applicability test. The first step is to determine if the proposed project would result in a “significant emission increase” of a regulated NSR pollutant (Step 1). If there is, the second step is to determine if the project would also result in a “significant net emission increase” of that pollutant (Step 2).

The PEA Rule maintained this two-step applicability test while clarifying that both increases and decreases in emissions resulting from a proposed project can be considered in Step 1 of the NSR major modification applicability test. 1 More specifically, the PEA Rule made this clarification in language addressing the “hybrid test” for projects that involve a combination of new and existing units by replacing the phrase “sum of the increases” with the phrase “sum of the difference.”  2 The PEA Rule also explained that the revised term “sum of the difference,” would apply to “all emissions units” instead of “for each emissions unit” to better account for projects that involve multiple types of emission units. 3 Finally, the PEA Rule added regulatory text to clarify that the term “sum of the difference” as used in the referenced paragraphs shall include both increases and decreases in emissions as calculated in accordance with those paragraphs. 4

When the EPA finalized changes in the PEA Rule, the Agency responded to adverse comments received on the changes as proposed. Since that time, two petitions for judicial review of the PEA Rule were filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit). 5 However, this does not impede finalization of separate actions, including this rulemaking approving revisions to the Texas PSD and NNSR regulations.

On March 6, 2023, the EPA proposed approval of portions of the July 9, 2021, Texas SIP submittal to update the PSD and NNSR permitting programs to provide for project emissions accounting (88 FR 13572). 6 Based on relevant adverse comments, the EPA supplemented our proposed approval on October 11, 2024 (89 FR 82560), with respect to the EPA's evaluation of the Texas SIP submittal and the anti-backsliding requirements of the CAA sections 110(l) and 193.

Comments on the EPA's March 6, 2023, proposed rulemaking were due by April 5, 2023. We received supportive comment letters from the TCEQ on April 4, 2023, and from Baker Botts L.L.P. on behalf of the Texas Industry Project on April 5, 2023. We appreciate the commenters' support and will not further address these comments. We also received a comment letter and supplemental documents dated April 5, 2023, from Air Law for All submitted on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club Environmental Law Program, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Integrity Project, Powell Environmental Law LLC, Air Law for All Ltd., and Environmental Defense Fund. The comment letter opposes approval of the changes in the July 9, 2021, Texas SIP to provide for project emissions accounting in the Texas PSD and NNSR permitting program.

Comments on the October 11, 2024 (89 FR 82560), supplemental proposed approval were due by November 12, 2024. We received supportive comments from an anonymous commenter dated October 15, 2024, and the Texas Chemistry Council dated November 12, 2024; we appreciate the commenters' support and will not further address these comments. The TCEQ also submitted supportive comments on November 12, 2024, with specific clarifications to the EPA's evaluation of the minor NSR mechanisms approved in the Texas SIP.

Comment 1: The Commenter states that “[e]ven under EPA's 2020 [PEA] rule, EPA cannot approve [Texas's] plan revision without a requirement that a project consist of `substantially related' activities.” The Commenter suggests that the July 9, 2021, submission fails to include a requirement that projects consist of substantially related activities.

The Commenter states that the EPA relies on its January 15, 2009, rulemaking  7 (hereafter referred to as the 2009 NSR Aggregation Action, or the 2009 Action) in the PEA Rule to interpret “major NSR regulations as requiring that a project consist of `substantially related' activities.” The Commenter asserts that the EPA cannot approve Texas's SIP revision without requiring the State to revise its SIP to conform with the EPA's interpretation of the 2009 action referenced in the PEA Rule. The Commenter further asserts that this requirement must be made part of the SIP so that it can be enforced by EPA and citizens pursuant to CAA sections 113 and 304. In the background section of its comments, the Commenter also states that this concern is “primarily a matter for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals,” where the PEA Rule is currently being challenged.

Response 1: The EPA requires NNSR and PSD SIP revisions to meet or exceed the minimum requirements codified at 40 CFR 51.165 and 51.166, respectively. The Texas SIP is approved as meeting the minimum PSD and NNSR program requirements. 8

The Commenter focuses not on whether Texas’s proposed PSD and NNSR SIP revisions comply with the EPA’s minimum standards for PSD and NNSR plans codified at 40 CFR 51.165 and 51.166. Rather, the comments are directed at the substance of the PEA Rule itself. The Commenter, for example, explicitly takes the position that “EPA’s 2020 Rule is unlawful.”

The time for submitting comments on the PEA Rule was when the EPA notified the public that it was considering adopting that rule and requested the public's input. 9 The Commenter did not submit comments on the PEA Rule and the EPA thus views the comments as untimely comments on the PEA Rule itself. 10 The EPA addressed concerns regarding project aggregation in response to comments by other parties in that rulemaking action. See 85 FR 74890, 74898-900 (November 24, 2020). As noted by the Commenter, these concerns are “primarily a matter for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals,” where the PEA Rule is currently being challenged by States and organizations other than the Commenter.

In the EPA's March 6, 2023, notice of proposed rulemaking, we did not propose to revise the minimum standards within 40 CFR 51.165 or 51.166, and the EPA did not seek comment on the PEA Rule, which EPA finalized in 2020. Rather, the EPA explained that “we are proposing to approve the submitted revisions to the Texas SIP that update the PSD and NNSR permitting requirements to maintain consistency with the Federal NSR program requirements by adopting the provisions for PEA” and the EPA sought the public's comments on this preliminary determination. See 88 FR 13752. The Commenter does not engage with the question of whether Texas's proposed SIP revision (and the EPA's proposal to approve this SIP revision) complies with the EPA's minimum NSR standards, and therefore, these comments do not demonstrate that the EPA may not approve the SIP revision. The Commenter's position is also based on an erroneous reading of the PEA Rule. The PEA Rule preamble states that “state and local air agencies with approved SIPs are and were not required to amend their plans to adopt the interpretation that projects should be aggregated when `substantially related.' ” See 85 FR 74895, FN 57 (November 24, 2020). 11

Comment 2: The Commenter states that “EPA's proposed approval violates the anti-backsliding provisions of the Act.” Specifically, the Commenter asserts that adopting the PEA Rule would weaken the stringency of Texas's SIP. The Commenter asserts that Texas's revision to the project emissions accounting portion of its rules is a “substantive change to previous applicability requirements” and that the EPA must therefore provide an air quality analysis demonstrating that the change to the Texas SIP will not violate section 110(l) and section 193 of the Act.

Response 2: The EPA published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) on October 11, 2024 (89 FR 82560), to provide our evaluation of the July 9, 2021, Texas SIP revision anti-backsliding demonstration under CAA sections 110(l) and 193. In this SNPRM we presented the TCEQ's anti-backsliding argument and evaluated the approved Texas minor NSR permitting mechanisms as substitute measures under CAA sections 110(l) and 193. We concluded in this SNPRM that the demonstration provided by the TCEQ and the Texas SIP-approved minor NSR program are adequate substitute measures to maintain the status quo air quality and protect human health and the environment. 12 The TCEQ submitted a comment letter on November 12, 2024, agreeing with the EPA's evaluation of the approved minor NSR mechanisms and providing additional information about the SIP-approved public notice provisions for permits by rule.

Comment 3: The Commenter asserts that the EPA should not act on the July 9, 2021, Texas SIP revision while pending litigation exists concerning the PEA Rule. The Commenter states that the EPA provides no explanation of the manner at which it would reverse an approved revision should EPA rescind, or a court vacate, the PEA Rule.

Response 3: The EPA disagrees with the Commenter that, while litigation is ongoing on the PEA Rule, EPA should not act on the Texas plan revision. The PEA Rule, published on November 24, 2020 (85 FR 74890), has been incorporated into the Federal regulations addressing major new source review. Texas's July 9, 2021, submission merely adopts provisions consistent with federally approved regulations. Implementation of this rule has not been stayed by the court. In the event the EPA or the court takes an action that affects the PEA Rule and therefore the EPA NSR regulations, the EPA has tools available to ensure that SIPs remain compliant with the EPA's rules.

Pursuant to section 110 of the Act, we are approving the submitted revisions to the Texas SIP that update the PSD and NNSR permitting requirements to maintain consistency with the Federal NSR program requirements by adopting the provisions for PEA. Our analysis found that the submitted revisions are consistent with the CAA and the EPA's regulations, policy, and guidance for permitting SIP requirements. The EPA is approving the following revisions adopted on June 9, 2021, effective on July 1, 2021, submitted to the EPA on July 9, 2021:

• Revisions to 30 TAC Section 116.12—Nonattainment and Prevention of Significant Deterioration Review Definitions,

• Revisions to 30 TAC Section 116.150—New Major Source or Major Modification in Ozone Nonattainment Areas,

• Revisions to 30 TAC Section 116.151—New Major Source or Major Modification in Nonattainment Area Other than Ozone, and

• Revisions to 30 TAC Section 116.160—Prevention of Significant Deterioration.

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference the revisions to the Texas regulations as described in section III of this preamble, final action. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the 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 subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) because SIP actions are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 18, 2025. 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, the Environmental Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:

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

On December 26, 2024 (89 FR 104944), the EPA proposed to approve the following rule into the California SIP.

We proposed to approve this rule because we determined that it complies with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action contains more information on the rule and our evaluation.

The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received no comments.

No comments were submitted. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is approving this rule into the California SIP. The September 25, 2023 version of Rule 1157 will replace the previously approved version of this rule in the SIP. This approval resolves all deficiencies that served as the basis for our June 16, 2023 (88 FR 39366) limited disapproval of the prior version of Rule 1157. We find that submitted Rule 1157 fully satisfies the relevant requirements of section 110 and part D of the Act and cures the deficiencies identified in that document. This action also permanently terminates all sanctions clocks and federal implementation plan clocks triggered by our June 16, 2023 limited disapproval action.

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District, Rule 1157, “Boilers and Process Heaters,” amended on September 25, 2023, which regulates NO X and CO emissions from industrial, institutional, and commercial boilers, steam generators, and process heaters. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the 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 subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) because SIP actions are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866;

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the 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 (CRA), and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 18, 2025. 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, the Environmental Protection Agency amends part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this proposed action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

EPA is finalizing tolerance actions that the Agency previously proposed on its own initiative under section 408(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(e), for residues of the herbicide sulfentrazone in or on corn, pop, grain at 0.15 parts per million (ppm) and corn, pop, stover at 0.3 ppm. EPA had previously registered the use of sulfentrazone on field corn and established tolerances on corn, field, grain at 0.15 ppm, and corn, field, stover at 0.30 ppm. As part of that process, the use on popcorn was added to the sulfentrazone label (same use pattern as field corn), but, in error, separate tolerances on corn, pop, grain and corn, pop, stover were not established. EPA proposed establishing the tolerances required to support the use on popcorn in order to rectify this oversight as described in the proposed rule and is now finalizing that proposal in this rulemaking.

Four comments were received in response to the proposed rule. EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit III.C.

FFDCA section 408(e), 21 U.S.C. 346a(e), authorizes EPA to establish, modify, or revoke tolerances or exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance on its own initiative. FFDCA section 408(e)(2) requires EPA to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking for a 60-day public comment period, unless the Administrator for good cause finds that it would be in the public interest to have a shorter period and states the reasons in the rulemaking.

FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. If you fail to file an objection to the final rule within the time period specified in the final rule, you will have waived the right to raise any issues resolved in the final rule. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must include the chemical specific docket ID number as provided in the heading of this rulemaking as part of the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before July 18, 2025.

EPA's Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ), in which the Hearing Clerk is housed, urges parties to file and serve documents by electronic means only, notwithstanding any other particular requirements set forth in other procedural rules governing those proceedings. See “Revised Order Urging Electronic Service and Filing”, dated June 22, 2023, which can be found at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-06/2023-06-22%20-%20revised%20order%20urging%20electronic%20filing%20and%20service.pdf. Although EPA's regulations require submission via U.S. Mail or hand delivery, EPA intends to treat submissions filed via electronic means as properly filed submissions; therefore, EPA believes the preference for submission via electronic means will not be prejudicial. When submitting documents to the OALJ electronically, a person should utilize the OALJ e-filing system at https://yosemite.epa.gov/OA/EAB/EAB-ALJ_Upload.nsf.

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing for inclusion in the public docket through https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. If you wish to include CBI in your request, please follow the applicable instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets#rules and clearly mark the information that you claim to be CBI. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice.

Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure, consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2), for tolerances for residues of sulfentrazone on corn, pop, grain and corn, pop, stover. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing these tolerances follows.

In an effort to streamline its publications in the Federal Register , EPA is not reprinting sections that repeat what has been previously published for tolerance rulemakings of the same pesticide chemical. Where scientific information concerning a particular chemical remains unchanged, the content of those sections would not vary between tolerance rulemaking, and EPA considers referral back to those sections as sufficient to provide an explanation of the information EPA considered in making its safety determination for the new rulemaking.

EPA has previously published several tolerance rulemakings for sulfentrazone in which EPA concluded, based on the available information, that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm would result from aggregate exposure to sulfentrazone and established tolerances for residues of that chemical. EPA is incorporating previously published sections of those rulemakings that remain unchanged, as described further in this rulemaking. Specific information on the risk assessment conducted in support of this action, including on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by sulfentrazone, can be found in the document titled “Sulfentrazone—Acute and Chronic Aggregate Dietary (Food and Drinking Water) Exposure and Risk Assessments for the Establishment of Tolerances for Residues in/on Pop Corn Commodities” which is available in the docket for this action at https://www.regulations.gov.

Toxicological profile. For a discussion of the Toxicological Profile of sulfentrazone, see Unit III.A. of the rulemaking published in the Federal Register of April 13, 2018 (83 FR 15977) (FRL-9975-77).

Toxicological points of departure/Levels of concern. For a summary of the Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern used for the safety assessment of sulfentrazone, see Unit III.B. of the rulemaking that published in the Federal Register of September 12, 2014 (79 FR 54620) (FRL-9915-47).

Exposure assessment. Much of the exposure assessment remains unchanged from that discussed in Unit III.C. of the rulemaking that published in the Federal Register of April 13, 2018, although the new exposure assessment incorporates the additional dietary exposure from the finalized tolerances.

In conducting both the acute and chronic dietary exposure assessments, EPA used the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model, Food Consumption Intake Database (DEEM-FCID, ver.4.02), which incorporates consumption data from United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, NHANES/WWEIA; 2005-2010). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level residues, 100 percent crop treated (PCT), and EPA default processing factors.

EPA has concluded that sulfentrazone does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.

Anticipated residue and percent crop treated information. EPA did not use anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary assessment for sulfentrazone. Tolerance-level residues and 100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities.

Drinking water and non-occupational exposures. For a summary of the drinking water numbers used, see Unit III.C.2. of the rulemaking that published in the Federal Register of April 13, 2018. An acute estimated drinking water concentration (EDWC) of 134 parts per billion (ppb) and a chronic EDWC of 98 ppb were used in the acute and chronic dietary exposure assessments, respectively.

Sulfentrazone is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Residential home lawns/turf and recreational turf, such as golf courses. For a summary of the assumptions used for residential exposures, see Unit III.C.3. of the rulemaking that published in the Federal Register of April 13, 2018.

The adult residential exposure scenario used in the aggregate assessment reflects short-term dermal exposure from applications to turf via backpack sprayer. The residential exposure scenario used in the combined short- and intermediate-term aggregate assessment for children ages 1 to 2 years old, the population subgroup with the highest exposure estimate, reflects dermal and hand-to-mouth exposures from post-application exposure to turf applications, which is protective of the other children subpopulations.

Cumulative exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to sulfentrazone and any other substances. For the purposes of this action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that sulfentrazone has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.

Safety factor for infants and children. EPA continues to conclude that there is reliable data showing that the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) safety factor were reduced from 10X to 1X. The reasons for that decision are articulated in Unit III.D. of the rulemaking that published in the Federal Register of April 13, 2018.

Aggregate risks and determination of safety. EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing dietary exposure estimates to the acute population-adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic population-adjusted dose (cPAD). Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term aggregate risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated total food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate points of departure to ensure that an adequate margin of exposure (MOE) exists.

Acute dietary (food and drinking water) risks are below the Agency's level of concern of 100% of the aPAD; the risk estimate is 1.1% of the aPAD for all infants less than 1-year-old and 6.4% of the aPAD for females 13 to 49 years old, the population group with the highest risk estimate. Chronic dietary (food and drinking water) risks are below the Agency's level of concern of 100% of the cPAD; they utilize 7.6% of the cPAD for all infants less than 1-year-old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.

The combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 490 for adults. The combined short- and intermediate-term food, water, and residential exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 260 for children 1 to 2 years old, the population subgroup for children with the greatest exposure, and is protective of the older children subpopulations. MOEs below 100 are of concern; these MOEs are above 100 and therefore are not of concern.

Because sulfentrazone is classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans,” EPA has concluded that aggregate exposure to sulfentrazone is not likely to pose a cancer risk.

Therefore, based on the risk assessments and information described above, EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to sulfentrazone residues.

Adequate enforcement methodology, gas chromatography (GC), is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address: residuemethods@epa.gov.

In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4).

No Codex MRLs have been established for sulfentrazone on popcorn.

Four comments were received in response to the Notices of Filing. One comment stated in part that “The public should not be the test subject for companies trying new products.” The existing legal framework provided by section 408 of the FFDCA authorizes EPA to establish tolerances when it determines that the tolerances are safe. Upon consideration of the validity, completeness, and reliability of the available data as well as other factors the FFDCA requires EPA to consider, EPA has determined that the sulfentrazone tolerance is safe. The commenter has provided no information indicating that a safety determination cannot be supported.

The other three comments received were in support of the tolerance being established but requested EPA conduct enforcement checks of grain and stover for residues of sulfentrazone, monitoring of water bodies for sulfentrazone levels, and after the tolerance has been established, “Develop a system for when farms do not meet requirements”. Although the EPA sets safe residue tolerances for pesticides, EPA is not responsible for the enforcement of the tolerances once they have been established. Under FFDCA, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the federal agency that enforces the tolerance regulations and ensures that pesticide residues in food and feed commodities are within legal limits. See, e.g., 21 U.S.C. 371, 372, 374.

Tolerances are established for residues of sulfentrazone on corn, pop, grain at 0.15 ppm and corn, pop, stover at 0.3 ppm.

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

This action is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), because it establishes or modifies a pesticide tolerance or a tolerance exemption under FFDCA section 408.

Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) does not apply because actions that establish a tolerance under FFDCA section 408 are exempted from review under Executive Order 12866.

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., because it does not contain any information collection activities.

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. In making this determination, EPA concludes that the impact of concern for this action is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities and that the Agency is certifying that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the action has no net burden on small entities subject to this rulemaking. As discussed in the proposed rule, this determination takes into account several EPA analyses of potential small entity impacts for tolerance actions. EPA did not receive any comments about the Agency's determination for this rulemaking.

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars and adjusted annually for inflation) as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector.

This action does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (see Unit V.A.), and because EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. However, EPA's 2021 Policy on Children's Health applies to this action as discussed in Unit II.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355) (May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

This action does not involve technical standards that would require Agency consideration under NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272.

This action is subject to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action does not meet the criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR part 180 as follows: