On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued the “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review” memorandum published in the Federal Register on January 25, 2025 (90 FR 8249). This Presidential action ordered all executive departments and agencies to consider postponing for 60 days the effective date of certain rules published in the Federal Register for the purpose of reviewing any questions of fact, law, and policy that the rules may raise. Additionally, executive departments and agencies were to consider opening a comment period to allow interested parties to provide comments about issues of fact, law, and policy raised by the rules postponed under the memorandum.

Consistent with the Presidential Memorandum of January 20, 2025, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) temporarily postponed the effective date of its final rule amending the test procedures for central air conditioners and heat pumps (CAC/HP) published in the Federal Register on January 7, 2025 (90 FR 1224), to March 21, 2025. 90 FR 9001 (Feb. 5, 2025). DOE also requested comments on the impacts of a further delay of the test procedures as well as legal, factual, or policy issues raised by the rule.

DOE received comments in response to the February 2025 delay of effective date from the interested parties listed in Table 1.

A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record. 1

Several commenters, including CAC/HP manufacturers, stated that DOE should not delay the effective date of test procedure. 2 Specifically, these commenters note that the test procedures incorporate latest industry standards, which were developed by a broad group of stakeholders. Additionally, these commenters assert that the test procedure is reasonable designed to measure energy efficiency without being unduly burdensome to conduct.

However, other commenters, also including CAC/HP manufacturers, supported delaying the effective date of the test procedure or delaying in the enforcement of a specific aspect of the test procedure, the controls verification procedure (CVP). These commenters note that the CVP is new and that manufacturers need additional time to determine whether the tests are accurate and repeatable, as well as not unduly burdensome to conduct. (JCI, Doc. No. 52 at 1-2; Bosch, Doc. No. 51 at 2; LG, Doc. No. 54 at 1) AHRI, the organization behind the industry standard that introduced the CVP, recommends DOE to defer the effective date of the CVP enforcement provisions until after finalized tolerances have been supported by test data. (AHRI, Doc. No. 48 at 2) AHRI reports that it is currently analyzing CVP test data collected by third-party test laboratories and will work to collect additional data during the 2025 certification year. AHRI and others recommend that DOE defer enforcing the CVP provisions until after this analysis is complete (estimated to be July 2026). ( Id.; Bosch, Doc. No. 51 at 2; Daikin, Doc. No. 57 at 3; Rheem, Doc. No. 53 at 2) In the alternative, commenters suggested that DOE exercise enforcement discretion to delay the CVP enforcement provisions. (Daikin, Doc No. 57 at 2; GE, Doc. No. 50 at 3)

In addition to concerns related to the consistency and repeatability of the CVP test, commenters also expressed concern related to the potential regulatory burden. Specifically, Daikin stated that, after it tested several models, it determined that CVP will require re-design of some existing products. (Daikin, Doc No. 57. at 4) Daikin also asserted that the cost of conducting CVP tests is a heavy burden on manufacturers. ( Id.; see JCI, Doc. No. 52 at 2; Mitsubishi, Doc. No. 47 at 2)

On March 20, 2025, DOE noted that it was in the process of reviewing these comments and, as such, and consistent with the Presidential memorandum of January 20, 2025, DOE further delayed the effective date of this rule another 60 days to May 20, 2025. 90 FR 13052 (Mar. 20, 2025). DOE continues to review comments related to the accuracy and burden of the test procedure. As such, and consistent with the Presidential memorandum of January 20, 2025, DOE further delays the effective date of this rule until July 7, 2025.

To the extent that 5 U.S.C. 553 applies to this action, it is exempt from notice and comment because it constitutes a rule of procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) and for which no notice of hearing is required by statute. Further, the delay of the effective date to July 7, 2025, does not affect the compliance date for this rule, which remains July 7, 2025. As such, this action is not a “substantive rule” for which a 30-day delay in effective date is required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on May 15, 2025, by Louis Hrkman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

On December 26, 2024, the U.S. Department of Energy published in the Federal Register a final rule (“December 2024 Final Rule”) prescribing amended energy conservation standards for gas-fired instantaneous water heaters. 89 FR 105188. The effective date of the December 2024 Final Rule is May 20, 2025. 90 FR 13054 (Mar. 20, 2025).

On May 9, 2025, President Trump signed into law a joint resolution of disapproval of the December 2024 Final Rule. See 5 U.S.C. 801. In accordance with the Congressional Review Act, the December 2024 Final Rule shall have no force or effect. See 5 U.S.C. 802(a). As a result, DOE withdraws the December 2024 Final Rule and provides notice that the amended energy conservation standards for gas-fired instantaneous water heaters prescribed in the December 2024 Final Rule shall have no force or effect.

To the extent that 5 U.S.C. 553 applies to this action, DOE finds that notice and comment is unnecessary because DOE is withdrawing a final rule that has been disapproved under the Congressional Review Act. Further, as this withdrawal is providing notice that the December 2024 Final Rule has no force or effect, DOE finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effective date under 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final rule; withdrawal.

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on May 15, 2025, by Louis Hrkman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

On December 23, 2024, the U.S. Department of Energy published in the Federal Register a final rule (“December 2024 Final Rule”) prescribing amended energy conservation standards for walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers, referred to collectively as “walk-ins”. 89 FR 104616. The effective date of the December 2024 Final Rule is May 20, 2025. 90 FR 13054 (Mar. 20, 2025).

On May 9, 2025, President Trump signed into law a joint resolution of disapproval of the December 2024 Final Rule. See 5 U.S.C. 801. In accordance with the Congressional Review Act, the December 2024 Final Rule shall have no force or effect. (5 U.S.C. 802(a)) As a result, DOE withdraws the December 2024 Final Rule and provides notice that the amended energy conservation standards for walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers prescribed in the December 2024 Final Rule shall have no force or effect.

To the extent that 5 U.S.C. 553 applies to this action, DOE finds that notice and comment is unnecessary because DOE is withdrawing a final rule that has been disapproved under the Congressional Review Act. Further, as this withdrawal is providing notice that the December 2024 Final Rule has no force or effect, DOE finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effective date under 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final rule; withdrawal.

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on May 15, 2025, by Louis Hrkman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

On January 21, 2025, the U.S. Department of Energy published in the Federal Register a final rule (“January 2025 Final Rule”) prescribing amended energy conservation standards for commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers. 90 FR 7464. The effective date of the January 2025 Final Rule is May 20, 2025. 90 FR 11466 (Mar. 7, 2025).

On May 9, 2025, President Trump signed into law a joint resolution of disapproval of the January 2025 Final Rule. See 5 U.S.C. 801. In accordance with the Congressional Review Act, the January 2025 Final Rule shall have no force or effect. See 5 U.S.C. 802(a). As a result, DOE withdraws the January 2025 Final Rule and provides notice that the amended energy conservation standards for commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers prescribed in the January 2025 Final Rule shall have no force or effect.

To the extent that 5 U.S.C. 553 applies to this action, DOE finds that notice and comment is unnecessary because DOE is withdrawing a final rule that has been disapproved under the Congressional Review Act. Further, as this withdrawal is providing notice that the January 2025 Final Rule has no force or effect, DOE finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effective date under 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final rule; withdrawal.

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on May 15, 2025, by Louis Hrkman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

Under the provisions of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995  1 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-119, “Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities,” effective January 27, 2016, the FAA participates in the development of consensus standards for use as a means of carrying out its policy objectives where appropriate.

Consistent with the Small Airplane Revitalization Act of 2013, the FAA has been working with industry and other stakeholders through the ASTM F44 Committee on General Aviation Aircraft to develop consensus standards as a MOC in certificating small airplanes under part 23. 2

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain GE Model CF6-80E1A2, CF6-80E1A3, CF6-80E1A4, and CF6-80E1A4/B engines. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on January 30, 2025 (90 FR 8505). The NPRM was prompted by a manufacturer investigation that revealed the detection of iron inclusion in an HPT stage 2 disk manufactured from the same powder metal material used to manufacture certain HPT stage 1 and HPT stage 2 disks for GE Model CF6-80E1A2, CF6- 80E1A3, CF6-80E1A4, and CF6-80E1A4/B engines. Further investigation by the manufacturer revealed that the iron inclusion is attributed to deficiencies in the manufacturing process and may cause reduced material properties and a lower fatigue life capability, which may result in premature fracture and uncontained failure. The manufacturer also informed the FAA that additional risk assessments showed that there were no failed events associated with the discovery of this iron inclusion material. However, it was concluded that replacement of the affected HPT stage 1 and HPT stage 2 disks is necessary to prevent any future failed events. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require replacement of affected HPT stage 1 and HPT stage 2 disks with parts eligible for installation. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

The FAA received comments from three commenters. The commenters were Delta Air Lines, Inc. (DAL) and two individual commenters. The individual commenters supported the NPRM without change. DAL requested changes to the proposed AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

DAL requested that the FAA revise the proposed AD to add certain engine variants to paragraph (c), Applicability, and to add a parts installation prohibition to paragraph (g), Required Actions, to prevent installation of the removed parts on non-CF6-80E1 engines. DAL noted that, according to the engine illustrated parts catalog, the HPT stage 1 and HPT stage 2 disks on the CF6-80E1 fleet of engines could be installed on the CF6-80C2 fleet of engines, specifically on the -B2F, -B4F, -B6F, -B7F, and -B8F variants. The commenter reasoned that without a parts installation prohibition in the proposed AD, the affected parts would be eligible for installation on the non-CF6-80E1 engines after the required removal action in the AD.

The FAA disagrees. This AD applies to engine models known to have affected parts installed. Paragraph (g) of this AD requires the removal of the affected parts from service. Since the FAA and the manufacturer know where these parts are, and parts removed from service by AD action are not serviceable and not eligible for reinstallation on any engine, it is not necessary to revise paragraph (c) of this AD to add engine variants and revise paragraph (g) of this AD to prohibit installation of the removed parts. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of these comments.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects one engine installed on an airplane of U.S. registry.

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

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

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

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

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

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

The FAA'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 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 amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Payson Airport, Payson, AZ, to support IFR operations at this airport.

The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2025-0308 in the Federal Register (90 FR 11394; March 6, 2025) proposing to amend the Class E airspace at Payson, AZ. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 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 amendment to 14 CFR part 71 makes the following changes.

This rule: (a) modifies the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Payson Airport to within a 20.9 mile-radius (increased from 6-mile) radius of the airport; (b) removes the Payson NDB and associated extension from the airspace legal description as it is no longer required; and (c) updates the name (previously Payson Municipal Airport) and geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

This action is the result of an airspace review conducted due to the decommissioning of the Payson NDB and supports IFR operations at this airport.

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

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “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 Air Traffic Service (ATS) route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.

The FAA published a NPRM for Docket No. FAA 2024-2513 in the Federal Register (89 FR 93235; November 26, 2024), proposing to amend domestic VOR Federal Airways V-7, V-35, V-157, V-159, and V-198 in the eastern United States. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Subsequent the NPRM, the FAA published a final rule for Docket No. FAA-2024-1848 in the Federal Register (90 FR 9216; February 10, 2025), amending VOR Federal Airway V-35, V-157, and V-159. That final rule amended VOR Federal Airway V-35 by removing the airway segments between the Dolphin, FL (DHP), VORTAC and the Lee County, FL (RSW), VORTAC due to the scheduled decommissioning of the Cypress, FL (CYY), VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME). Additionally, that final rule amended VOR Federal Airway V-157 by removing the airway segments between the Dolphin VORTAC and the Lakeland, FL (LAL), VORTAC due to the scheduled decommissioning of the La Belle, FL (LBV), VORTAC. Finally, that final rule amended VOR Federal Airway V-159 by removing the airway segments between the Virginia Key, FL (VKZ), VOR/DME and the intersection of the Melbourne, FL (MLB), VOR/DME 269° and the Orlando, FL (ORL), VORTAC 140° radials (DEARY Fix) due to the scheduled decommissioning of the Treasure, FL (TRV), VORTAC. Those route amendments are effective April 17, 2025, and are included in this final rule.

Domestic VOR Federal Airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) 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 amending domestic VOR Federal Airways V-7, V-35, V-157, V-159, and V-198 to support the planned decommissioning of the Cross City, FL (CTY), VORTAC and the Taylor, FL (TAY), VORTAC. This action is in support of the FAA's VOR MON Program. The ATS route changes are described below.

V-7: Prior to this final rule, V-7 extended between the Dolphin, FL (DHP), VORTAC and the Vulcan, AL, (VUZ), VORTAC; and between the Pocket City, IN (PXV), VORTAC and the intersection of the Chicago Heights, IL (CGT), VORTAC 358° and the Badger, WI (BAE), VOR/DME 117° radials (PETTY Fix). The FAA removes the airway segments between the Lakeland, FL (LAL), VORTAC and the Seminole, FL (SZW), VORTAC due to the scheduled decommissioning of the Cross City, FL (CTY), VORTAC. As amended, the route extends between the Dolphin VORTAC and the Lakeland VORTAC; between the Seminole VORTAC and the Vulcan VORTAC; and between the Pocket City VORTAC and the PETTY Fix.

V-35: Prior to this final rule, V-35 extended between the Lee County, FL (RSW), VORTAC and the Pecan, GA (PZD), VOR/DME, between the intersection of the Dublin, GA (DBN), VORTAC 309° and the Athens, GA (AHN), VOR/DME 195° radials (SINCA Fix) and the Morgantown, WV (MGW), VOR/DME; and between the Philipsburg, PA (PSB), VORTAC and the Stonyfork, PA (SFK), VOR/DME. The FAA removes the airway segments between the St. Petersburg, FL (PIE), VORTAC and the Greenville, FL (GEF), VORTAC due to the scheduled decommissioning of the Cross City, FL (CTY), VORTAC; and removes the airway segment between the Greenville VORTAC and the Pecan VOR/DME due to the segment being no longer needed as redundant navigation capability is provided by VOR Federal Airway V-159.

As amended, the route extends between the Lee County VORTAC and the St. Petersburg VORTAC; between the SINCA Fix and the Morgantown VOR/DME; and between the Philipsburg VORTAC and the Stonyfork VOR/DME.

V-157: Prior to this final rule, V-157 extended between the Key West, FL (EYW), VORTAC and the Dolphin, FL (DHP), VORTAC; between the Lakeland, FL (LAL), VORTAC and the Waycross, GA (AYS), VORTAC; between the Florence, SC (FLO), VORTAC and the Tar River, NC (TYI), VORTAC; and between the Robbinsville, NJ (RBV), VORTAC and the Albany, NY (ALB), VORTAC. The FAA removes the airway segments between the Ocala, FL (OCF), VORTAC and the Waycross VORTAC and replaces it with the Gators, FL (GNV), VORTAC; the intersection of the Gators VORTAC 343° True (T)/347° Magnetic (M) and the Waycross VORTAC 180°T/180°M radials; Waycross VORTAC due to the scheduled decommissioning of the Taylor, FL (TAY), VORTAC. Additionally, The FAA extends VOR Federal Airway V-157 to the north between the Waycross VORTAC and the Dublin, GA (DBN), VORTAC due to a need by the Department of Defense for navigation capability between the Ocala, FL, and the Dublin, GA, areas. As amended, the route extends between the Key West VORTAC and the Dolphin VORTAC; between the Lakeland VORTAC and the Dublin VORTAC; between the Florence VORTAC and the Tar River VORTAC; and between the Robbinsville VORTAC and the Albany VORTAC.

V-159: Prior to this final rule, V-159 extended between the intersection of the Melbourne, FL (MLB), VOR/DME 269° and the Orlando, FL (ORL), VORTAC 140° radials (DEARY Fix) and the Vulcan, AL (VUZ), VORTAC; and between the Holly Springs, MS (HLI), VORTAC and the Omaha, IA (OVR), VORTAC. The FAA removes the airway segments between the Ocala, FL (OCF), VORTAC and the Greenville, FL (GEF), VORTAC due to the scheduled decommissioning of the Cross City, FL (CTY), VORTAC. As amended, the route extends between the DEARY Fix and the Ocala VORTAC; between the Greenville VORTAC and the Vulcan VORTAC; and between the Holly Springs VORTAC and the Omaha VORTAC.

V-198: Prior to this final rule, V-198 extended between the San Simon, AZ (SSO), VORTAC and the San Antonio, TX (SAT), VORTAC; and between the Sabine Pass, TX (SBI), VOR/DME and the Craig, FL (CRG), VORTAC. The FAA removes the Taylor, FL (TAY), VORTAC from the route and updates the definition of the MONIA Fix as the intersection of the Greenville, FL (GEF), VORTAC 092° T/091°M and the Craig VORTAC 287°T/290°M radials due to the scheduled decommissioning of the Taylor VORTAC. The FAA also removes multiple altitude floor restrictions in the route description of VOR Federal Airway V-198 as they are no longer necessary. As amended, the route continues to extend between the San Simon VORTAC and the San Antonio VORTAC; and between the Sabine Pass VOR/DME and the Craig VORTAC.

The navigational aid radials listed in the VOR Federal airway description 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 of amending domestic VOR Federal Airways V-7, V-35, V-157, V-159, and V-198 in the eastern United States, 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 5-6.5b, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review “Actions regarding establishment of jet routes and Federal airways (see 14 CFR 71.15, Designation of jet routes and VOR Federal airways ). . .”. As such, this airspace action is not expected to cause 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. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

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 Air Traffic Service (ATS) route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System (NAS).

The FAA published a NPRM for Docket No. FAA 2024-2512 in the Federal Register (89 FR 93233; November 26, 2024), proposing to amend domestic VOR Federal Airways V-1, V-29, V-38, V-139, and V-286 in the eastern United States. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. The FAA acknowledges it has another airspace action that used the same airspace docket number (Airspace Docket No. 24-AEA-9); however, each airspace action had a separately identifiable Docket No. allowing the FAA to attribute comments to the appropriate airspace action. The FAA did not receive comments for either airspace action.

Subsequent the NPRM, the FAA made minor editorial corrections to the airway description of VOR Federal Airway V-1 and V-139 to comply with ATS route formatting requirements.

Domestic VOR Federal Airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) 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 amending VOR Federal Airways V-1, V-29, V-38, V-139, and V-286 to support the planned decommissioning of the Salisbury, MD (SBY), VORTAC and the Snow Hill, MD (SWL), VORTAC. This action is in support of the FAA's VOR MON Program. The ATS route changes are described below.

V-1: Prior to this final rule, V-1 extended between the Craig, FL (CRG), VORTAC and the Boston, MA (BOS), VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME). The FAA removes the airway segments between the Norfolk, VA (ORF), VORTAC and the Waterloo, DE (ATR), VOR/DME due to the scheduled decommissioning of the Salisbury, MD (SBY), VORTAC. Additionally, the FAA adds language to the route description that the airway excludes restricted area R-5002F as it is adjacent to VOR Federal Airway V-1 and removes language that the airway excludes restricted area R-4006 as it would no longer be adjacent to VOR Federal Airway V-1.

As amended, the route extends between the Craig VORTAC and the Norfolk VORTAC; and between the Waterloo VOR/DME and the Boston VOR/DME. The portions within R-5002A, R-5002C, R-5002D and R-5002F are excluded during their times of designation.

V-29: Prior to this final rule, V-29 extended between the Snow Hill, MD (SWL), VORTAC and the Syracuse, NY (SYR), VORTAC. The FAA removes the airway segments between the Snow Hill VORTAC and the Smyrna, DE (ENO), VORTAC due to the scheduled decommissioning of the Snow Hill VORTAC. As amended, the route extends between the Smyrna VORTAC and the Syracuse VORTAC.

V-38: Prior to this final rule, V-38 extended between the Moline, IL (MZV), VOR/DME and the intersection of the Fort Wayne, IN (FWA), VORTAC 091° and the Rosewood, OH (ROD), VORTAC 334° radials (WINES Fix); and between the Appleton, OH (APE), VORTAC and the Cape Charles, VA (CCV), VORTAC. The FAA removes the Cape Charles VORTAC and replaces it with the LNSKY, VA, Fix due to a need for VOR Federal Airway V-38 to connect to the redesigned VOR Federal Airway V-139 in this docket. The LNSKY Fix is defined as the intersection of the Harcum, VA (HCM), VORTAC 100° True (T)/107° Magnetic (M) and the Norfolk, VA (ORF), VORTAC 026° T/033° M radials, and would be charted on VOR Federal Airway V-139. As amended, the route extends between the Moline VOR/DME and the WINES Fix; and between the Appleton VORTAC and the LNSKY Fix.

V-139: Prior to this final rule, V-139 extended between the Florence, SC (FLO), VORTAC and the Kennebunk, ME (ENE), VOR/DME. The FAA removes the Cape Charles, VA (CCV), VORTAC and the Snow Hill, MD (SWL), VORTAC from the route and replaces them with a route segment directly between the Norfolk, VA (ORF), VORTAC and the Sea Isle, NJ (SIE), VORTAC due to the scheduled decommissioning of the Snow Hill VORTAC.

The FAA also adds the SUWHT, VA, Fix and the WINAL, NC, Fix to the route between the intersection of the New Bern, NC (EWN), VOR/DME 006° and Norfolk VORTAC 209° radials (PEARS Fix) and the Norfolk VORTAC due to a need to align this portion of the airway to the commonly assigned routing between the PEARS Fix; SUWHT Fix; WINAL Fix; and Norfolk VORTAC. The SUWHT, VA, Fix is defined as the intersection of the Norfolk, VORTAC 209° T/216° M and Elizabeth City, NC (ECG), VOR/DME 243° T/250° M radials; and the WINAL, NC, Fix is defined as the intersection of the Elizabeth City VOR/DME 243° T/250° M and Norfolk VORTAC 194° T/201° M radials.

Additionally, the FAA adds language to the route description that the airway excludes restricted area R-5301, R-5302, R-5303, R-5304, and R-5306 as they are adjacent to VOR Federal Airway V-139; and removes language that the airway excludes restricted area R-5202 as it is not adjacent to VOR Federal Airway V-139. As amended, the airway continues to extend between the Florence VORTAC and the Kennebunk VOR/DME. The airspace below 2,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) outside the United States, the airspace below 3,000 feet MSL between the Kennedy, NY, 087° and 141° radials, and the portions within R-5301, R-5302, R-5303, R-5304, R-5306 and R-6604 are excluded during their times of designation.

V-286: Prior to this final rule, V-286 extended between the Elkins, WV (EKN), VORTAC and the Cape Charles, VA (CCV), VORTAC. The FAA removes the airway segment between the Brooke, VA (BRV), VORTAC and the Cape Charles VORTAC due to the Brooke VORTAC being out of service and unable to provide navigational guidance for this airway segment. As amended, the route extends between the Elkins VORTAC and the Brooke VORTAC.

The navigational aid radials listed in the VOR Federal airway description 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 of amending domestic VOR Federal Airways V-1, V-29, V-38, V-139, and V-286 in the eastern United States, 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 5-6.5b, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review “Actions regarding establishment of jet routes and Federal airways (see 14 CFR 71.15, Designation of jet routes and VOR Federal airways ) . . .”. As such, this airspace action is not expected to cause 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. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

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

This document contains interim final amendments to 26 CFR part 300 regarding user fees for authorized persons who request the issuance of an estate tax closing letter (IRS Letter 627).

The Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 (IOAA) (31 U.S.C. 9701) authorizes each agency to prescribe regulations that establish user fees for services provided by the agency. The IOAA provides that regulations implementing user fees are subject to policies prescribed by the President; these policies are set forth in the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-25, 58 FR 38142 (July 15, 1993) (OMB Circular A-25).

The IOAA states that the services provided by an agency should be self-sustaining to the extent possible. Under OMB Circular A-25, agencies that provide services that confer special benefits on identifiable recipients beyond those accruing to the general public must identify those services, determine whether user fees should be assessed for those services, and, if so, establish user fees that recover the full cost of providing those services, unless an exception to the full cost requirement is granted. As required by the IOAA and OMB Circular A-25, agencies are to review user fees biennially and update them as necessary to reflect changes in the cost of providing the underlying services.

On September 28, 2021, the Department of the Treasury (Treasury Department) and the IRS published final regulations (TD 9957) in the Federal Register (86 FR 53539) establishing a $67 user fee to apply to requests for the issuance of an estate tax closing letter, based on a 2019 Cost Model. As explained in the Background section of the preamble of TD 9957, the issuance of an estate tax closing letter constitutes the provision of a service and confers special benefits to authorized persons requesting such letters beyond those accruing to the general public. Therefore, the IRS is authorized, pursuant to the IOAA and OMB Circular A-25, to charge a user fee for the issuance of an estate tax closing letter that reflects the full cost of providing this service. See also section 6103(p)(2)(B) (allowing for a reasonable fee for furnishing return information to any person).

In 2021, the IRS conducted a biennial review of the estate tax closing letter user fee and issued a new Cost Model that resulted in no change to the $67 user fee.

In 2023, the IRS conducted a biennial review of the estate tax closing letter user fee and issued a new Cost Model, which determined that the full cost of issuing estate tax closing letters to authorized persons is $56.

The IRS follows generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) in calculating the full cost of providing services. The Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) is the body that establishes GAAP that apply for Federal reporting entities, such as the IRS. FASAB publishes the FASAB Handbook of Accounting Standards and Other Pronouncements, as amended, available at https://fasab.gov/accounting-standards/ . The FASAB Handbook includes the Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 4: Managerial Cost Accounting Standards and Concepts (SFFAS No. 4) for the Federal government. SFFAS No. 4 establishes internal costing standards under GAAP to accurately measure and manage the full cost of Federal programs. The methodology described below is in accordance with SFFAS No. 4.

The IRS determines the cost of its services and the activities involved in producing them through a cost accounting system that tracks costs to organizational units. The lowest organizational unit in the IRS's cost accounting system is a cost center. Cost centers usually are separate offices distinguished by subject-matter area of responsibility or geographic region. All costs of operating a cost center are recorded in the IRS's cost accounting system and allocated to that cost center. These costs include the direct costs for the cost center's activities and all indirect costs, including overhead, associated with that cost center. Each cost is recorded in only one cost center.

Not all cost centers are fully devoted to only one service for which the IRS charges a user fee. When cost centers include multiple services, the IRS measures the time required to accomplish activities associated with each service to estimate the average time spent on the service in the related cost center. The average time devoted is multiplied by the relevant organizational unit's average labor and benefits cost per unit of time to determine the direct labor and benefits cost incurred to provide the service. To determine the full cost, the IRS then adds an appropriate overhead charge.

Overhead is an indirect cost of operating an organization that cannot be immediately associated with an activity that the organization performs. Overhead includes costs of resources that are jointly or commonly consumed by one or more organizational unit's activities but are not specifically identifiable to a single activity, such as the following:

To calculate the overhead allocable to a service, the IRS multiplies the current overhead rate by the direct labor and benefits costs of the service. The overhead rate is the ratio of the IRS's indirect labor, benefits, and non-labor costs of business divisions that do not interact with taxpayers to the direct labor and benefits costs of business divisions that interact with taxpayers. The IRS calculates the overhead rate annually based on cost elements underlying the Statement of Net Cost included in the IRS Annual Financial Statements, which are audited by the Government Accountability Office.

For this estate tax closing letter user fee review, the fiscal year (FY) 2023 overhead rate, based on FY 2022 costs, of 62.50 percent was used.

The IRS followed the guidance provided by the OMB Circular A-25 guidance to compute the full cost of issuing estate tax closing letters to authorized persons. OMB Circular A-25 explains that the full cost includes all indirect and direct costs to any part of the Federal Government including but not limited to, direct and indirect personnel costs, physical overhead, rents, utilities, travel, and management costs.

Requests for estate tax closing letters are processed by employees at grades 5, 8, and 11 of the general schedule (GS-5, GS-8, and GS-11). Approximately 0.65 staff hours are required to review the return, create the estate tax closing letters, and prepare the letters for mailing. The IRS received an average of 8,894 annual requests for estate tax closing letters in FY 2021 and FY 2022, requiring 5,781 staff hours.

Total hours allocated to the cost also must include indirect hours for campus employees, which are calculated by multiplying the number of direct hours by the applicable 60 percent indirect employee rate. Using this information, IRS determined that the total staff hours for processing requests for estate tax closing letters are 9,250 annually.

To determine the labor and benefits costs, the IRS divided the 9,250 total hours by 2,080 (the total annual hours worked by a full-time employee (FTE)) to convert the hours to a 4.45 FTE equivalent. The processing of requests for estate tax closing letters is performed primarily (87.7 percent) by employees at the GS-5 level, but also by employees at the GS-8 level (1.7 percent) and GS-11 level (10.6 percent). The average salary and benefit cost for each of those levels was multiplied by that grade's percentage of processing time to arrive at a $67,355 total cost per FTE. Multiplying the cost per FTE by the 4.45 FTE equivalent resulted in a total labor and benefits cost of $299,730, as follows:

Outgoing estate tax closing letters are reviewed by quality assurance professionals at the following Internal Revenue (IR) paybands of the IRS Payband System: IR-10 (87.7 percent) and IR-06 (12.3 percent). Three out of every 100 estate tax closing letters mailed are reviewed to verify (1) the estate tax closing letter was authorized, (2) the information included in the letter was accurate, and (3) the address was correct. The 8,894 average number of requests for FY 2021 and FY 2022 resulted in 266 letters reviewed. On average, quality assurance professionals spend 0.5 hours reviewing one estate tax closing letter, totaling 133 direct staff hours. The direct staff hours were multiplied by the 60 percent indirect employee rate for campus employees, resulting in a combined total of 213 annual staff hours allocated for quality assurance (QA) reviews, as follows:

QA reviews are processed by employees at various IR levels. Dividing the total hours by 2,080 (the total annual hours for each FTE), resulted in 0.10 FTEs. The average salary and benefits for both IR paybands conducting quality assurance reviews was multiplied by that IR payband's percentage of processing time to arrive at the $95,460 total cost per FTE. The total cost per FTE was then multiplied by the total FTE to determine the labor and benefits cost for QA reviews, as follows:

The IRS applied the 62.5 percent overhead rate to the total labor and benefits cost to calculate the full cost of the estate tax closing letter program.

The $56 cost per request was determined by dividing the full cost by the average annual volume of requests, as follows:

The OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Analysis has determined that these regulations are not significant and subject to review under section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), it is hereby certified that these interim final regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. These regulations, which reduce the amount of a fee to obtain a particular service, affect decedents' estates, which generally are not small entities as defined under 5 U.S.C. 601(6). Thus, these regulations have no economic impact on small entities. In addition, the interim final regulations will establish a $56 fee, which is a reduction from the previously established fee and is not substantial enough to have a significant economic impact on any entities that could be affected by establishing such a fee. Accordingly, the Secretary certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits and take certain other actions before issuing a final rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in expenditures in any one year by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. This rule does not include any Federal mandate that may result in expenditures by State, local, or Tribal governments, or by the private sector in excess of that threshold.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial, direct compliance costs on State and local governments, and is not required by statute, or preempts State law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive order. These regulations do not have federalism implications and do not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments or preempt State law within the meaning of the Executive order.

The user fee for the estate tax closing letter applies to all individuals who make a request and pay for the estate tax closing letter on https://www.pay.gov. It would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest for the IRS to continue to charge the current, higher user fee during the period provided for public comment on the proposal to reduce that fee. To enable the reduced fee amount to be in effect immediately for authorized persons requesting an estate tax closing letter, the Treasury Department and the IRS find that there is good cause to dispense with (1) notice and public comment pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (c) and (2) a delayed effective date pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d). The Treasury Department and the IRS will consider public comments submitted in response to the cross-referenced notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register and will promulgate a final rule after considering those comments.

Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, this regulation has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as not a major rule, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

The principal author of these regulations is Juli Ro Kim of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs, Trusts, and Estates). Other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in the development of the regulations.

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:

On March 20, 2024, the Coast Guard published a temporary deviation entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Beaufort, SC” in the Federal Register (89 FR 19731). That temporary deviation, effective from 12:01 a.m. on March 25, 2024, through 11:59 p.m. on September 29, 2024, allowed Lady's Island (Woods Memorial) Bridge to operate without a seasonal opening schedule. Fifteen comments were received during the test period and those comments were addressed in the NPRM.

On October 25, 2024, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Beaufort, SC” in the Federal Register (89 FR 85117). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this regulatory change. During the comment period that ended December 9, 2024, we received 70 comments, and those comments are addressed in section IV of this final rule.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499.

Lady's Island (Woods Memorial) Bridge across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AICW) Beaufort River, mile 536.0, at Beaufort, SC, is a swing bridge with a 30-foot vertical clearance at mean high water in the closed position. The normal operating schedule for the bridge is found in 33 CFR 117.911(f).

SCDOT requested the Coast Guard consider changing the operating schedule for the Lady's Island (Woods Memorial) Bridge by removing the seasonal operating schedule which would align with other drawbridges along the AICW in SC. The change would also extend restrictions during peak traffic hours to assist with alleviating vehicle congestion.

The Coast Guard provided a comment period of 45 days on the NPRM, and we received 70 comments. Most of the comments, approximately 47, were in favor of the proposed changes. Some of the commentors in favor of the proposed changes were unaware the swing bridge is currently regulated to allow for scheduled openings to assist with vehicle congestion. Some commenters alluded that the swing bridge opens on demand and it should not open on demand because vehicle traffic is more important. The Coast Guard has the responsibility to ensure the reasonable needs of navigation are maintained while assisting with competing modes of transportation. Some comments also asserted that reducing openings will benefit the aging swing bridge and help with operational integrity. Regardless of the swing bridge's age, SCDOT is required by Federal law to maintain the working machinery in good operating condition. If the swing bridge is experiencing frequent operating failures that result in impacts to navigation, SCDOT would be subject to enforcement proceedings. Specific drawbridge operating schedules are not issued to relieve the owner or operator of the duty to properly maintain or operate the swing span to save wear and tear on the structure or machinery.

Eight comments proposed alternate operating schedules that would not meet the reasonable needs of navigation. The commenters' proposed alternate operating schedules included: no openings from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. for lunch; the restricted openings should begin at 3 p.m.; no openings for navigation between 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; no openings during school hours, and no openings on Sundays during church hours. These proposed alternate operating schedules do not meet the reasonable needs of navigation and could lead to unsafe conditions for vessels plying these waters. Additionally, there is a high-level fixed bridge, McTeer Bridge, approximately two miles away which provides an alternate route for vehicle traffic. The AICW is a Federal Project Waterway that extends over 1,500 miles from Boston to Florida Bay. It is the main waterway artery for all recreational and commercial traffic that are unable to safely transit offshore.

Nine comments gave no opinion on the proposed rule and provided general comments that were outside the scope of the proposed rule. One comment was a duplicate comment.

Five comments were against the proposed changes. The first comment opposing the proposed change stated that with the drawbridge operation regulation at the Wappoo Creek Bridge, this action will make the transit difficult for boats slower than 10 knots and it will force mariners to transit during the night or offshore when navigation is inherently more dangerous. The distance between these bridges is approximately 65 miles, with planning, mariners should be able to reasonably transit the AICW. Three comments stated they enjoy watching the bridge open, vehicles have an alternate route and feel it does not open frequently. Vehicle traffic does have an alternate route and bridge logs show the bridge opens on average seven times a day which would be considered infrequent. One commentor against the proposed change stated the City of Beaufort had the opportunity to replace the aging bridge but chose to keep it as a designated historical landmark. The choice to keep the low-level swing bridge should not be to the detriment of navigation. As previously stated, SCDOT is required by Federal law to properly maintain the swing bridge regardless of age and provide navigation with openings per Federal regulations.

This rule modifies the operating schedule for the Lady's Island (Woods Memorial) Bridge by removing the seasonal operating schedule and extending restrictions during peak traffic hours to assist with alleviating vehicle congestion. The bridge will continue to open on demand on Saturday, Sunday, Federal holidays, and daily each evening. Monday through Friday the swing bridge will open once an hour as designated and it will be allowed to remain closed to navigation during peak traffic times. Public vessels of the Unites States, vessels in distress, and tugs with tows are allowed to pass at any time. There are no changes from the regulatory text in the proposed rule.

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, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that vessels can still transit the bridge at the designated times. Vessels able to transit without a drawbridge opening may do so at any time.

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 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:

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule under the authority in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This statutory 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.” The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the Coast Guard received insufficient notice of the event to follow those procedures. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM, solicit comments, and consider any comments prior to issuing a final rule because we must establish this safety zone by May 23, 2025.

Also, 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 would be impracticable because action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the fireworks display outside McCovey Cove in San Francisco, CA on May 23, 2025.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port Sector San Francisco (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the scheduled San Franscisco State University (SFSU) Graduation Fireworks display on May 23, 2025, will be a safety concern for anyone within a 100-foot radius of the fireworks vessel during loading and staging, and a 900-foot radius of the vessel 30-minutes before the commencement, during the display, and 30-minutes after the conclusion of the fireworks display. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters around the fireworks vessel and during the fireworks display.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from noon until 10:05 p.m. on May 23, 2025. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 100 feet of the fireworks vessel during loading, staging, and transit from Pier 68, Wharf 4, San Francisco, and until 30 minutes after completion of the fireworks display. During the loading, staging, and transit of the fireworks vessel scheduled to take place between noon and 8:45 p.m. on May 23, 2025, until 30 minutes prior to the start of the fireworks display, the safety zone will encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks vessel, from surface to bottom, within a circle formed by connecting all points 100 feet out from the fireworks vessel. The fireworks display is scheduled to start at 9:30 p.m. and end approximately 9:35 p.m. on May 23, 2025, outside of McCovey Cove within the San Francisco Bay in San Francisco, CA.

At 9 p.m., which is 30 minutes prior to the commencement of the 5-minute fireworks display, the safety zone will increase in size and encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks vessel, from surface to bottom, within a circle formed by connecting all points 900-feet from the circle center at approximate position 37°46′36″ N, 122°22′56″ W (NAD 83). The safety zone will terminate at 10:05 p.m. on May 23, 2025, or as announced via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

This regulation is necessary to keep persons and vessels away from the immediate vicinity of the fireworks loading, staging, transit, and display site. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative, no person or vessel may enter or remain in a restricted area. A “designated representative” means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel, or a Federal, State, or local officer designated by or assisting the COTP in the enforcement of the safety zone. This regulation is necessary to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and transiting vessels.

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 Order 12866 directs 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 limited duration and narrowly tailored geographic area of the safety zone. Although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the local waterways users will be notified to ensure the safety zone will result in minimum impact. The vessels desiring to transit through or around the temporary safety zone may do so upon express permission from the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

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 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 safety zone 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 temporary safety zone lasting 10 hours around the fireworks vessel during loading, staging, transit, and display of fireworks at Pier 68, Wharf 4, and outside McCovey Cove within San Francisco Bay. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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

This final rule describes new prices and product features for competitive products, by class of mail, established by the Governors of the United States Postal Service. New prices are available under Docket Number CP2025-7 on the Postal Regulatory Commission PRC website at https://www.prc.gov, and on the Postal Explorer website at https://pe.usps.com.

The Postal Service is revising Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) to reflect changes to certain prices and mailing standards for the following competitive products:

• Priority Mail Express.

• Priority Mail.

• USPS Ground Advantage.

• Parcel Select.

• Extra Services.

• Return Services.

• Mailer Services.

• Recipient Services.

• Other.

Competitive product prices and changes are identified by product as follows:

Priority Mail Express prices will remain the same. Priority Mail Express will continue to offer zoned and Flat Rate, Retail and Commercial pricing.

Overall, Priority Mail prices will increase 6.3 percent. Priority Mail will continue to offer zoned and Flat Rate, Retail and Commercial pricing.

Retail prices will increase an average of 7.3 percent. The Flat Rate Envelope will increase to $11.00; the Legal Flat Rate Envelope will increase to $11.20; and the Padded Flat Rate Envelope will increase to $11.95. The Small Flat Rate Box price will increase to $11.70, and the Medium Flat Rate Boxes will increase to $21.05. The Large Flat Rate Box will increase to $29.95 and the APO/FPO/DPO Large Flat Rate Box will increase to $28.70.

Commercial prices will increase an average of 5.1 percent.

Overall, USPS Ground Advantage prices will increase 7.1 percent.

USPS Ground Advantage—Retail prices will increase 9.8 percent.

USPS Ground Advantage—Commercial prices will increase 4.7 percent.

The Postal Service is revising the basic eligibility standards for USPS Ground Advantage—Commercial, to be sealed against inspection. Additionally, except for restricted material as described in DMM section 601.8.0, USPS Ground Advantage—Commercial will now be eligible for any mailable item ( e.g., PII).

These revisions will provide consistency with the basic eligibility standards for the USPS Ground Advantage—Retail and USPS Ground Advantage—Commercial products.

The prices for Parcel Select Destination Entry will increase an average of 7.6 percent.

The prices for USPS Connect Local will increase 5.7 percent.

The Postal Service is discontinuing the Destination Network Distribution Center (DNDC) destination entry level for Parcel Select Destination Entry mailings. Parcel Select Destination Entry mailings must be sorted to a 5-digit scheme, 5-digit, SCF, or 3-digit (nonstandard only) for entry at the applicable DSCF/DRPDC, DHub, or DDU and DS&DC.

Adult Signature Required and Adult Signature Restricted Delivery service prices will remain the same.

There are no structural changes to USPS Returns service.

The Pickup on Demand service fee will remain the same.

The USPS Tracking Plus service prices will remain the same.

The USPS Label Delivery Service prices will remain the same.

The competitive Post Office Box service prices will remain the same.

Premium Forwarding Service (PFS) prices will remain the same.

The USPS Package Intercept fee will remain the same.

Address Enhancement Service competitive product prices will remain the same.

The Package Quality Noncompliance Fee will remain the same.

The Postal Service is revising DMM section 705.18.0, Priority Mail Express Open and Distribute and Priority Mail Open and Distribute, to limit the use of sacks and eliminate hazardous materials.

Priority Mail Express Open and Distribute and Priority Mail Open and Distribute sacks will be limited to a 5-digit sortation for parcels only. The 5-digit open and distribute sacks may continue to be entered at all destination entry levels ( e.g., SCF/RPDC, DDU and S&DC).

Priority Mail Express Open and Distribute and Priority Mail Open and Distribute is also being revised to eliminate hazardous material from being included in mail enclosed in a Priority Mail Express or Priority Mail, Open-and-Distribute container.

The Postal Service is revising the Nonstandard Fee structure to add a new component “Characteristics.” The new component will consist of parcels with characteristics that are considered to be nonstandard by the Postal Service ( e.g., cylindrical tubes and rolls, wood or metal boxes).

The Postal Service is also revising the Nonstandard Fee assessment criteria. A parcel that is nonstandard by both, length (more than 22 inches or more than 30 inches) and by characteristics will only be subject to the highest fee. A parcel that is nonstandard by either length or characteristics, and by cube (more than 2 cubic feet) will continue to be subject to both the length or characteristics fee and the cube fee.

In addition, the Postal Service is requiring mailers with Shipping Services file manifests or other approved electronic documentation to include, when applicable, the extra service code (ESC) for the characteristics fee along with the current standard to include accurate dimensions (length, width, height) of all parcels that measure more than 22 inches in length or 18 inches in width or 15 inches in height. Mailers that do not meet the requirement to include the parcel's accurate dimensions and/or characteristics ESC will be assessed the Dimension Noncompliance fee.

Nonstandard Fees will continue to be applied to retail and commercial Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS Ground Advantage, and Parcel Select Destination Entry and USPS Connect Local. However, in addition to the current Nonstandard Fee product exceptions, parcels mailed at the USPS Ground Advantage “Oversized”, Parcel Select Destination Entry “Oversized”, and USPS Connect Local “Oversized”, prices will not be subject to a Nonstandard Fee.

The Postal Service provides additional resources to assist customers with this price change for competitive products. These tools include price lists, downloadable price files, and Federal Register Notices, which may be found on the Postal Explorer website at https://pe.usps.com.

The Postal Service adopts the described changes to Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations. We will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect these changes.

Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is amended as follows:

Submit your written comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0190, at www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from the docket. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit to www.regulations.gov any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), Proprietary Business Information (PBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission ( i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). Please visit www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets for additional submission methods; the full EPA public comment policy; information about CBI, PBI, or multimedia submissions; and general guidance on making effective comments.

This action may affect any stationary, fossil-fuel-fired boiler or stationary, fossil-fuel-fired combustion turbine located in Indiana and serving at any time on or after January 1, 2005, a generator with nameplate capacity of more than 25 MWe (megawatt-electric) producing electricity for sale. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) industry group for most affected entities is NAICS code 221112, Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation.

This information on potentially affected entities is not intended to be exhaustive. To determine whether your entity is affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria for the CSAPR NO X Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program found in 40 CFR 97.804. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Statutory authority to issue the amendments finalized in this action is provided by the same Clean Air Act (CAA) provisions that provided authority to issue the regulations being amended: CAA section 110(a) and (c), 42 U.S.C. 7410(a) and (c) (state implementation plan (SIP) and federal implementation plan (FIP) requirements, including requirements for mitigation of interstate air pollution), and CAA section 301, 42 U.S.C. 7601 (general rulemaking authority). Statutory authority for the rulemaking procedures followed in this action is provided by Administrative Procedure Act (APA) section 553, 5 U.S.C. 553.

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), also known as the “good neighbor” provision, requires each state's SIP to include provisions sufficient to “prohibit[ ], consistent with the provisions of this subchapter, any source or other type of emissions activity within the State from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will . . . contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other State with respect to any [national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS)].” EPA often refers to the emissions reduction requirements under this provision as “good neighbor obligations” and submissions addressing these requirements as “good neighbor SIPs.” CAA section 110(c)(1) requires the EPA Administrator to promulgate a FIP at any time within 2 years after the Administrator: (i) finds that a state has failed to make a required SIP submission; (ii) finds a SIP submission to be incomplete pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(1)(C); or (iii) disapproves a SIP submission. This obligation applies unless the state corrects the deficiency through a SIP revision that the Administrator approves before the FIP is promulgated.

In March 2021, acting pursuant to CAA sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 110(c)(1), EPA promulgated the Revised CSAPR Update. 1 The rule determined the good neighbor obligations of 12 states, including Indiana, with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS and established FIP requirements for EGUs in those states to address the states' obligations by reducing ozone-season emissions of NO X , an ozone precursor, starting in 2021. The NO X emissions reduction requirements were implemented through the mechanism of an emission allowance trading program.

In March 2023, again acting pursuant to CAA sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 110(c)(1), EPA promulgated the Good Neighbor Plan. 2 The rule determined the good neighbor obligations of 23 states, including Indiana, with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS and established FIP requirements for EGUs and certain other types of emissions sources in those states to address the states' obligations by reducing ozone-season NO X emissions starting in 2023. The NO X emissions reduction requirements for EGUs again were implemented through the mechanism of an emission allowance trading program, and EPA coordinated compliance obligations by providing that participation of a state's EGUs in the Good Neighbor Plan's trading program would also be deemed to satisfy the EGUs' obligations under the Revised CSAPR Update (and in some cases, other interstate ozone transport rules as well). 3 Later in 2023, in response to judicial orders partially staying a separate EPA action as to several states, EPA promulgated two interim final rules staying Good Neighbor Plan implementation for emissions sources in those states pending further EPA rulemaking. 4 As implemented for the 2023 ozone season, the Good Neighbor Plan therefore applied in 11 states, including Indiana.

On June 27, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a decision staying enforcement of the Good Neighbor Plan against the stay applicants. 5 In response, later in 2024 EPA promulgated a third interim final rule administratively staying Good Neighbor Plan implementation starting with the 2024 ozone season for all sources in all states where implementation had not already been stayed under the two 2023 interim final rules, pending further EPA rulemaking. 6

In addition to staying Good Neighbor Plan implementation, the three interim final rules also restored status quo requirements for EGUs in states covered under earlier interstate ozone transport rules that had been superseded by the Good Neighbor Plan, including the Revised CSAPR Update. Thus, as of the 2024 ozone season, and for future ozone seasons pending further EPA rulemaking, EGUs in Indiana are once again participating in an emission allowance trading program where the amounts of the state emissions budget for Indiana and the unit-level allowance allocations for Indiana EGUs are the budget and allocation amounts established specifically to address the requirements of the Revised CSAPR Update. 7

In the Revised CSAPR Update rulemaking, when determining state emissions budgets and default unit-level allowance allocations, EPA addressed future EGU retirements through one of two distinct approaches. The first approach was used for EGUs whose owners had announced planned retirement dates for the units in 2024 or later or had not announced any planned retirement dates. For these units without planned retirement dates before 2024, which constituted the large majority of the EGU fleet, the eventual future retirements of the units would have no effect on state emissions budgets. The units also would remain eligible to receive initial allocations of allowances as existing units for as long as the operating data for the units reported to EPA for successive ozone seasons showed continued operation. At such future point as one of these units might become ineligible to receive initial allocations as an existing unit, the allowances that otherwise would have been allocated to the unit would instead be allocated to other units in the state. The second approach was used for EGUs whose owners had announced planned retirement dates for the units before 2024 (provided that EPA's confirmatory research did not identify any reason to question the announcements). For these units, EPA took the planned retirement dates into account when determining the amounts of the state emissions budgets for each year after the planned retirement dates, resulting in lower budgets than would have been the case without the retirement announcements. These units were also treated as ineligible to receive initial allocations of allowances as existing units in any year after their planned retirement dates.

The EGUs whose future retirements were addressed through the second approach included several coal-fired EGUs in Indiana, including units 17 and 18 at the R.M. Schahfer power plant (plant ID 6085) and units 1SG1 and 2SG1 at the Merom power plant (plant ID 6213). Before the Revised CSAPR Update rulemaking, the owners of these four units announced plans to retire the units in 2023, 8 and EPA found no reason at the time of the rulemaking to question the announced retirement plans. Accordingly, EPA relied on these units' planned retirement dates in the rulemaking, which caused the Indiana state emissions budget for the ozone seasons in 2024 and subsequent years to be lower than would otherwise have been the case (by reducing the emissions baseline used as a starting point for development of the emissions budget) and also made the four units ineligible to receive initial allowance allocations as existing units for those ozone seasons. After finalization of the Revised CSAPR Update, these EGUs' owners (including a new owner for the Merom power plant) deferred or canceled the units' planned retirements, 9 and in accordance with the owners' updated plans, in the Good Neighbor Plan rulemaking EPA treated the four units as operating in 2024 and 2025 for purposes of the Indiana state emissions budgets and the initial allowance allocations to existing units. 10 However, the stay of Good Neighbor Plan implementation necessitated a return to the status quo, i.e., the Revised CSAPR Update's state emissions budgets and unit-level allowance allocations, which continued to reflect the superseded retirement plans.

In this action, EPA is adjusting the Revised CSAPR Update state emissions budget for Indiana and the unit-level allowance allocations to Indiana EGUs for the ozone seasons in 2024 and subsequent years to end the reliance on the superseded retirement plans for Schahfer units 17-18 and Merom units 1SG1-2SG1 and recognize the units' continued operation. These four units are the only EGUs in any of the states covered by the Revised CSAPR Update that were treated in the original rulemaking as retiring before the 2024 ozone season but that actually operated in that ozone season. The adjustments eliminate an inconsistency between how these four units and all other pre-2020 units that operated during the 2024 ozone season are being treated for purposes of the state emissions budgets and unit-level allowance allocations that apply under the Revised CSAPR Update.

The amounts of the adjustments in this action have been determined by applying the budget-setting and allowance allocation methodologies that were finalized in the Revised CSAPR Update rulemaking to an updated dataset that no longer includes the superseded retirement plans for Schahfer units 17-18 and Merom units 1SG1-2SG1. The adjusted state emissions budget for Indiana for the ozone seasons in 2024 and subsequent years is 11,245 tons, an increase of 1,681 tons over Indiana's budget of 9,564 tons for these ozone seasons as originally established in the Revised CSAPR Update rulemaking. EPA expects that the increased emissions budget will reduce compliance costs for Indiana EGUs, especially Schahfer units 17-18 and Merom units 1SG1-2SG1, to which most of the additional allowances will be allocated. However, in the broader context of the multi-state trading program, EPA expects that the additional allowances will not have a material impact on emissions or air quality, because the total amount of allowances issued under the trading program for each ozone season already exceeds the total emissions of all participating EGUs and there is also a sizeable bank of allowances carried over from previous ozone seasons. While the additional allowances that will be issued under this action for each ozone season represent an increase of about 17.6 percent over the allowances that would otherwise have been issued to EGUs in Indiana, the additional allowances represent an increase of only about 1.1 percent of the total amount of allowances available for all participating EGUs across the set of 12 covered states to use in meeting their 2024 compliance obligations. 11

EPA is not altering or reopening any aspect of the Revised CSAPR Update other than the data concerning the planned retirement dates for Schahfer units 17-18 and Merom units 1SG1-2SG1. EPA notes that because no changes are being made to EPA's determinations in the Revised CSAPR Update regarding the emissions control strategies whose application would address the covered states' good neighbor obligations, this action does not constitute a change in the stringency of the Revised CSAPR Update as finalized in the original rulemaking. Indiana's budget remains at a level that reflects the implementation of the selected emissions control strategies and is simply being adjusted to eliminate the reliance on the superseded retirement plans and recognize the continued operation of these four units.

EPA is finalizing this action's amendments to the Revised CSAPR Update's state emissions budget and unit-level allowance allocations for Indiana on an interim basis. After considering any comments received in response to this document, EPA will evaluate whether further action responding to the comments and affirming or modifying this action's amendments would be appropriate.

This section III. summarizes the methodology used to determine state emissions budgets and variability limits in the Revised CSAPR Update rulemaking and describes how the determination of Indiana's state emissions budget for the ozone seasons in 2024 and subsequent years and the associated variability limit change when Schahfer units 17-18 and Merom units 1SG1-2SG1 are no longer treated as retiring before the 2024 ozone season. 12

In the Revised CSAPR Update, EPA established four sets of state emissions budgets for successive ozone seasons. The first three sets of budgets applied for the ozone seasons in 2021, 2022, and 2023, respectively, and the fourth set of budgets applies for the ozone seasons in 2024 and all subsequent years. The process for calculating each state emissions budget involved three general steps. First, EPA determined baseline amounts of NO X emissions and heat input for each of the state's covered EGUs in the relevant ozone season before any emissions reductions required under the Revised CSAPR Update. 13 Second, while holding each unit's heat input constant at its baseline amount, EPA computed the NO X emissions reductions that could be achieved in the relevant ozone season by applying the Revised CSAPR Update's selected emissions control strategies at the units where those strategies were identified as available. Finally, EPA computed an incremental adjustment in NO X emissions that were expected to occur from each state's EGUs through optimization of operations within the state if operators were incentivized by a NO X emission allowance price commensurate with the costs of the selected emissions control strategies. 14 The emissions budget for each state for each ozone season was determined as the sum of the baseline emissions amounts for the state's covered units for that ozone season computed in the first step minus the sum of the changes in emissions for the state's units for that ozone season computed in the second and third steps.

Table III.A-1 summarizes the calculation of Indiana's state emissions budget for the ozone seasons in 2024 and subsequent years, both as originally performed and as adjusted in this action. The remainder of this section provides more detail on how this action's adjustments affect the amounts computed at each of the three steps of the budget-setting process. A spreadsheet showing the complete adjusted calculations of Indiana's state emissions budget for 2024 and subsequent years is available in the docket for this action.

In the first step of the budget-setting process, EPA calculates the baseline amounts for the relevant ozone season before any emissions reductions required under the Revised CSAPR Update. In this step of the process for the 2024 ozone season in the original rulemaking, EPA first compiled the NO X emissions and heat input data reported for the 2019 ozone season for all of the state's covered units and then adjusted these reported data upward or downward as necessary to account for previously announced changes scheduled for implementation after the 2019 ozone season and before the 2024 ozone season. 15 The types of announced changes taken into account included start-ups of new units, retirements of existing units, installations of new NO X emissions control equipment, and changes in the type of fuel combusted. With respect to retirements, if the owner of an EGU had announced a planned retirement date in 2024 or later, or if no retirement date had been announced, then the EGU was not treated as retired for purposes of the 2024 ozone season and its 2024 baseline amounts of NO X emissions and heat input remained at the amounts reported for the unit for the 2019 ozone season (unless an adjustment to the unit's baseline NO X emissions was made to reflect an installation of new NO X emissions control equipment or a change in the type of fuel combusted). In contrast, if the owner of an EGU had announced a planned retirement date before 2024 and if EPA's confirmatory research did not identify any reason to question the announcement, then the EGU was treated as retired for purposes of the 2024 ozone season and its 2024 baseline amounts of NO X emissions and heat input were set to zero.

In the Revised CSAPR Update rulemaking, based on previous announcements by the owners of Schahfer units 17-18 and Merom units 1SG1-2SG1 that the units would retire in 2023, EPA treated the units as retired for purposes of the 2024 budget-setting process and set their 2024 baseline amounts of NO X emissions and heat input to zero. In this action, to end reliance on the superseded retirement plans and recognize the continued operation of the four units in 2024, EPA is adjusting the 2024 baseline amounts of NO X emissions and heat input for these units to the amounts reported for the units for the 2019 ozone season. These adjustments are consistent with how the four units were treated for purposes of determining the baseline amounts for the 2021, 2022, and 2023 ozone seasons and are also consistent with how other units without announced plans to retire before 2024 were treated for purposes of determining baseline amounts for the 2024 ozone season. The adjustments raise the total 2024 baseline heat input for Indiana units by 32,810,713 mmBtu and raise the total 2024 baseline NO X emissions for Indiana units by 1,709 tons, as shown in rows A and B of Table III.A-1.

In the second step of the budget-setting process, EPA calculates the emissions reductions that could be achieved in the relevant ozone season by applying emissions control strategies at units where the strategies have been identified as available. For the Revised CSAPR Update, the selected emissions control strategies for coal-fired EGUs included performance optimization of post-combustion controls (such as selective catalytic reduction (SCR) controls or selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) controls) at units where those controls have already been installed and installation or upgrading of combustion controls (such as low-NO X burners and overfire air) at units where post-combustion controls have not already been installed or are not being operated. When this step was originally performed in the Revised CSAPR Update rulemaking, none of the selected emissions control strategies were identified as available at Schahfer units 17-18 or Merom units 1SG1-2SG1: the Schahfer units, which do not have post-combustion controls, already achieve NO X emission rates lower than the rule's target emission rate of 0.199 lb/mmBtu for comparable units with state-of-the-art combustion controls, and the Merom units, which have SCR controls, already achieve NO X emission rates lower than the rule's target emission rate of 0.08 lb/mmBtu for comparable SCR-equipped units. EPA's conclusion in the original rulemaking that none of the selected emissions control strategies were available at the four units for purposes of the 2021, 2022, or 2023 ozone seasons also applies in this action for purposes of the 2024 ozone season. Accordingly, the total amount of emissions reductions that could be achieved in 2024 by Indiana units by applying the selected emissions control strategies is unaffected by this action's adjustments, as shown in row C of Table III.A-1.

In the final step of the budget-setting process, EPA calculates the incremental emissions change that is expected from optimization of operations within the state. EPA computes these amounts by multiplying each state's total baseline heat input for the relevant ozone season by a state-specific NO X emission rate factor derived through an analysis performed using the Integrated Planning Model (IPM). 16 The adjustments in this action do not affect the data used to derive the emission rate factor of 0.00178 lb/mmBtu for Indiana as determined in the Revised CSAPR Update rulemaking. 17 However, the adjustments increase Indiana's total 2024 baseline heat input relative to the total 2024 baseline heat input used in the Revised CSAPR Update rulemaking and therefore cause a slight adjustment in Indiana's budget, as shown in row D of Table III.A-1.

Taking all steps of the budget-setting process together, the adjustments to end reliance on the superseded retirement plans for Schahfer units 17-18 and Merom units 1SG1-2SG1 and recognize the units' continued operation cause a net increase (after rounding adjustments) of 1,681 tons. The adjusted Indiana state emissions budget for 2024 and subsequent years is 11,245 tons. These amounts are shown in row E of Table III.A-1.

EPA's trading programs addressing interstate pollution transport include “assurance provisions” which are designed to ensure that the emissions reductions necessary to address each state's good neighbor obligations are achieved within that state, as required under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), 18 while also accommodating inherent year-to-year variability in state-level EGU operations. 19 The assurance provisions require certain EGUs in a state to surrender additional allowances if the total emissions from the state's EGUs exceed an “assurance level” computed as the sum of the state emissions budget plus a “variability limit.”  20

In the Revised CSAPR Update rulemaking, each variability limit was set at 21 percent of the corresponding state emissions budget. 21 To preserve the intended relationship between variability limits and state emissions budgets as finalized in the original rulemaking, in this action EPA is establishing an adjusted variability limit for Indiana for the ozone seasons in 2024 and subsequent years. The adjusted variability limit is 2,361 tons, which is 21 percent of the adjusted state emissions budget of 11,245 tons.

This section IV. summarizes the methodology used to determine the amounts of allowances allocated to Indiana EGUs from each state emissions budget and describes how the unit-level allocations for the ozone seasons in 2024 and subsequent years change when Schahfer units 17-18 and Merom units 1SG1-2SG1 are no longer treated as retiring before the 2024 ozone season. 22 This section also provides public notice of the availability of data on the adjusted allocations to Indiana EGUs.

EPA's process for calculating default unit-level allowance allocations from each state emissions budget for each ozone season under the Revised CSAPR Update involves four overall steps, parts of which were completed during the Revised CSAPR Update rulemaking and parts of which are completed or updated on a rolling basis for each successive ozone season through ministerial calculations performed according to procedures laid out in the trading program regulations. First, EPA identifies which EGUs in a state are eligible to receive allocations from the state emissions budget for the relevant ozone season as “existing” units. Second, EPA calculates what portion of the state emissions budget for the relevant ozone season will be reserved in a “new unit set-aside” for potential allocation to any of the state's remaining EGUs that operate during that ozone season. For simplicity, these remaining EGUs are referred to as “new” units; however, they may include not only units that have never been eligible to receive allocations as existing units but also units that operate after losing their previous eligibility to receive allocations as existing units. Third, EPA calculates what initial allocations the state's existing units will receive from the unreserved portion of the budget for the relevant ozone season, based on the units' reported heat input and emissions for a defined set of previous ozone seasons. Finally, EPA calculates how the allowances in the new unit set-aside will be allocated for the relevant ozone season, first to the state's new units in proportion to their reported emissions during that ozone season, and then, if all the allowances have not been allocated to new units, to the states' existing units in proportion to their initial allocations from the unreserved portion of the budget.

Table IV.A-1 summarizes the default unit-level allocations from Indiana's state emissions budget to the state's EGUs for the 2024 ozone season, both as calculated in the original rulemaking and as adjusted in this action. The first three columns of the table, which concern the initial allocations to existing units, also apply for the ozone seasons in 2025 and subsequent years. The initial allocations to existing units and the allocations from the new unit set-aside are shown separately because this action's adjustments affect those steps of the overall allocation process differently (also, the allocations from the new unit set-asides for years after 2024 are not yet known). The allocations to the individual EGUs at each power plant where changes in allocations occur are summed to totals for that plant, except that the totals for Schahfer units 17-18 are shown separately from other units at the Schahfer plant. The remainder of this section provides more detail on the four steps of the overall allocation process and the effects of this action's adjustments at each step. A spreadsheet showing the complete calculations of the adjusted default unit-level allocations to Indiana EGUs for 2024 is available in the docket for this action.

In the first step of the allowance allocation process, EPA identifies which EGUs in a state are eligible to receive allocations from the state emissions budget for the relevant ozone season as existing units. All eligibility evaluations for the ozone seasons in 2021 through 2024 were completed as part of the Revised CSAPR Update rulemaking. An EGU that had reported data for at least one entire ozone season before 2020 and that had not retired before 2021 was treated as eligible to receive an initial allocation as an existing unit for 2021. Units that were identified as eligible to receive initial allocations as existing units for 2021 generally remained eligible through 2024. The only exception is that any unit treated as retired at the emissions-baseline development step of the budget-setting process starting in a particular year was also treated as ineligible to receive initial allocations as an existing unit starting in that same year. Thus, if the owner of an EGU had announced a planned retirement date before 2024 and if EPA's confirmatory research did not identify any reason to question the announcement, the EGU was treated as ineligible to receive initial allocations as an existing unit for 2024 and subsequent years.

The Revised CSAPR Update does not provide for any changes in eligibility from 2024 to 2025. Starting with the 2026 ozone season, evaluations of each unit's ongoing eligibility to receive initial allocations as an existing unit are made on a rolling basis in advance of each successive ozone season. A unit that was identified as eligible for 2024 generally remains eligible for subsequent years except as otherwise indicated based on the operating data reported for the unit for ozone seasons after 2020. Specifically, if a unit does not report any operation during any two consecutive ozone seasons after 2020, the unit becomes ineligible to receive initial allocations as an existing unit starting in the fifth year after the first year of non-operation— e.g., a unit with no reported operation during the 2021 and 2022 ozone seasons would become ineligible to receive initial allocations as an existing unit starting with the 2026 ozone season. This is how ongoing eligibility to receive initial allocations as an existing unit under the Revised CSAPR Update is evaluated for any unit for which, at the time of the original rulemaking, the unit's owner had announced a retirement date in 2024 or later or had not announced any retirement date.

In the Revised CSAPR Update rulemaking, based on previous announcements by the owners of Schahfer units 17-18 and Merom units 1SG1-2SG1 that the units would retire in 2023, EPA treated the units as ineligible to receive initial allocations as existing units starting in 2024. In this action, to end reliance on the superseded retirement plans and recognize the four units' continued operation in 2024, EPA is adjusting the eligibility status identified for the four units in the Revised CSAPR Update rulemaking so that the units remain eligible to receive initial allocations as existing units for the ozone season in 2024. To reflect this change in status, the four units are designated as “operating” instead of “retired” in the updated version of the spreadsheet used to calculate the initial allocations to Indiana EGUs in the next step of the allowance allocation process. Like other units that are eligible to receive initial allocations as existing units for 2024, the four units will remain eligible for 2025, and starting with the 2026 ozone season, their eligibility will be evaluated in advance of each ozone season based on the operating data reported for the units for ozone seasons after 2020. 23 These adjustments are consistent with how evaluations of eligibility to receive initial allocations as existing units are made under the Revised CSAPR Update for other units without announced plans to retire before the 2024 ozone season.

In the second step of the allowance allocation process, EPA calculates what portion of the state emissions budget will be reserved in a “new unit set-aside” for potential allocation to any of the state's EGUs that are not eligible to receive initial allocations as existing EGUs and that operate during the relevant ozone season. The amounts of the new unit set-asides for 2021 through 2024 were calculated as part of the Revised CSAPR Update rulemaking. Each state's new unit set-aside for these years was computed using a fixed target percentage—in Indiana's case, 2 percent—of the state emissions budget for the year. 24 The Revised CSAPR Update does not provide for any changes in the amount of any new unit set-aside from 2024 to 2025. Starting with the 2026 ozone season, the amount of each state's new unit set-aside is calculated on a rolling basis in advance of each successive ozone season. The new unit set-aside for each such year continues to include as a minimum the amount set for 2024, but if there are any units in the state that have lost their previous eligibility to receive initial allocations as existing units, the allowances that would have been allocated to those units as existing units if they had not lost their eligibility are added to the new unit set-aside.

This action's adjustments do not include any change to the procedures finalized in the Revised CSAPR Update for calculating the amount of Indiana's new unit set-aside for any year. However, because the amount of the new unit set-aside is computed using a fixed target percentage of the state emissions budget, this action's increase to Indiana's state emissions budget for 2024 and subsequent years causes an increase in the amount of Indiana's new unit set-aside for 2024 and subsequent years. Accordingly, EPA is adjusting the amount of the new unit set-aside for 2024 (and the minimum amount of the new unit set-aside for subsequent years) for Indiana to 227 tons, which leaves 11,018 tons as the adjusted unreserved portion of the 2024 state emissions budget available for initial allocations to existing units. For comparison, as originally calculated in the Revised CSAPR Update rulemaking, the corresponding amounts of the 2024 new unit set-aside and the unreserved portion of the 2024 state emissions budget for Indiana were 190 tons and 9,374 tons, respectively. The adjusted and original amounts of both the new unit set-aside and the unreserved portion of the state emissions budget appear as totals in the final row of Table IV.A-1.

In the third step of the allowance allocation process, EPA calculates what initial allocations the state's existing units will receive from the unreserved portion of the budget for the relevant ozone season ( i.e., the portion not reserved in the new unit set-aside). In the Revised CSAPR Update rulemaking, EPA established separate sets of initial allocations for 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024 corresponding to the state emissions budgets established for each of those years. To calculate the initial allocations from the state emissions budget for a given year, EPA first computed two values for each unit eligible to receive an initial allocation as an existing unit for that year: a value representing the unit's historical share of total ozone season heat input for the state, 25 and a value representing the unit's historical maximum ozone season NO X emissions. 26 EPA then allocated the allowances from the unreserved portion of the state emissions budget for the year among the eligible units in proportion to the units' respective historical shares of total ozone season heat input for the state, except that each unit's allocation was capped at its historical maximum ozone season NO X emissions. 27

The Revised CSAPR Update does not provide for any changes in the amounts of initial allocations to existing units from 2024 to 2025. Starting with the 2026 ozone season, each unit's initial allocation as an existing unit for each successive ozone season remains the amount established for 2024 as long as the unit remains eligible to receive allocations as an existing unit. If a unit becomes ineligible to receive allocations as an existing unit, the allowances that otherwise would have been allocated to the unit for each year as an existing unit are instead added to the new unit set-aside for the year.

In the original Revised CSAPR Update rulemaking, Schahfer units 17-18 and Merom units 1SG1-2SG1 were treated as ineligible to receive initial allocations as existing units in 2024, so the units were excluded from the calculations of initial allocations for that year. This actions' adjustments do not include any change to the procedures finalized in the Revised CSAPR Update for calculating the amounts of the initial allocations to Indiana EGUs as existing units, but other changes in this action cause changes in the data used in the calculations, thereby changing the amounts of the initial allocations for 2024 calculated using the previously finalized procedures. Specifically, the calculations are affected both by the shifts in individual eligible units' historical shares of total ozone season heat input for the state that occur when the set of eligible units is expanded to include Schahfer units 17-18 and Merom units 1SG1-2SG1 and also by the increase in the unreserved portion of Indiana's 2024 state emissions budget. The combined changes not only cause initial allocations to be provided to the four previously ineligible units but also cause increases of about 3 percent in the initial allocations to other units in the state whose initial allocations were not already capped by their historical maximum ozone season NO X emissions. The adjusted and original initial allocations to Indiana EGUs for 2024 are summarized at the plant level in columns A and B of Table IV.A-1. Each unit receiving an adjusted initial allocation as an existing unit for 2024 will receive the same adjusted initial allocation for 2025. Starting in 2026, each such unit will continue to receive the same adjusted initial allocations for successive years as long as the unit retains its eligibility to receive initial allocations as an existing unit.

In the final step of the allowance allocation process, EPA calculates how the allowances in the new unit set-aside will be allocated for the relevant ozone season. EPA carries out this step on a rolling basis for each successive ozone season during the interval between the end of the ozone season and the later compliance deadline when EGUs must hold allowances to cover their emissions for the ozone season. The allowances in each new unit set-aside are allocated through a two-round procedure. In the first round, EPA calculates allowance allocations to the state's units that operated but were not eligible to receive initial allocations as existing units for that ozone season. Each such unit receives an allocation equal to the amount of its reported emissions during that ozone season unless the sum of all such units' reported emissions exceeds the total amount of allowances in the new unit set-aside, in which case the units' allocations are reduced on a pro-rata basis. If any allowances are not allocated in the first round, EPA carries out a second round in which the remaining allowances are allocated among the state's units that were eligible to receive initial allocations for that ozone season in proportion to those units' respective initial allocations.

When the allocations of allowances in the 2024 new unit set-aside for Indiana under the Revised CSAPR Update were calculated before this action, Schahfer units 17-18 and Merom units 1SG1-2SG1 were not considered eligible to receive initial allocations as existing units for the 2024 ozone season, but the units operated during the ozone season, so they were entitled to receive first-round allocations from the new unit set-aside. All the allowances in the new unit set-aside were allocated to the four units in the first round, because the sum of the four units' reported emissions for the 2024 ozone season exceeded the total amount of allowances in the new unit set-aside and no other Indiana units were entitled to receive first-round allocations.

Because in this action EPA is making Schahfer units 17-18 and Merom units 1SG1-2SG1 eligible to receive initial allocations as existing units for 2024, the units are no longer entitled to receive first-round allocations from the 2024 new unit set-aside. Consequently, there are no longer any Indiana units entitled to allocations from 2024 new unit set-aside in the first round, and pursuant to the second-round procedures, the entire amount of the 2024 new unit set-aside is being reallocated among all the state's units that were eligible to receive initial allocations. This action's adjustments also increase the total amount of allowances in the new unit set-aside, as discussed earlier in this section IV.A. The combined changes reduce the allocations from the 2024 new unit set-aside to Schahfer units 17-18 and Merom units 1SG1-2SG1 but also produce 2024 new unit set-aside allocations to other units in the state equal to about 2 percent of the amounts of their initial allocations as existing units. The adjusted and original allocations from the Indiana new unit set-aside for the 2024 ozone season are summarized at the plant level in columns D and E of Table IV.A-1. Allocations from the Indiana new unit set-asides for the ozone seasons in 2025 and subsequent years will be calculated in the future, after the end of each successive ozone season.

Taking all steps of the allowance allocation process together, for the 2024 ozone season this action's adjustments to unit-level allowance allocations represent large net increases in the amounts allocated to Schahfer units 17-18 and Merom units 1SG1-2SG1 and average increases of about 5 percent to the state's other units relative to the previously calculated allocations. The total changes in unit-level allocations for 2024, which include both the changes in the initial allocations to existing units and the changes in the allocations from the 2024 new unit set-aside, are summarized at the plant level in column F of Table IV.A-1. For 2025, the total changes in allocations include only the changes in initial allocations to existing units shown in column C of Table IV.A-1, because the allowances in the 2025 new unit set-aside have not yet been allocated among the state's units.

Although the default unit-level allocations under each of EPA's trading programs addressing interstate transport are calculated entirely using procedures finalized as part of the relevant rulemakings, the actual amounts of the unit-level allocations are not set forth in the trading program regulations. 28 Rather, the regulations provide that, in instances where EPA is responsible for determining unit-level allocations of emission allowances, 29 the allowances from each state emissions budget are allocated among the state's EGUs as provided in notices of data availability issued by the EPA Administrator. 30 Allocations from different portions of a given state emissions budget may be addressed in different notices.

In 2021, EPA published a notice concerning the availability of data on the default initial allocations of allowances to existing units in all states under the Revised CSAPR Update for the ozone seasons in 2021 and subsequent years. 31 The 2021 notice remains the applicable notice for purposes of (1) the default initial allocations to existing units in states other than Indiana under the Revised CSAPR Update for all years and (2) the default initial allocations to existing units in Indiana under the Revised CSAPR Update for the years 2021, 2022, and 2023. 32 This document serves as the notice of the availability of data on the adjusted default initial allocations of allowances to existing units in Indiana under the Revised CSAPR Update for the ozone seasons in 2024 and subsequent years that EPA is establishing in this action. The adjusted initial allocations are shown in an Excel spreadsheet entitled “Adjusted Initial Allocations of Allowances to Indiana EGUs under the Revised CSAPR Update for 2024 and Beyond,” which is available in the docket for this action. EPA also plans to post the spreadsheet on the Agency's website at www.epa.gov/Cross-State-Air-Pollution/csapr-allowance-allocations.

On April 22, 2025, EPA published a notice concerning the availability of data on the allocations of allowances to new and existing units in all states from the 2024 new unit set-asides under the Revised CSAPR Update and other interstate pollution transport rules. 33 The April 22, 2025, notice remains the applicable notice for purposes of (1) the 2024 new unit set-aside allocations to units under rules other than the Revised CSAPR Update in all states and (2) the 2024 new unit set-aside allocations under the Revised CSAPR Update to units in states other than Indiana. This document serves as the notice of the availability of data on the adjusted allocations from the 2024 new unit set-aside under the Revised CSAPR Update to units in Indiana that EPA is establishing in this action. The adjusted allocations are shown in an Excel spreadsheet entitled “Adjusted Allocations of Allowances to Indiana EGUs from the Revised CSAPR Update NUSA for 2024,” which is available in the docket for this action. EPA also plans to post the spreadsheet on the Agency's website at www.epa.gov/Cross-State-Air-Pollution/csapr-compliance-year-2024-nusa-nodas.

As discussed in Section IV.A. of this document, the adjustments determined in this action affect the unit-level allocations of allowances under the Revised CSAPR Update to not only Schahfer units 17-18 and Merom units 1SG1-2SG1 but also other Indiana EGUs. The initial allocations to existing units for both 2024 and 2025 and the allocations from the 2024 new unit set-aside as calculated before this action have already been recorded in Indiana power plants' facility accounts. In the case of every unit for which this action causes a change in the total allocations for 2024 ( i.e., the sum of the initial allocations to existing units for 2024 and the allocations from the 2024 new unit set-aside) the change is an increase, as suggested by the plant-level totals for 2024 shown in column F of Table IV.A-1. The same is true for the changes in the initial allocations to existing units for 2025, as suggested by the plant-level totals of such allocations shown in column C of Table IV.A-1. EPA plans to record the incremental allocations of 2024 and 2025 allowances in the appropriate facility accounts as soon as practicable on or after May 20, 2025.

EPA's authority for the rulemaking procedures followed in this action is provided by APA section 553. 34 In general, an agency issuing a rule under the procedures in APA section 553 must provide prior notice and an opportunity for public comment, but APA section 553(b)(B) includes an exemption from notice-and-comment requirements “when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rule issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” This action is being issued as a final rule without prior notice or opportunity for public comment because EPA finds that the APA “good cause” exemption from notice-and-comment requirements applies here. The basis for the finding of good cause is that following notice-and-comment procedures is both unnecessary and impracticable for this action. First, the procedures are unnecessary because this action merely makes mechanical adjustments to certain calculations to end the Revised CSAPR Update's previous reliance on certain information that was later superseded: specifically, the announcements by the owners of four Indiana EGUs that the units would be retired before 2024. The four units' owners subsequently changed the previously announced plans, and the units actually operated in the 2024 ozone season. Second, the procedures are impracticable because under the trading program regulations, the deadline by which Indiana EGUs must hold allowances to cover their emissions for the 2024 ozone season is June 2, 2025. It was not until after EPA published an interim final rule in November 2024 staying Good Neighbor Plan implementation for Indiana sources and restoring the Revised CSAPR Update state emissions budget and unit-level allowance allocations that the sources had certainty they were no longer considered existing units and approached EPA about the lack of allocations. EPA moved expeditiously to review these concerns and quickly determined to address them through this action. If this action was issued in the form of a proposal subject to notice-and-comment procedures, the comment period and the time needed after the close of the comment period to review any comments, prepare responses, and draft and review a final rule would likely require at least 90 additional days, extending the period before Indiana EGUs would be able to apply the additional allowances provided under this action toward their compliance obligations until after the compliance deadline for the 2024 ozone season.

The regulatory revisions made in this action will take effect immediately upon publication of the action in the Federal Register . In general, an agency issuing a rule under APA section 553 must provide for a period of at least 30 days between the rule's dates of publication and effectiveness, but under APA section 553(d)(3), the normal 30-day minimum period between a rule's dates of publication and effectiveness does not apply “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” EPA finds good cause to make the regulatory revisions effective as of the action's publication date for two reasons. First, these regulatory revisions benefit the regulated community by clarifying the amounts of allowances that certain Indiana EGUs will have available to meet their compliance requirements for the 2024 ozone season. Second, making these regulatory revisions effective less than 30 days after this action's publication date does not conflict with the purpose of the normal requirement for a 30-day minimum period, which is “to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior before the final rule takes effect.”  35 The regulatory revisions in this action providing additional allowances to certain Indiana EGUs do not impose more stringent compliance requirements on any entity or require any entity to engage in further activities to achieve compliance beyond the activities that would have been necessary in the absence of this action. Thus, no affected party needs time to adjust its behavior in preparation for these regulatory revisions.

As explained in section V. of this document, EPA finds good cause to take this interim final action without prior notice or opportunity for public comment. However, EPA is providing an opportunity for comment on the substance of the action and, thus, requests comment on the amendments to the Revised CSAPR Update described in this document. EPA is not reopening for comment any provisions of the Revised CSAPR Update or 40 CFR part 97 other than the specific provisions that are expressly amended in this interim final rule.

Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at 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. This final rule provides burden reduction by increasing the amounts of the emissions budget and allowance allocations that apply for one state under the regulations for an existing trading program to reflect decisions by the owners of certain units in the state to defer or cancel previous plans to retire the units.

This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities that will apply to the entities affected by this action and has assigned OMB control numbers 2060-0258 and 2060-0667. This action makes no changes to the information collection activities under the previously approved information collection requests.

This action is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612. The RFA applies only to rules subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under APA section 553, 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 an unfunded mandate as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. This action simply increases the amounts of the emissions budget and allowance allocations that apply for one state under the regulations for an existing trading program to reflect decisions by the owners of certain units in the state to defer or cancel previous plans to retire the units.

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 simply increases the amounts of the emissions budget and allowance allocations that apply for one state under the regulations for an existing trading program to reflect decisions by the owners of certain units in the state to defer or cancel previous plans to retire the units.

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action simply increases the amounts of the emissions budget and allowance allocations that apply for one state under the regulations for an existing trading program to reflect decisions by the owners of certain units in the state to defer or cancel previous plans to retire the units. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it implements a previously promulgated health or safety-based federal standard. For the same reason, EPA's Policy on Children's Health does not apply to this action.

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

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 801-808, 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 CAA section 307(b)(1), petitions for judicial review of this final action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days from the date the action is published in the Federal Register . Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final action does not affect the finality of the action for the purposes of judicial review or extend the time within which a petition for judicial review must be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of the action.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends part 97 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

This final rule amends the Pipeline Safety Regulations (PSR) in 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 186 through 199 to replace the phrase “Gulf of Mexico” with “Gulf of America” in response to Executive Order 14172, “Restoring Names That Honor American Greatness.” This nomenclature change imposes no new or revised requirements for regulated entities.

On January 20, 2025, the President signed Executive Order (E.O.) 14172, “Restoring Names That Honor American Greatness.”  1 Among other actions, this Executive Order required the Secretary of the Interior to “take all appropriate actions to rename as the `Gulf of America' the U.S. Continental Shelf area bounded on the northeast, north, and northwest by the State of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida and extending to the seaward boundary with Mexico and Cuba in the area formerly named as the Gulf of Mexico.”

On February 7, 2025, the Secretary of the Interior signed Secretary's Order 3423, “The Gulf of America.”  2 In Order 3423, the Secretary of the Interior directed the U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN) to rename immediately the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America. The BGN complied with the Secretary of the Interior's directive shortly thereafter.

Consistent with E.O. 14172, PHMSA is amending its PSR in 49 CFR parts 186 through 199 to replace the phrase “Gulf of Mexico” with “Gulf of America.” These amendments are consistent with the actions taken by BGN and other Federal agencies. See, e.g., the Gulf of America Renaming final rule posted by the United States Coast Guard on March 17, 2025. 3

PHMSA finds that this final rule contains conforming amendments involving agency practice that are exempt from the notice and comment rulemaking requirements in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). PHMSA also finds good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) for forgoing notice and comment because this final rule imposes no substantive changes on the public's rights or obligations and will be inconsequential in impact. This is a conforming amendment to align our regulations with the current name of the Gulf. Therefore, notice and comment are unnecessary.

For the same reasons, PHMSA finds good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make the rule effective fewer than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of the rule is unnecessary because updating the name used in the PSR to identify the body of water is inconsequential to the public and the name has already been adopted by Executive Order and by the Department of Interior.

PHMSA is amending the PSR in 49 CFR parts 186 through 199 to reflect the name change for the Gulf of America. This amendment is an editorial change in nomenclature that has no effect on the scope of Federal PSR and requires no action by operators to comply. The Gulf of America includes any waters identified as the Gulf of Mexico in legacy statutes, regulations, plans, or procedures, as applicable. PHMSA does not require operators to update plans, procedures, maps, or other materials that reference the Gulf of Mexico to implement this final rule; however, operators should consider appropriate updates during periodic review of such materials.

This final rule is published under the authority of the Secretary of Transportation delegated to the PHMSA Administrator pursuant to 49 CFR 1.97. Among the statutory authorities delegated to PHMSA are those set forth in the Federal Pipeline Safety Statutes (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq. ) (authorizing, inter alia, issuance of regulations governing design, installation, inspection, emergency plans and procedures, testing, construction, extension, operation, replacement, and maintenance of pipeline facilities) and section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act, as amended (30 U.S.C. 185(w)(3)). For a complete listing of authorities, see 49 CFR 1.97.

This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”)  4 and DOT Order 2100.6B (“Rulemaking and Guidance Procedures”) and, therefore, was not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. In this final rule, PHMSA is revising the nomenclature for referring to the Gulf of America. This action is not intended to result in any costs or benefits.

This final rule is not a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”) because it does not have total costs less than zero. This final rule is not an E.O. 14192 regulatory action because it is neither a significant regulatory action as defined in Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, nor does it impose costs greater than zero. Therefore, this final rule does not implicate the requirement to repeal or revise at least 10 existing regulations for each regulation issued. 5

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), PHMSA must consider whether rulemaking actions would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule imposes no new obligations on pipeline operators or anyone else. PHMSA concludes this rule does not have a significant economic impact on any small entity. Based on the facts available about the expected impact of this rulemaking, PHMSA certifies, under section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605) that this rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

PHMSA has analyzed this direct final rule according to E.O. 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”)  6 and DOT Order 5301.1A (“Department of Transportation Tribal Consultation Policies and Procedures”). Because this final rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments or impose substantial direct compliance costs, the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 do not apply.

This final rule does not impose any new information collection requirements.

This final rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It does not result in costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, adjusted for inflation, and is least burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the rulemaking.

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), requires Federal agencies to consider the consequences of major Federal actions and prepare a detailed statement on any action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Since this rule makes no changes to operators' obligations under the PSR, this action will not result in any significant impacts on the environment.

PHMSA has analyzed this final rule according to E.O. 13132 (“Federalism”). 7 The direct final rule does not have a substantial direct effect on the States, the relationship between the National Government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. This final rule does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments. This final rule does not preempt State law for intrastate pipelines. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of E.O. 13132 do not apply.

Transporting gas, hazardous liquids, and carbon dioxide impacts the Nation's available energy supply. However, this final rule is not a “significant” energy action under E.O. 13211 (“Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use”). 8 It also is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 and is therefore not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy for purposes of the requirements of Executive Orders 14156 (“Declaring a National Energy Emergency”)  9 and 14154 (“Unleashing American Energy”). 10 Further, the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs is not likely to identify this direct final rule as a significant energy action.

Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments received for any of our dockets. You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit https://www.transportation.gov/privacy.

A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

E.O. 13609 (“Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation”)  11 requires that agencies consider whether the impacts associated with significant variations between domestic and international regulatory approaches are unnecessary or may impair the ability of American business to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.