After the horrific September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Congress legislated the combining of functions of various agencies involved in the administration and enforcement of the civil and criminal immigration laws into one department within the Executive Branch, led by a cabinet-level secretary. On November 25, 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-296) (HSA), which created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The HSA abolished the Department of Justice's (DOJ) former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and transferred its immigration and other functions to the Secretary of Homeland Security. The Secretary gained authority over all functions and roles within DHS, and except where prohibited, she can delegate any of her functions to any officer, employee or organizational unit in DHS. See 6 U.S.C. 112; 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(4); 8 CFR 2.1.

Sections 1512(d) and 1517 of the HSA provide that references relating to legacy INS in statutes, regulations, directives, or delegations of authority, shall be deemed to refer to the appropriate official or component of DHS, as delegated by the Secretary, who holds authority over all functions and roles within DHS. 6 U.S.C. 552(d), 557. Additionally, the HSA, as amended, directed the division of the prior immigration functions of INS to three immigration bureaus within DHS, specifically the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS), 1 the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), 2 and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). 3 The BCIS (now USCIS) was delegated the adjudicatory and naturalization functions of the former INS. 4 Further, when establishing DHS, Congress explained that DHS was prohibited from relying on the authority provided by 6 U.S.C. 542 to reorganize the former INS's authorities and functions into DHS by recombining, joining, or consolidating the functions and organizational units within the Bureau of Border Security  5 or the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. See 6 U.S.C. 291(b). DHS is not recombining USCIS and ICE into a single agency or otherwise combining, joining, or consolidating functions or organizational units together. Instead, this final rule codifies USCIS' independent authority to investigate and enforce civil and criminal violations of the immigration laws within the jurisdiction of USCIS.

All authorities and functions of DHS to administer and enforce the immigration laws of the United States are vested with the Secretary and may be redelegated by the Secretary by various means. See 6 U.S.C. 112; 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(4). Therefore, since the inception of DHS, the Department's full authority has rested with the Secretary and has been delegated as he or she saw fit for organizational and operational purposes. To further clarify the Secretary's authority over DHS, on March 6, 2003, DHS promulgated a final rule at 8 CFR 2.1, which amended the previous regulation by removing the reference to the Commissioner of the INS and updating the regulation with an equivalent authority and redelegation provision for the Secretary of Homeland Security. See Authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security; Delegations of Authority; Immigration Laws, 68 FR 10922 (Mar. 6, 2003). The regulation acknowledges and explains the Secretary's authority to delegate her authority and that such delegation “[. . .] may be made by regulation, directive, memorandum, or other means as deemed appropriate by the Secretary in the exercise of the Secretary's discretion” and that “[a] delegation of authority or function may in the Secretary's discretion be published in the Federal Register , but such publication is not required.” 8 CFR 2.1.

On June 5, 2003, then-Secretary Ridge exercised his authority to delegate certain immigration responsibilities to the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (now USCIS). See DHS Delegation No. 0150.1 (June 5, 2003). Specifically, USCIS was delegated the authority to interrogate aliens, issue subpoenas, administer oaths, take and consider evidence, and fingerprint and photograph aliens under sections 287(a), (b), and (f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1357(a), (b), and (f), and section 235(d) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1225(d). See DHS Delegation No. 0150.1(II)(S). Section III of DHS Delegation No. 0150.1 specifically limited the enforcement authority of USCIS. It prohibited USCIS from enforcing immigration laws by inspection of aliens or vehicles, issuance or execution of warrants, detention or release of aliens on bond, removal of aliens from the United States, issuance of stays of removal, reinstatement of removal orders, or any other enforcement authority exclusively delegated to the Commissioner of CBP or the Assistant Secretary (now Director) for ICE. See DHS Delegation No. 0150.1(III).

Title 8 of the CFR continued to be valid as DHS was the successor to INS. However, it was appropriate at that time to conform Title 8 of the CFR to the new governmental structures as laid out in the HSA and the Department of Homeland Security Reorganization Plan, as modified, (Reorganization Plan). 6 On June 13, 2003, DHS published the final rule “Powers and Authority of Officers and Employees; Revisions to the Internal Review Process for Alleged Violations of the Standards for Enforcement Activities” (2003 Final Rule) to amend Title 8 of the CFR to reflect the structural organization of DHS. See 68 FR 35273. The 2003 Final Rule was published without having gone through notice and comment rulemaking because it was determined the rule was excepted from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act as a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice. Id. at 35274; see also 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A).

The 2003 Final Rule amended parts 1, 103, 239, and 287 of Title 8 of the CFR. In the 2003 Final Rule definitions were added for the three immigration bureaus within DHS that were delegated the authorities of the former INS—the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS), the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The 2003 Final Rule clarified that the functions of INS continued under DHS and highlighted instances where there was a transfer of function to other departments such as the Department of Health and Human Services. 7 The 2003 Final Rule also amended powers and authorities, departments, job titles, and delegations under the Secretary's general authority found in 8 CFR 2.1. Except where prohibited, the Secretary can delegate any of his or her functions to any officer, employee, or organization unit in DHS. 8

For example, deportation officers and immigration enforcement agents were provided the authority to execute search warrants under 8 CFR 287.5(e)(1)(v) and 287.5(e)(1)(vi). Similarly, deportation officers and immigration enforcement agents were provided the authority to make arrests under INA 236(a) under 8 CFR 287.5(c)(1) through (6), serve warrants of arrest for non-immigration violations under 8 CFR 287.5(e)(4)(v) and 287.5(e)(4)(vi), and issue detainers under 8 CFR 287.7(b)(3) and 287.7(b)(6). In all cases, those authorities were delegated by the Secretary. 9 At that time, BCIS (now USCIS) was not delegated the same authorities through regulation or other delegation.

In 2004, USCIS created the Fraud Detection and National Security Office (FDNS) in response to a Congressional recommendation to establish an organization “responsible for developing, implementing, directing, and overseeing the joint [US]CIS-ICE anti-fraud initiative, and conducting law enforcement/background checks on every applicant, beneficiary, and petitioner prior to granting any immigration benefits.”  10 In 2010, USCIS responded to public concerns about the integrity of the immigration system by elevating FDNS from an office to a Directorate  11 which elevated the profile of its work within USCIS, ensured that an anti-fraud and national security perspective informed agency policy making at the highest levels, brought about operational improvements, and enhanced the integration of the FDNS mission in all facets of the agency's work.

Currently, FDNS supports the USCIS mission by establishing guidance and overseeing processes to identify and mitigate threats to national security and public safety posed by those seeking immigration benefits; detecting, pursuing, and deterring immigration benefit fraud; identifying and removing systemic vulnerabilities in the process of the legal immigration system; developing and implementing security screening programs and procedures; and acting as a USCIS conduit for information sharing and collaboration with other governmental agencies.

The initial delegation from the Secretary to USCIS directed USCIS to coordinate with ICE and CBP on complementary, concurrent, or overlapping authorities. See DHS Delegation No. 0150.1(III). One authority concurrently delegated to both USCIS and ICE was the authority to conduct civil and criminal investigations of violations of immigration laws, including but not limited to alleged fraud, with respect to immigration benefits available under the INA. 12

In 2017, then-Secretary Johnson reaffirmed the delegated authority of the Director of USCIS to conduct certain law enforcement activities relating to the accessing of internet and publicly available social media content. See DHS Delegation No. 15002 (Jan. 19, 2017). Specifically, the delegation stated that

Subsequently, on March 28, 2017, the USCIS Director delegated the authority to conduct law enforcement activities relating to accessing internet and publicly available social media content to the Associate Director for FDNS  14 and the Chief of the Office of Security and Integrity. 15 This authority was to be exercised in matters under the jurisdiction of their respective directorates to protect national security and public safety and was only to be enacted by properly trained and authorized officers and employees of USCIS. 16

On July 23, 2025, USCIS and ICE entered into their fourth memorandum of agreement (MOA) to coordinate on the investigation of immigration benefit fraud and referral of cases for criminal investigation. 17 The MOA provides that ICE has sole responsibility for detecting, deterring, and conducting criminal investigations of immigration benefit fraud. USCIS is primarily responsible for identifying and detecting potential fraud through civil investigations conducted in the ordinary course of the adjudication of applications and petitions for immigration benefits. Thus, USCIS currently must refer any potential criminal activity or investigation to ICE. The MOA divides criminal and civil immigration benefit fraud investigations between ICE and USCIS, respectively.

While there is an overlap between the original ICE and USCIS delegations, the current MOA explains DHS policy and the division of labor between the two components based upon the original delegations. These internal DHS policies and MOAs will be appropriately updated as a result of the Secretary's 2025 delegation to USCIS discussed below and following publication of this rule.

As described in Executive Order 14159, “Protecting the American People Against Invasion,” the United States saw “an unprecedented flood of illegal immigration” with many of these aliens presenting significant threats to national security and public safety. 90 FR 8443 (published Jan. 29, 2025). It is this administration's stated policy that it is the federal government's responsibility to “faithfully execute the immigration laws against all inadmissible and removable aliens, particularly those aliens who threaten the safety or security of the American people.” Id. Additionally, Executive Order 14159 directs the leaders of ICE, CBP, and USCIS to “set priorities for their agencies that protect the public safety and national security interests of the American people, including by ensuring the successful enforcement of final orders of removal.” Id. In order to meet the stated goals of Executive Order 14159 it is necessary for DHS to maximize the use of all of its available resources while also ensuring they are deployed in a judicious and efficient manner.

USCIS performs critical work for DHS and is integral to the enforcement of immigration laws by actively supporting and collaborating with the law enforcement community at all levels as well as civilly enforcing immigration laws through its adjudications. However, DHS Delegation No. 0150.1 has historically limited the scope of USCIS' authority, capabilities, and involvement in the enforcement of immigration laws.

To be responsive to Executive Order 14159 and to ensure that DHS resources are being leveraged to their greatest capacity, the Secretary has determined that USCIS will assume a more engaged and proactive posture in the Department's efforts to enforce immigration laws. To facilitate this, the Secretary delegated to the Director of USCIS the authority to conduct additional law enforcement activities to enforce civil and criminal violations of immigration laws within the jurisdiction of USCIS. See DHS Delegation No. 15006 (May 2, 2025). DHS Delegation No. 15006 provides the Director of USCIS with the authority to order expedited removal under 8 U.S.C. 1225, issue and execute detainers and warrants of arrest or removal, detain aliens, release aliens on bond and other appropriate conditions as provided by law, and remove aliens from the United States. Further, DHS Delegation No. 15006, upon redelegation by the USCIS Director, bolsters USCIS's existing authority to investigate alleged civil and criminal violations of the immigration laws by delegating necessary law enforcement authorities within the jurisdiction of USCIS, including but not limited to issuance and execution of warrants, and making recommendations for prosecutions or other appropriate action when advisable.

These additional authorities are provided to enhance DHS resources that may be employed to execute the administration's critical work to enforce immigration laws. DHS is now codifying certain provisions of DHS Delegation No. 15006 described in this final rule to provide notice to the public of these organizational changes that bring USCIS in line with other DHS components engaged in the enforcement of immigration laws. The changes are published as a final rule and will take effect 30 days post publication. Upon publication of this final rule, USCIS internal policies and MOAs, such as that with ICE, will be updated to reflect the recent delegations of law enforcement authority to the Director of USCIS.

On May 2, 2025, the Secretary delegated authorities to the USCIS Director to take additional actions to investigate and enforce civil and criminal violations of the immigration laws. See DHS Delegation No. 15006. The authority delegated by the Secretary includes standard law enforcement authorities commensurate with other federal law enforcement personnel, including but not limited to the ability to arrest persons for crimes committed in the presence of the law enforcement officer or for felonies. The purpose of this rule is to codify specific authorities delegated by the Secretary to the Director of USCIS. DHS is amending 8 CFR part 287 to reflect this enhancement to the authorities delegated to the Director of USCIS.

This rule will allow the Director of USCIS to more thoroughly fulfill USCIS' national security, public safety, and fraud missions for cases within its jurisdiction. Allowing USCIS to take law enforcement actions on cases identified in the USCIS adjudicatory process will increase national security, public safety, and the integrity of the United States' immigration system.

The authority for the Secretary to issue this final rule is found in section 103(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103(a), which authorizes the Secretary to administer and enforce the immigration and nationality laws, establish such regulations and perform such other acts as the Secretary deems necessary for carrying out such authority, and require or authorize any DHS employee to exercise any of the powers, privileges, or duties conferred upon DHS under the immigration laws. In addition, section 102 of the HSA, 6 U.S.C. 112, vests all of the functions of DHS in the Secretary and authorizes the Secretary to issue regulations. 18 Specifically, section 102(a)(3) of the HSA, 6 U.S.C. 112(a)(3), states that all functions of all officers, employees, and organizational units are vested in the Secretary, and section 102(b)(1) of the HSA, 6 U.S.C 112(b)(1), states that the Secretary may delegate any of the Secretary's functions to any officer, employee, or organizational unit of DHS. Originally, on June 5, 2003, the Secretary exercised his authority to delegate certain immigration responsibilities to the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, now USCIS. See DHS Delegation No. 0150.1. Most recently, on May 2, 2025, the Secretary exercised her authority and delegated to the USCIS Director the authority to perform specific law enforcement functions which will allow USCIS to take additional actions to enforce civil and criminal violations of the immigration laws. See DHS Delegation No. 15006.

The law enforcement authorities delegated to the Director of USCIS include, but are not limited to, the authority to investigate alleged civil and criminal violations of the immigration laws within the jurisdiction of USCIS, issue and execute both search and arrest warrants, detain and remove aliens, and make recommendations for prosecutions or other appropriate action when deemed advisable. To reflect the new authority delegated to the Director of USCIS, this final rule amends the following regulations to codify USCIS law enforcement authorities commensurate with those authorities previously only delegated to ICE and CBP regarding the enforcement of immigration laws. This is in addition to the Director of USCIS' current regulatory authority to designate individuals or a class of individuals to arrest aliens for immigration violations or immigration related felonies, issue immigration detainers, and inspect aliens seeking admission to the United States. See 8 CFR 287.5(c)(1)(viii), 287.5(d)(8), 287.7. This rule expands upon these existing law enforcement related powers to include:

DHS is adding language to the definition of “law enforcement official (or other official)” to include a delegation by the Secretary regarding the administration of criminal justice. This change is intended for clarity and is already permitted by statute. DHS is also adding language to specify that the Director of USCIS, like the Commissioner of CBP and Assistant Director of ICE, may determine what is considered “substantially equivalent” to basic immigration law enforcement training.

DHS is adding “supervisory law enforcement official(s) designated by the Director of USCIS” to the list of positions that may initiate an investigation into a violation of the criminal provisions of the INA.

DHS is adding the Director of USCIS as a position that may designate individuals or a class of individuals as having the authority to arrest persons for crimes committed in the presence of the designated officer. This is standard for federal immigration law enforcement.

DHS is adding the Director of USCIS as a position that may designate individuals or a class of individuals as having the authority to arrest persons for any felony, if the officer is performing immigration enforcement duties at the time of the arrest and if there is a likelihood of the person escaping before an arrest warrant can be obtained. This authority is standard for most federal immigration law enforcement. DHS is also adding language to specify that the Director of USCIS, like the Commissioner of CBP and Director of ICE, may revoke the certification provided to officers following successful completion of the required training course that allows officers to make arrests for any felonies committed while the immigration officer is performing duties related to immigration enforcement with just cause.

DHS is adding the Director of USCIS as a position that may designate individuals or a class of individuals as having the authority to arrest persons who bring in, induce, transport, or harbor certain aliens for the purposes of unlawfully entering the United States.

DHS is adding the Director of USCIS as a position that may designate individuals or a class of individuals as having the authority to execute search warrants, as well as service of arrest warrants for immigration and non-immigration violations. This authority is standard for federal immigration law enforcement.

DHS is adding the Director of USCIS as a position that may designate individuals or a class of individuals as having the authority to carry firearms, provided these individual(s) receive appropriate training and maintain proficiency. This authority is standard for federal immigration law enforcement officials.

DHS is adding the Director of USCIS as a position that will grant individuals or a class of individuals the authority to use non-deadly force, deadly force (in situations where the designated immigration officer or other persons are in danger), and initiate a vehicular pursuit to apprehend fleeing suspects who are attempting to avoid apprehension.

DHS is adding language requiring the Director of USCIS to provide guidance regarding officers' conduct relating to search, seizure, and firearms. Designated USCIS personnel will be authorized certain law enforcement authorities as delegated by the Secretary through the Director of USCIS. Historically these authorities were granted to CBP and ICE under the HSA and each agency has codified the required requisite training necessary to grant their law enforcement personnel basic immigration law enforcement authority. Both CBP and ICE establish in 8 CFR 287.1(g) that requisite training, as used in 8 CFR 287.5 and 287.8, is defined as the successful completion of a select list of established CBP or ICE Immigration Officer, Border Patrol, Immigration Detention Enforcement, or Special Agent academies or training courses or any training substantially equivalent thereto. This rule grants the Director of USCIS (in equivalent to the abilities to the Commissioner of CBP and the Director of ICE) the authority to determine what constitutes any training substantially equivalent to the codified basic immigration law enforcement trainings noted under 8 CFR 287.1(g). The Director of USCIS, in consultation with peer agencies CBP and ICE, will establish a substantially equivalent training course/academy to ensure USCIS designated law enforcement personnel successfully perform their duties upholding the immigration laws of the United States. Additionally, USCIS will establish ongoing training and continued learning metrics to ensure that designated officers maintain the necessary skills, stay updated on legal and procedural changes, and improve officer safety.

DHS is making technical edits to update or remove outdated organizational references. The rule amends 8 CFR 287.8(f)(1) to update the legacy term “Border and Transportation Security Directorate” to “Department of Homeland Security.” See 8 CFR 287.8(f)(1) as amended.

Under the Administrative Procedure Act, the normal notice and comment procedures do not apply to an action that is a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). This exception to notice and comment rule making is colloquial referred to as the “procedural exception.” Am. Fed'n of Labor & Cong. of Indus. Orgs. v. NLRB, 57 F.4th 1023, 1043 (D.C. Cir. 2023). In general, the procedural exception is intended for “internal house-keeping measures organizing agency activities.” Am. Hosp. Ass'n v. Bowen, 834 F.2d 1037, 1045 (D.C. Cir. 1987). The “statutory exception for procedural rules `was provided to ensure that agencies retain latitude in organizing their internal operations.'” Nat'l Sec. Couns. v. CIA, 931 F. Supp. 2d 77, 106 (D.D.C. 2013) (quoting Batterton v. Marshall, 648 F.2d 694, 707 (D.C. Cir. 1980)). The changes made by this final rule to 8 CFR part 287 do nothing more than organize internal DHS operations through the codification of an internal delegation of certain law enforcement authorities by the Secretary of Homeland Security to a component head, the Director of USCIS. This delegation is wholly contained within the internal structure of DHS and aligns delegable authorities with the current administration's priorities.

As this is a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice, DHS publishes it as a final rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A).

Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) 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. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation) directs agencies to significantly reduce the private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations and provides that “any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations.”

This rulemaking is limited to agency organization, management or personnel matters, and therefore is not a regulation or rule as defined by section 2 of Executive Order 12866. Moreover, the Office of Management and Budget has not designated this rule a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it.

Additionally, this final rule is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because it is being issued with respect to an immigration-related function of the United States. The rule's primary direct purpose is to implement or interpret the immigration laws of the United States (as described in section 101(a)(17) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17)) or any other function performed by the U.S. Federal Government with respect to aliens. See OMB Memorandum M-25-20, “Guidance Implementing Section 3 of Executive Order 14192, titled “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation” (Mar. 26, 2025).

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), requires an agency to prepare and make available to the public a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities ( i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). 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 RFA's regulatory flexibility analysis requirements apply only to those rules for which an agency is required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law. See 5 U.S.C. 604(a). DHS did not issue a notice of proposed rulemaking for this action. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required for this rule. Furthermore, the RFA's regulatory flexibility analysis requirements apply only to small entities subject to the requirements of the rule, of which there are none. 19 This rule is one of agency organization, procedure or practice, because it codifies certain law enforcement authorities delegated by the Secretary of Homeland Security to USCIS through the Director of USCIS.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) is intended, among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on State, local, and Tribal governments. Title II of UMRA requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed rule, or final rule for which the agency published a proposed rule, which includes any Federal mandate that may result in a $100 million or more expenditure (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. 20 The inflation adjusted value of $100 million in 1995 is approximately $206 million in 2024 based on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U). 21 This rule is exempt from the written statement requirement, because DHS did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this rule. In addition, this final rule does not contain a Federal mandate as the term is defined under UMRA. 22 The requirements of title II of UMRA, therefore, do not apply, and DHS has not prepared a statement under UMRA.

This rule does not fall within the definition of “rule” as defined by the Congressional Review Act (CRA), enacted as part of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) by section 804 of SBREFA, Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 847-873. See 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(C) (defining the term “rule” to exclude “any rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice that does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties”). DHS is nonetheless submitting this rule to both houses of Congress and the Comptroller General before the rule takes effect, as required by 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1).

This rule does 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. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, Federalism, the Department of Homeland Security has determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

This rule was drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule was written to provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct and was reviewed carefully to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguities, so as to minimize litigation and undue burden on the Federal court system. DHS has determined that this rule meets the applicable standards provided in section 3 of Executive Order 12988.

DHS has reviewed this rule in line with the requirements of section 654 of the Treasury General Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998). DHS has systematically reviewed the criteria specified in section 654(c)(1), by evaluating whether this regulatory action: (1) impacts the stability or safety of the family, particularly in terms of marital commitment; (2) impacts the authority of parents in the education, nurture, and supervision of their children; (3) helps the family perform its functions; (4) affects disposable income or poverty of families and children; (5) only financially impacts families, if at all, to the extent such impacts are justified; (6) may be carried out by State or local government or by the family; or (7) establishes a policy concerning the relationship between the behavior and personal responsibility of youth and the norms of society. If the agency determines a regulation may negatively affect family well-being, then the agency must provide an adequate rationale for its implementation.

DHS has determined that the implementation of this regulation will not negatively affect family well-being and will not have any impact on the autonomy and integrity of the family as an institution.

This rule does not have Tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it will 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.

DHS and its components analyze regulatory actions to determine whether the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., applies and, if so, what degree of analysis is required. DHS Directive 023-01 Rev. 01 “Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act” (Dir. 023-01 Rev. 01) and Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01 Rev. 01 (Instruction Manual)  23 establish the policies and procedures that DHS and its components use to comply with NEPA.

NEPA allows Federal agencies to establish, in their NEPA implementing procedures, categories of actions (“categorical exclusions”) that experience has shown do not, individually or cumulatively, have a significant effect on the human environment and, therefore, do not require an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. 24 The Instruction Manual, Appendix A lists the DHS Categorical Exclusions. 25

Under DHS NEPA implementing procedures, for an action to be categorically excluded, it must satisfy each of the following three conditions: (1) The entire action clearly fits within one or more of the categorical exclusions; (2) the action is not a piece of a larger action; and (3) no extraordinary circumstances exist that create the potential for a significant environmental effect. 26

This rule is limited to amending DHS regulations to codify certain law enforcement authorities delegated by the Secretary of Homeland Security to USCIS through the Director of USCIS, which is a rule of agency organization, procedure, and practice. DHS has reviewed this rule and finds that no significant impact on the environment, or any change in environmental effect will result from the amendments being promulgated in this rule.

Accordingly, DHS finds that the promulgation of this rule's amendments to current regulations clearly fits within categorical exclusion A3 established in DHS's NEPA implementing procedures as an administrative change with no change in environmental effect, is not part of a larger Federal action, and does not present extraordinary circumstances that create the potential for a significant environmental effect.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-12, all agencies are required to submit to OMB, for review and approval, any reporting requirements inherent in a rule. This rule does not impose any reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Accordingly, DHS amends part 287 of chapter I of title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

Background

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain IAE AG Model V2522-A5, V2524-A5, V2525-D5, V2527-A5, V2527E-A5, V2527M-A5, V2528-D5, V2530-A5, V2531-E5, and V2533-A5 engines. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on November 12, 2024 (89 FR 88908). The NPRM was prompted by further analysis of an event involving an IAE AG Model V2533-A5 engine that had an uncontained failure of an HPT 1st-stage hub that resulted in high-energy debris penetrating the engine cowling. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require revising the ALS of the existing maintenance manual or instructions for continued airworthiness and the existing approved maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to include new inspections of the HPT 1st-stage hub and HPT 2nd-stage hub. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

The FAA received comments from seven commenters. The commenters were the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA); JetBlue Airways (JetBlue); Lufthansa Technik AG (Lufthansa); Ryanair; SIA Engineering Company (SIAEC); United Airlines (UAL); and an anonymous commenter. ALPA supported the proposed AD without change. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

JetBlue, Lufthansa, Ryanair, SIAEC, UAL, and an anonymous commenter requested that the FAA change one of the tasks in the “Inspection (Engine Manual Reference)” column in table 1 to paragraph (g) of the proposed AD from “Task 72-45-11-200-009” to “Task 72-45-31-200-009.” UAL, JetBlue, and Ryanair noted that Task 72-45-11-200-009 does not exist in the engine manual.

The FAA agrees and has updated the language in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD as requested.

An anonymous commenter requested that the FAA update paragraph (g) of the proposed AD to read as follows; “Revise the Maintenance Scheduling Section (MSS) of the Time Limits Manuals (TLM): T-V2500-1IA Task 05-10-00-990-000-B00 (A5), T-V2500-3IA Task 05-10-00-990-000 (D5), and T-V2500-[???] Task 05-10-00-990-000(?) (E5), and for air carrier operations revise the approved continuous airworthiness maintenance program; by incorporating the information specified in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, as applicable.” The anonymous commenter noted that the use of the word “your” to describe the existing approved maintenance or inspection program is not clear and the statement should be changed to clarify that the action relates to each FAA certificated air carrier.

The FAA partially agrees. The FAA does not agree with the wording proposed by the anonymous commenter because not all operators use the term “continuous airworthiness maintenance program.” The FAA agrees to meet the commenter's intent in paragraph (g)(1) and (2) of this AD by updating those paragraphs as set forth in the AD section of this rule.

Lufthansa requested that the FAA reword paragraph (g) of the proposed AD to ensure that parts are inspected during each qualifying shop visit directly after the effective date of the proposed AD and to clarify which requirements are to be done by the repair shops and which must be done on-wing by the air carriers.

The FAA agrees and has updated the language in paragraph (g) of this AD to specify required actions for air carrier operations and to clarify that TASK 72-45-11-200-006 and TASK 72-45-31-200-009 are located in paragraph B.1 of the Maintenance Scheduling section of the applicable TLM, which is done at piece-part exposure.

An anonymous commenter requested that the FAA clarify that the performance of each inspection task is not directly required by the proposed AD, and that the only required actions are the one time update to the (FAA Approved) Maintenance Scheduling sections for the V2500-A5, V2500-D5, and V2500-D5 TLM, and the one time update to each FAA Certificated Air Carrier's Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Program.

The FAA agrees to clarify. This AD requires an update to the operator's ICA, which includes the Engine Maintenance Manual (EMM). The operator's EMM will need to be updated to include TASK 72-45-11-200-006 and TASK 72-45-31-200-009 in the TLM in order to comply with this AD. For some operators, this would be considered their Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Program. The performance of these tasks is required by other FAA regulations that are then required upon compliance with this AD. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

SIAEC requested that the FAA update paragraph (g) of this AD to clarify who is responsible for revising the EMM. SIAEC notes that the proposed AD requires a revision to the Maintenance Scheduling paragraph of the ALS of the existing approved EMM, but an operator is unable to revise the EMM because it is the responsibility of the original equipment manufacturer (OEM).

The FAA disagrees that the revision to the EMM is solely the responsibility of the OEM because an operator may not be required to have the latest version of the OEM's EMM incorporated into their ICA. This AD requires the operator to include the latest two inspection tasks into the operator's EMM regardless of what version of the EMM they are currently required to have. The operator will then update their existing approved maintenance or inspection program, as applicable. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

Lufthansa requested that the FAA refer to the ALS of the approved TLM in the proposed AD instead of the ALS of the approved EMM.

The FAA agrees and has updated the language in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD as requested.

SIAEC requested that the FAA clarify whether the incorporation of TASK 72-45-11-200-006 and TASK 72-45-31-200-009 into the EMM constitutes compliance with the requirement of the proposed AD and no further action is required.

The FAA agrees to clarify. The incorporation of TASK 72-45-11-200-006 and TASK 72-45-31-200-009 into the EMM only constitutes compliance with the requirements of this AD for those that do not by regulation have an existing approved maintenance or inspection program. For operators that do have such program, there is an additional requirement for operators to make changes to their existing approved maintenance or inspection program. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

An anonymous commenter requested that the FAA designate the proposed AD as a supersedure to AD 2004-12-08, Amendment 39-13667 (69 FR 34051, June 18, 2004) (AD 2004-12-08). The commenter noted that all required actions of AD 2004-12-08 must have been completed within 90 days of July 23, 2004.

The FAA disagrees with the request to issue this final rule as a supersedure AD. The ALS revisions required by AD 2004-12-08 include enhanced inspections of certain life-limited parts at each piece-part exposure while this AD requires the inclusion of two additional inspections for only the HPT 1st-stage hub and HPT 2nd-stage hub at piece-part exposure. The FAA has determined that a stand-alone AD is appropriate because the only intent of this AD is to require updating the existing ALS to add the two new inspections of the HPT 1st-stage hub and HPT 2nd-stage hub at piece-part exposure. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

SIAEC requested that the FAA clarify the inspection interval for the AUSIs that are required for the HPT stage 1 hub having part number (P/N) 2A5001 and HPT stage 2 hub having P/N 2A4802. SIAEC noted that these parts are already listed in AMP section 18 and require replacement before reaching 20,000 flight cycles, but the threshold for the AUSI is not listed in the proposed AD, TASK 72-45-11-200-006 or TASK 72-45-31-200-009.

The FAA agrees and has updated paragraph (g)(1) of this AD to clarify that TASK 72-45-11-200-006 and TASK 72-45-31-200-009 are located in paragraph B.1 of the Maintenance Scheduling section of the applicable TLM, which is done at piece-part exposure.

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, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 1,514 engines installed on airplanes 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 issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to MD Helicopters, LLC, Model 369 (Army YOH-6A), 369A (Army OH-6A), 369D, 369E, 369F, 369FF, 369H, 369HE, 369HM, 369HS, 500N, and 600N helicopters with certain part-numbered T/R pedal support brackets installed. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 28, 2024 (89 FR 68837). The NPRM was prompted by multiple reports of cracked T/R pedal support brackets, including a report of a forced emergency landing that was caused by a cracked magnesium cast T/R pedal support bracket. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require repetitively inspecting magnesium cast T/R pedal support brackets having P/N 369A7505-7, 369A7505-8, 369A7505-14, or 369A7505-15, and aluminum cast T/R pedal support brackets having P/N 369N2640-1 or 369N2640-2, and depending on the results, replacing the T/R pedal support bracket or refinishing any exposed areas. The FAA also proposed to prohibit installing magnesium cast T/R pedal support bracket P/N 369A7505-7, 369A7505-8, 369A7505-14, or 369A7505-15 on any helicopter. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

The FAA received comments from five commenters. The commenters were Bering Air Inc, MD Helicopters, an individual, and two anonymous commenters. An anonymous commenter and the individual supported the proposal without change, MD Helicopters and an anonymous commenter commented on the estimated costs to comply with the AD, Bering Air Inc, MD Helicopters, and an anonymous commenter requested different requirements for aluminum cast T/R pedal support brackets, and MD Helicopters requested changing the repetitive nondestructive inspections (NDIs). The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

MD Helicopters and an anonymous commenter commented on the costs of the NDIs.

MD Helicopters stated that it believes the estimated cost information and the requirements proposed in the NPRM create an undue burden on operators. MD Helicopters stated that the work-hours and cost information to accomplish an NDI provided in the NPRM are very low, and that the FAA needs to do an availability assessment of certified NDI inspectors, as operators will likely have to remove and ship the bracket to a facility for the NDIs. MD Helicopters further stated that the cost information does not account for removing and reinstalling a bracket for this alternate action or its administrative costs such as shipping costs, nor does it account for lost revenue while the helicopter is out of service. MD Helicopters also stated that a large portion of operators would need to do an NDI two to three times per year.

An anonymous commenter stated that the estimated cost information in the NPRM to accomplish an NDI is too low. The anonymous commenter stated that a Level II or Level III (inspector certified in the FAA-acceptable standards for NDI personnel) for two hours of work is between $500-$800, plus incidentals such as travel costs, which travel costs could double or triple compliance costs particularly for those in remote locations. The anonymous commenter further stated that the cost of repetitive inspections for some operators needs to be properly accounted for and the alternate option of treating the bracket as a rotatable part could also be costly.

The FAA acknowledges the commenters' concerns regarding the NDIs and the availability of Level II or Level III inspectors. The cost information specified in AD rulemaking describes only the direct costs of the specific actions required by the AD. The manufacturer specified its best estimate of the number of work-hours necessary to accomplish an NDI in the material incorporated by reference. This number represents the time necessary to perform an NDI required by this AD. The FAA recognizes that, in doing the actions required by an AD, operators might incur incidental costs in addition to the direct costs. The cost analysis in AD rulemaking does not include indirect or incidental costs such as time for planning, down-time, loss of revenue, or other administrative actions since those costs might vary significantly among operators. In addition, the labor rate of $85 per work-hour for the FAA to use when estimating the labor costs of complying with AD requirements is provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, found at bls.gov/oes/current/oes493011.htm . Lastly, the FAA recognizes that this AD may require operators to accomplish multiple instances of the repetitive NDIs each year on certain helicopters, particularly high usage helicopters as the high usage rate increases the likeliness of occurrence of T/R pedal support bracket cracking. Because of these comments, the FAA completed a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for this AD to analyze its impact on small businesses and updated the number of affected helicopters. Further information regarding that analysis is provided in the Regulatory Flexibility Determination paragraph in the preamble of this final rule. While the costs for a Level II or Level III inspector do not impact the cost estimate, FAA evaluation removed the proposed requirement that the inspections must be performed by a Level II or Level III inspector certified in the FAA-acceptable standards for nondestructive inspection personnel. This may assist in each operator's incidental costs associated with the requirements of this AD.

Bering Air Inc, MD Helicopters, and an anonymous commenter requested different requirements for aluminum cast T/R pedal support brackets (P/Ns 369N2640-1 and 369N2640-2).

Bering Air Inc, asked why the same inspections for magnesium brackets are also required for aluminum brackets, since there have been no reports of cracks in the aluminum brackets. Bering Air Inc, questioned how many of the cracked 17 magnesium brackets were caused by corrosion and stated that the magnesium brackets have the issues, possibly due to poor corrosion control. The FAA infers that Bering Air Inc, is requesting the FAA to remove or differentiate requirements for aluminum cast T/R pedal support brackets having P/N 369N2640-1 or 369N2640-2.

The type design holder, MD Helicopters, stated that it believes aluminum cast T/R pedal support brackets having P/N 369N2640-1 or 369N2640-2 should not be included in the applicability of this AD because they have not experienced a problem as existing visual inspections specified in the maintenance manual are adequate. MD Helicopters explained that these brackets incorporate a protective coating and are not as susceptible to corrosion issues or fatigue cracking compared to the magnesium brackets. Lastly, MD Helicopters stated that installation of these brackets should be terminating action for the requirements of the AD.

An anonymous commenter suggested the FAA consider relieving compliance terms and times for aluminum cast T/R pedal support brackets having P/N 369N2640-1 or 369N2640-2 or consider these parts as closing actions. The FAA infers that “closing actions” means requiring installation of aluminum cast T/R pedal support brackets as terminating action for the requirements for magnesium cast T/R pedal support brackets having P/N 369A7505-7, 369A7505-8, 369A7505-14, or 369A7505-15. The anonymous commenter stated that the aluminum cast T/R pedal support brackets have not been involved in an event and this would provide operators with a cost-effective means of compliance.

The FAA acknowledges these comments and disagrees with different requirements for aluminum cast T/R pedal support brackets (P/Ns 369N2640-1 and 369N2640-2). While the aluminum cast bracket material properties can offer greater mitigation of risk of corrosion, the aluminum cast bracket is still susceptible to deficiencies of cast parts and therefore, should be repetitively inspected. Additionally, no supporting data explaining or showing that aluminum cast brackets are resistant to the unsafe condition of fatigue damage and cracking was submitted for review with these comments. Although MD Helicopters service material is only applicable to the magnesium brackets, the FAA has determined that the aluminum material does not demonstrate an acceptable level of confidence and therefore the aluminum cast T/R pedal support brackets having P/N 369N2640-1 or 369N2640-2 are also part of the unsafe condition. Accordingly, the FAA has included those T/R pedal support brackets in the applicability of this final rule. However, once this AD is published, any person may request an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) by following the procedures specified in paragraph (h) of this AD. The FAA has made no changes to this AD based on those comments.

MD Helicopters stated that it believes the repetitive NDIs create an undue burden on operators. MD Helicopters stated that a Level II nondestructive technician is necessary for only the initial fluorescent penetrant inspection (FPI), and that repetitive visual inspections using 10X power magnifier or a borescope following the initial FPI are sufficient. The FAA infers that MD Helicopters is requesting the FAA to change the repetitive NDIs.

The FAA disagrees that the repetitive NDIs should be changed. The FAA determined that repetitive FPIs, eddy current inspections, or dye penetrant inspections, as specified in the material incorporated by reference, which was issued by MD Helicopters, are necessary to address the unsafe condition. Additionally, no supporting data explaining or showing that repetitive visual inspections for the second and subsequent instances of the NDIs substantiate an acceptable level of safety was submitted to review. However, the FAA determined that the proposal that the T/R pedal support bracket inspections be performed by a Level II or Level III inspector may be burdensome and that performing the inspections using a Level I inspector provides an adequate level of safety, and this AD has been revised accordingly.

The FAA also determined that when refinishing any exposed areas following the determination that there is not a crack as a result of an NDI, it is necessary to ensure that the T/R pedal support bracket is cleaned from any penetrant residue. The FAA has revised that requirement accordingly.

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, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed MD Helicopters Service Bulletin SB369D-231R2 for Model 369D helicopters, SB369E-131R2 for Model 369E helicopters, SB369F-122R2 for Model 369F and 369FF helicopters, SB369H-265R2 for Model 369H, 369HE, 369HM, and 369HS helicopters, SB500N-068R2 for Model 500N helicopters, and SB600N-082R2 for Model 600N helicopters, each dated November 1, 2023 (co-published as one document). For magnesium cast T/R pedal support brackets P/N 369A7505-7, 369A7505-8, 369A7505-14, and 369A7505-15, this material specifies procedures for visually inspecting each T/R pedal support bracket for a crack and corrosion and depending on the results, replacing the bracket with an aluminum cast T/R pedal support bracket having P/N 369N2640-1 or 369N2640-2, or refinishing any exposed areas. For magnesium cast T/R pedal support brackets P/N 369A7505-7, 369A7505-8, 369A7505-14, and 369A7505-15, this material also specifies procedures for fluorescent penetrant inspecting, eddy current inspecting, or dye penetrant inspecting each T/R pedal support bracket for a crack and depending on the results, replacing the bracket with an aluminum cast T/R pedal support bracket having P/N 369N2640-1 or 369N2640-2, or refinishing any exposed areas. For the purpose of this AD, MD Helicopters, LLC, Model 369 (Army YOH-6A) and 369A (Army OH-6A) helicopters use MD Helicopters Service Bulletin SB369D-231R2, dated November 1, 2023, to accomplish certain actions required by this AD.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 556 helicopters of U.S. registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD.

Visually inspecting the T/R pedal support brackets (up to two T/R pedal support brackets per helicopter) will take approximately 0.5 work-hour for an estimated cost of up to $43 per helicopter and $23,908 for the U.S. fleet per inspection cycle. Non-destructive inspection of the T/R pedal support brackets will take approximately 2 work-hours for an estimated cost of up to $170 per helicopter and $94,520 for the U.S. fleet per inspection cycle.

If required, replacing a T/R pedal support bracket will take approximately 8 work-hours and parts will cost approximately $2,075 for an estimated cost of $2,755 per T/R pedal support bracket. Refinishing any exposed areas could vary significantly from helicopter to helicopter. The FAA has no data to determine the costs to accomplish this action or the number of helicopters that may require this action.

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

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

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121) and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-240), requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

The FAA considered the public comments in developing this AD and this FRFA. As of February 13, 2024, there were 369 operators of affected helicopters in service and 556 total affected helicopters. The operators come from a diverse group ranging from the U.S. military, municipalities, federal government agencies, scheduled and unscheduled aviation entities, and electricity providers, to name a few. The U.S. Army is the most affected and operate 45 helicopters, 5 operators operate between 10 and 12 helicopters, 36 operators operate between 3 and 9 helicopters, and the remaining 327 operators operate 2 or less helicopters. Some operators use the affected helicopters to aid in their primary business objective—such as power and communication line companies that use them to install or repair their infrastructure. Others use them as their primary business objective—such as providing transportation to customers on a scheduled or unscheduled basis.

Given that there are many affected entities, FAA took a sample of 12 entities out of the 327 operators to determine the industries of these entities and their size. The FAA used a subscription-based online database of U.S. entities, D&B Hoovers Online, to determine the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code, revenue, and employee count for each entity. Based on the United States Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards  1 these 12 entities are considered small and are affected by this rule. The NAICS codes associated with these entities are and details about size standards are listed in Table 1.

The lowest cost an entity can incur for inspection from this AD is when only a visual inspection is required. This occurs when the bracket is visually inspected by a Level I Non-destructive Testing (NDT) Inspector and deems it does not require maintenance. FAA estimated the cost for visual inspection at $43. The high-cost case that the FAA estimated is $170 which requires 2 work-hours to conduct non-destructive inspection. However, MD Helicopters commented that the total cost for one inspection would cost $930. This estimate includes $680 to remove the bracket, $170 for the NDT inspection to be completed by an outside agency, and $80 for shipping charges. 2 Due to the issues of cost as provided by MD Helicopters, and the FAA's determination that performing the inspections using a Level I inspector provides an adequate level of safety, the FAA removed the proposed requirement that inspections must be performed by a Level II or Level III inspector certified in the FAA-acceptable standards for nondestructive inspection personnel. This change broadens the personnel that can do the inspection. Thus the change (1) reduces the likelihood of needing to remove the bracket as it is easier to find a Level I NDT inspector to perform an on-site inspection of the bracket while it is being installed, (2) reduces the cost to conduct the inspection as a more credentialed (Level II/III) inspector would cost more, and (3) eliminates the shipping costs when NDT inspectors are able to do an on-site inspection. An NDT inspection should be done every 300 hours which, on average, 3 is approximately once a year and can be conducted in conjunction with yearly inspections. Therefore, the MD Helicopters $930 estimated cost can be as low as $170, the same cost that the FAA estimated for brackets to have an NDT inspection.

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 rule document submitted by Commission staff for publication contained a typographical error; specifically, the date for when the revised fees will become effective was off by one year in the DATES .

In final rule FR Doc. 2025-16430 appearing at 90 FR 41777 in the Federal Register of Wednesday, August 27, 2025, make the following correction. On page 41777, in the DATES section, the date of “October 1, 2024” is corrected to read “October 1, 2025”.

The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulation for the Ironman Ho'ala practice swim and Ironman World Championship Triathlon from 3:45 a.m. to 11 a.m. on October 5 and 11, 2025. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the USCG Oceania District (formerly the Fourteenth Coast Guard District), § 100.1402, identifies the regulated area for this event. The regulated area covers all navigable waters of Kailua Bay within 100 yards adjacent to the 2.24 mile (4,224 yards) swim course, starting at the shoreline northeast of Kailua Pier at 19°38.341′ N, 155°59.782′ W; thence southeast to 19°37.416′ N, 155°59.444′ W; thence southwest to 19°37.397′ N, 155°59.500′ W; thence northwest to 19°38.150′ N, 155°59.760′ W, thence north and back to Kailua Pier at 19°38.398′ N, 155°59.816′ W, and returning along the pier to the originating point on the shoreline at 19°38.341′ N, 155°59.782′ W. All coordinate data are NAD 83. During the enforcement periods, the operator of any vessel in the regulated area must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the special local regulation is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Honolulu or their designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port's designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

In addition to this publication in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of the enforcement of this special local regulation via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

On April 19, 2018, the Coast Guard established a security zone around Mar-a-Lago Club in 33 CFR 165.785 to ensure the safety of the president, official party, and any other persons under the protection of the secret service at his residence. The security zone in § 165.785 consists of 3 zones with varying levels of security within the Intracoastal Waterway and Atlantic Ocean adjacent to this location. While this security zone has been in effect since 2018, increased vessel traffic in the area has created a need for heightened restrictions in the East Zone when the President of the United States, members of the First Family, or other persons under the protection of the Secret Service are present or expected to be present.

In response, on July 10, 2025, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Security Zone; Intracoastal Waterway, Palm Beach, FL (90 FR 30603). There we stated why we issued the NPRM and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this security zone. During the comment period that ended August 11, 2025, with 1 comments.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70051 and 70124, which is needed to protect to ensure sufficient protection of the presidential party when they are in the vicinity of these waterways.

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 immediate action is needed to enhance the security protections of presidential and VIP personnel present in the vicinity of this waterway.

As noted above, we received 1 positive comments on our NPRM published July 10, 2025. This comment supported the rule as it is written; therefore, there are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

This rule changes the enforcement of the “East Zone” security zone within 33 CFR 165.785, which is located on the waters of the Atlantic Ocean near the Mar-a-Lago Club and the Southern Boulevard Bridge in Palm Beach, FL. When the “East Zone” is activated all persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting, anchoring in, or remaining within the security zone unless authorized by the COTP Miami or a designated representative.

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

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around the security zones which will impact a limited restriction on the waterway while the President or members of the official party have been present in the Mar-a-Lago club. Moreover, the Coast Guard will rely on the methods described in 33 CFR 165.7 to notify the public prior to activation of any of the security zones described in paragraph (a) of this section. Coast Guard patrol assets will also be on-scene with flashing energized blue lights when the east security zone is in effect.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards by calling 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements in that Order. Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), 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 is security zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.

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

On July 11, 2024, an organization notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting Swim Across the Bay, an annual recurring swim event that will occur on the 3rd or 4th Saturday or Sunday of September in St. Louis Bay. The Captain of the Port Sector Mobile (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the swim event will be a safety concern for persons and vessels within the designated area, extending the entire width of the channel, approximately 1 mile south of the Hwy 90 Bridge in Bay St. Louis, MS.

In response, on November 14, 2024, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Safety Zone; Bay St. Louis, MS (89 FR 89940). There we stated why we issued the NPRM and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this swim event. During the comment period that ended December 12, 2024, we received 2 comments. One commenter stated that the environmental analysis was not provided in the docket. The Coast Guard acknowledges that the Record of Environmental Consideration was completed on November 12, 2024, and was posted in the docket on November 14, 2024. The second commenter was generally in favor of the rule however questioned the necessity for an annual event and wondered whether law enforcement could be used in lieu of a rule. The Coast Guard finds that a safety zone provides the appropriate level of protection from potential hazards associated with this open water swim event for persons and vessels in the safety zone.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The COTP has determined that potential hazards associated with the swim event will be a safety concern for persons and vessels within the designated area, extending the entire width of the channel, approximately 1 mile south of the Hwy 90 Bridge in Bay St. Louis, MS. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of persons and vessels and the navigable waters in the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled event.

As noted above, we received 2 comments on our NPRM published November 14, 2024. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

This rule establishes a safety zone that will cover certain navigable waters at the opening of St. Louis Bay, extending the entire width of the channel, approximately 1 mile south of the Hwy 90 Bridge in Bay St. Louis, MS. The duration of the safety zone is intended to ensure the safety of persons and vessels in these navigable waters before, during and after the swim. The event will recur on an annual basis on the 3rd or 4th Saturday or Sunday of September. The exact dates and times of enforcement will be made public via a notice of enforcement prior to the event date. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

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

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. The safety zone will only be enforced on one day a year and we will provide advance notice of that date and time through local notice to mariners and Federal Register notice publications. The vessels can also contact the COTP for permission to transit through the safety zone.

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 the establishment of a safety zone lasting one day that will prohibit entry in, out, or through the navigable waters near the opening of St. Louis Bay, extending the entire width of the channel approximately 1 mile south of the Hwy 90 Bridge in Bay St. Louis, MS annually on the 3rd or 4th Saturday or Sunday of September. 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 where indicated under the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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

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 it is impracticable. The Coast Guard must establish this safety zone by September 14th, 2025, and lacks sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.

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 contrary to public interest because immediate action is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and persons during a fireworks display on September 14, 2025. The Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM) to advise mariners of the restrictions and enforcement times during this event.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) has determined that this action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters near Owensboro, KY during the Owensboro Fireworks Show on September 14, 2025. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the regulated area between MM 756.0-757.0 on the Ohio River from 9 p.m. through 9:30 p.m.

This rule establishes a safety zone from 9 p.m. through 9:30 p.m. on September 14, 2025. The safety zone will cover the entire width of the Ohio River between MM 756.0-757.0. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters while the firework display is conducted. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

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

The Regulatory Flexibility 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. This rule will restrict vessel navigation on the Ohio River for only 30 minutes, at a time when vessel traffic is normally low. In addition, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Marines via VHF FM marine channel 16, which will allow small entities to adjust their transit plans, and the rule allows vessels to request permission to enter the zone from the COTP.

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 safety zone lasting only 30 minutes that will prohibit entry from MM 756.0-757.0 on the Ohio River from 9 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. 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:

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

On August 9, 2022, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted the 2022 California Regional Haze Plan to address the requirements of the CAA's regional haze program pursuant to CAA sections 169A and 169B and 40 CFR 51.308. On December 19, 2024, the EPA proposed to approve the elements of the Plan related to requirements contained in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1), 40 CFR 51.308(f)(4)-(6), and 40 CFR 51.308 (g)(1)-(5) and to disapprove the elements of the Plan related to requirements contained in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2), 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3), and 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2)-(4). 1 During that public notice-and-comment period, the EPA received six sets of comments. The full text of comments received on the December 19, 2024 proposal are available via Docket ID Number EPA-R09-OAR-2024-0459 at www.regulations.gov.

On June 18, 2025, the EPA withdrew the December 19, 2024 proposal and proposed full approval of the Plan. 2 The June 18, 2025 proposal provided background on the requirements of the CAA and RHR, summarized California's regional haze SIP submittal, and explained the rationale for our proposed action. That background and rationale will not be restated in full here.

In this final action, the EPA is affirming the Agency's policy that, where projected 2028 visibility conditions on the most impaired days for a Class I Federal area impacted by a state are below the uniform rate of progress (URP) and the state has considered the four statutory factors, the state will have presumptively demonstrated reasonable progress for the second planning period for that area. The policy was first articulated in a proposed action on the West Virginia regional haze SIP for the second planning period, 3 which was then finalized. 4

All twenty-nine areas Class I areas in California and twenty-four out of the twenty-five Class I areas in neighboring states are below the adjusted URP, and the Plan demonstrated that the state took into consideration the four reasonable progress factors listed in CAA 169A(g)(1)  5 with respect to an adequate number of emissions sources. For the one remaining Class I area, Sycamore Canyon, projected 2028 visibility conditions on the most impaired days are above the adjusted URP. However, as detailed in our proposed rulemaking  6 and section IV.A.3 of the Response to Comments Document available in the docket for this action (“RTC Document”), there is uncertainty with respect to the trends in visibility impairment and whether the site will really be above the URP in 2028, due to the monitor location having been moved in 2015. In addition, there is a strong downward trend in observed sulfate and nitrates, and modeled source apportionment data from WRAP shows a strong downward trend in modeled U.S. anthropogenic contributions to Sycamore Canyon between the baseline and 2028. Furthermore, even if we assume that Sycamore Canyon will be above the URP in 2028, the available evidence indicates that this is due to local sources of coarse mass and fine soil, not pollution transported from outside of Arizona. Finally, while the EPA's policy establishes a presumption regarding areas that are projected to be below the URP, states whose emissions contribute to impairment in areas above the URP can still meet the applicable requirements of the CAA and the RHR. Indeed, the RHR specifically addresses this situation by requiring a “robust demonstration” that there are no additional emissions reduction measures at contributing sources that would be reasonable to include in the long-term strategy.”  7 Because California did not determine that its sources contribute to impairment in Sycamore Canyon, it did not expressly make such a demonstration. However, as described in section IV.A.3 of the RTC Document, even if Sycamore Canyon is assumed to be above the 2028 URP, we find, consistent with 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B), that there are no additional emissions reduction measures for anthropogenic sources or groups of sources in California that may reasonably be anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in the Sycamore Canyon that would be reasonable to include in California's own long-term strategy. Thus, the EPA has determined that the Plan is fully approvable under the CAA, the RHR and the Agency's new policy.

The EPA's June 18, 2025 proposal provided a 30-day public comment period that ended on July 18, 2025. The EPA received 10 comments during the comment period: one anonymous comment; four comments from private individuals; a comment letter from the California Air Resources Board (CARB); a comment from Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANEVU); a comment from the Power Generators Air Coalition; a joint comment letter signed by Access Fund, Central California Asthma Collaborative, Central California Environmental Justice Network, Central Valley Air Quality Coalition, Clean Water Action, Coalition to Protect America's National Parks, and the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA); and a joint comment letter signed by NPCA, Sierra Club, and Coalition to Protect America's National Parks. After reviewing the anonymous comment and the comments from the private individuals, the EPA has determined that they fail to raise issues germane to the approval of the Plan, which is based on the criteria set forth in the Act, the RHR and relevant policy documents. Therefore, we have determined that these comments do not necessitate a response, and the EPA will not provide specific response to these comments. The comments from CARB and the Power Generators Air Coalition supported the EPA's proposed action. The EPA acknowledges these supportive comments, which are included in the docket for this action. We respond to the issues raised in the three remaining comment letters received on our proposed rulemaking in this document and the associated RTC Document, which is included in the docket for this rulemaking.

We briefly address in this section: (1) whether the EPA's new policy is consistent with the CAA and RHR; (2) whether the EPA sufficiently justified its basis for the new policy; (3) whether the action is nationally applicable or based on a determination of nationwide scope and effect; (4) whether the action departs from national policy without complying with the EPA's consistency regulations at 40 CFR part 56; and (5) whether the Plan meets the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements in accordance with the new policy.

As detailed at length in the RTC Document section III.A, the EPA's new policy is consistent with the CAA. Pursuant to CAA 169A(a)(4), Congress explicitly delegated to the EPA the authority to promulgate regulations regarding reasonable progress towards meeting the national goal. As some comments note, to determine the measures necessary to make reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal under 169A(a)(1), Congress mandated “tak[ing] into consideration the cost of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, and the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of any existing source subject to such requirement.”  8

The EPA emphasizes that just because a Class I area is below the URP does not mean that a state is relieved of its obligations under the CAA and the RHR to make reasonable progress. In other words, the URP is not a “safe harbor,” as that phrase has sometimes been used, because the EPA still must review a state's determination whether additional control measures are necessary to make reasonable progress, determine whether the state submitted those measures for incorporation into the SIP, and evaluate whether the measures are consistent with other provisions in the CAA .

As discussed in the West Virginia final action, 9 the EPA's change in policy is consistent with FCC v. Fox Television, 556 U.S 502 (2009). Under FCC v. Fox, an agency's change in policy is permissible if the agency acknowledges the change, believes it to be better, and “show[s] that there are good reasons for the new policy.”  10 In section V of our proposal for this rulemaking, we stated our reasons for implementing this new policy. 11 In sum, the EPA's proposal sufficiently justifies the change in policy under FCC v. Fox.

The decision in FCC v. Fox turned primarily on whether the FCC's change in policy would lead to the FCC “arbitrarily punishing parties without notice of the potential consequences of their action.”  12 As we explained in the proposal, the changed policy is prospective, which addresses the primary concern in FCC v. Fox. Additionally, the new policy “aligns with the purpose of the statute and RHR, which is achieving `reasonable' progress, not maximal progress, toward Congress' natural visibility goal.”  13 Furthermore, we note that the legislative history of CAA section 169A is consistent with our change in policy. The reconciliation report for the 1977 CAA amendments indicates that the term “maximum feasible progress” in section 169A was changed to “reasonable progress” in the final version of the legislation passed by both chambers. 14

As discussed in the West Virginia final action  15 and the RTC document for this action in response III.C.1, the EPA's Regional Consistency regulations at 40 CFR part 56, and in particular 40 CFR 56.5(b), are not relevant to this action. 40 CFR 56.5(b) requires that a “responsible official in a Regional office shall seek concurrence from the appropriate EPA Headquarters office on any interpretation of the Act, or rule, regulation, or program directive when such interpretation may result in application of the act or rule, regulation, or program directive that is inconsistent with Agency policy.” (emphasis added). As we expressly indicated in the proposal, the approval is consistent with the change in agency policy, first announced in Air Plan Approval; West Virginia; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Second Implementation Period. Therefore, there is no obligation under the plain language of the EPA's Regional Consistency regulations for anyone in the region to seek concurrence from EPA Headquarters to take action consistent with EPA policy. The lack of relevance of these regulations to this action accounts for the lack of materials related to compliance with the Regional Consistency process in the docket for this rulemaking.

This action is “locally or regionally applicable” under CAA section 307(b)(1) because it applies only to a SIP submission from a single state, California. 16 To determine whether an action is “nationally applicable” or “locally or regionally applicable,” “court[s] need look only to the face of the agency action, not its practical effects. . . .”. 17 As discussed in the West Virginia final action  18 and the RTC Document for this action in the response III.C.4, comments that claim that the EPA “must” publish a finding that this action is “based on a determination of nationwide scope [or] effect” are also unsupported and incorrect. The Supreme Court has recognized that “[b]ecause the `nationwide scope or effect' exception can apply only when `EPA so finds and publishes' that it does, EPA can decide whether the exception is even potentially relevant.”  19 As the D.C. Circuit has also stated, the “EPA's decision whether to make and publish a finding of nationwide scope or effect is committed to the agency's discretion and thus is unreviewable.”  20 The Administrator has not made and published a finding that this action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect. Accordingly, any petition for review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate regional circuit.

Finally, as also detailed in section IV.A of the RTC Document, the Plan meets the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. As required by the statute, California took into consideration the four statutory factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and determined that no additional controls for stationary sources were necessary to make reasonable progress. California therefore concluded that it was not necessary to incorporate any new emissions limitations, schedules of compliance, or other measures for stationary sources into its SIP. Thus, California did not ignore the results of its consideration of the four statutory factors. Rather, consistent with the CAA, RHR, and EPA's new policy, the state's final decisions as to the measures necessary to make reasonable progress in the second planning period are reasonable.

In addition, the RHR requires states to submit a long-term strategy that addresses regional haze visibility impairment for each mandatory Class I Federal area within the State and for each mandatory Class I Federal area located outside the State that may be affected by emissions from the State, 21 and the statute refers to “a State the emissions from which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any such area.”  22 However, there is no specific statutory or regulatory requirement to identify the precise set of Class I areas that are affected by emissions from California, and there is no requirement to establish a source contribution threshold in identifying those areas. In this case, CARB appropriately identified affected out-of-state Class I areas, as we explain in section IV.A.4 of the RTC document. The EPA believes CARB has reasonably documented its out-of-state Class I area contributions, and that, with one possible exception discussed in section II of this document and in the RTC at response section IV.A.3, emissions from California do not impact any Class I area whose 2028 RPG for the most impaired days is above the URP.

In conclusion, as discussed in more detail in the responses at section IV.B.8 of the RTC Document, California took into consideration the four statutory factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and selected four mobile source measures as necessary for reasonable progress. 23 Consistent with an approach used in many of its attainment plans, which has been upheld by the Ninth Circuit, 24 CARB did not adopt and submit the specific identified measures, but instead provided a “commitment to achieve aggregate emissions reductions of 40 tpd of NO X emissions Statewide.”  25 Therefore, while some of these measures were subsequently invalidated, this does not necessitate a disapproval of any portion of the Plan.

The full text of comments received is included in the publicly posted docket associated with this action at www.regulations.gov. The RTC Document, which is also included in the docket associated with this action, provides detailed responses to all significant comments received. The RTC Document is organized by topic. Therefore, if additional information is desired concerning how the EPA addressed a particular comment, the reader should refer to the appropriate section in the RTC Document.

For the reasons set forth in the June 18, 2025 proposal, the RTC Document, and in this final rule, the EPA is approving the 2022 California Regional Haze Plan as satisfying the regional haze requirements for the second planning period contained in 40 CFR 51.308(f), (g), and (i).

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 26 Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 4, 2025. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

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

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

On March 24, 2025, the EPA proposed to approve the regional haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by Idaho on August 5, 2022, supplemented on September 27, 2024, and clarified on August 12, 2025, as satisfying applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR) for the program's second implementation period (90 FR 13516).

The public comment period for our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) closed on April 23, 2025. We received six comments. We determined two of the comments were not germane to our action. One commenter requested that, “the EPA and the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality [“IDEQ” or “DEQ”] consider a program to install supplemental catalytic converters on older gasoline cars to reduce NO X , VOCs, and CO emissions.” The commenter further stated that the commenter's company has developed supplemental catalytic converters to reduce tailpipe emissions. This comment is outside the scope of this action. The revisions to Idaho's SIP addressed in this action do not relate to control of motor vehicle emissions in general, or the control of tailpipe emissions using supplemental catalytic converters. Rather, this action primarily addresses stationary source industrial emissions that may impact visibility in Class I areas in Idaho. In addition, the commenter did not indicate that the EPA approval of the Idaho regional haze plan submission is inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.

A second commenter recommended not approving the plan until Idaho attains clean air standards. The commenter also stated that “Idaho will need to degrowth, contract and regulate more to provide clean air for Idahoans health and safety.” This action addresses the Clean Air Act visibility protection requirements of sections 169A and 169B, not the Clean Air Act's health-based air quality standards, such as the national ambient air quality standards. Therefore, this comment is outside the scope of this action.

We also received one comment in support of this action. The commenter conveyed overall support for our NPRM, stating, “I am very happy and proud of the EPA for proposing this influential rule that will help in Idaho. However, seeing that Idaho has an average AQI of 62 which many other states are well above 70 I think similar rules to these should be implemented in other areas of our nation.” The EPA acknowledges the commenter's support.

We received germane, adverse comments from a coalition of conservation groups (the National Parks Conservation Association, the Coalition to Protect America's National Parks, and the Sierra Club), the Amalgamated Sugar Company (TASCO), and the Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry (IACI). The full text of the comments may be found in the docket for this action. We have reprinted in relevant part or summarized the comments and provided our responses in section II of this preamble.

Comment: “[W]e believe DEQ should have considered additional facilities to strengthen their SIP Revision Package.”

Response: The RHR does not require a State to evaluate all sources of emissions, nor does it list factors that a State must or may consider when selecting sources. Rather, the RHR requires that a State's submission include “a description of the criteria it used to determine which sources or groups of sources it evaluated.”  1 The State must also appropriately document the technical basis for source selection, which may include methods for quantifying potential visibility impacts such as emissions divided by distance metrics, trajectory analyses, residence time analyses, and/or photochemical modeling.

As detailed in the submission and described in our NPRM, Idaho used the source selection methodology developed by the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) for western States. 2 The WRAP's approach used the Q/d method, where Q is the sum of visibility impairing pollutants (NO X , SO 2 and PM 10 ), and d is the distance (kilometers) to the boundary of the nearest Class I area. The Idaho DEQ screened sources as described in the following steps:  3

1. Identify those facilities with total facility-wide emissions of visibility impairing pollutants (NO X , SO 2 and PM 10 ) greater than 25 tons per year (tpy) based on 2014 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) data.

2. Calculate the distance from each facility identified in Step 1 to the nearest Class I area boundary (including those in other States) in kilometers (km). Facilities greater than 400 km from the nearest Class I area were considered to have minimal impact on visibility and were excluded.

3. Identify those facilities with a Q/d greater than the State-defined threshold. Idaho used a relatively low Q/d threshold of 2.0 because the State estimated that the threshold captured 70% to 80% of emissions from Idaho facilities.

4. Refine the Q/d analysis using more recent 2017 NEI data to screen out sources that have a Q/d less than the State-defined threshold for 2017 emissions.

Idaho's initial source screening used 2014 emissions inventory data to identify 14 facilities in Idaho with Q/d greater than 2.0. 4 Idaho refined the Q/d analysis using 2017 emissions inventory data and screened out three additional facilities from the original 14 (Idaho Forest Group LLC-Riley Creek-Moyie Springs, Plummer Forest Group, Inc-Post Falls, and Rexburg Facility of Basic American Foods). 5 Idaho also screened out a facility outside of the State's regulatory purview (Boise Airport), as well as a facility near Sawtooth Wilderness Area (Northwest Pipeline—Mountain Home) because the facility primarily emitted NO X and WRAP modeling found anthropogenic contributions to NO X at SAWT1 were negligible. 6 This screening process yielded nine Idaho facilities with Q/d greater than 2.0.

Idaho also used the WRAP's weighted emissions potential (WEP) to further inform source selection. 7 The WEP is a screening tool used to identify sources contributing to visibility impairment in the 2014-2018 period and still operating in 2028 that have the potential to contribute to haze formation at Class I areas. 8 The rank point analysis consists of facility-level 2028 emissions for NO X or SO 2 sources overlaid with the corresponding extinction-weighted residence time for ammonium nitrate or ammonium sulfate. 9 Ultimately, Idaho determined that the sources it selected for review under the four statutory factors captured the sources potentially contributing to visibility impairment in Class I areas in other States. Importantly, Idaho noted that all the sources it reviewed had greater visibility impacts on Idaho Class I areas. Specifically, the 2028OTBa2 State-level source apportionment results indicated that Idaho facilities had the most significant impact on visibility impairment at Class I areas within the State. Thus, Idaho reasoned, and the neighboring States agreed, that addressing visibility impairment in Idaho's Class I areas would adequately capture Idaho sources' contribution to visibility impairment in Class I areas outside the State.

Furthermore, Idaho identified 27 Class I areas in five neighboring States (Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Wyoming) that could potentially be affected by emissions from sources within Idaho. However, applying the same source screening analysis yielded no additional Idaho facilities beyond the nine already selected for four-factor analysis. 10 Those nine facilities were ultimately selected for further evaluation by Idaho.

As explained in the NPRM, the RHR preamble, and in the response to the conservation group comments above, the RHR does not require States to consider controls for all sources, all source categories, or any or all sources in a particular source category. This is addressed on page 9 of the 2019 Regional Haze Guidance  11 as follows “Instead, a state may reasonably select a set of sources for an analysis of control measures. The guidance that an analysis of control measures is not required for every source in each implementation period is based on CAA section 169A(b)(2).” Rather, the States have discretion to choose any source selection methodology or threshold that is reasonably calculated to evaluate and determine the emission reduction measures necessary to make reasonable progress, provided that the choices they make are reasonably explained. To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires that a State's SIP submission include “a description of the criteria it used to determine which sources or groups of sources it evaluated.” The technical basis for source selection, which may include methods for quantifying potential visibility impacts such as emissions divided by distance metrics, trajectory analyses, residence time analyses, and/or photochemical modeling, must also be appropriately documented, as required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).

On that basis, we find that Idaho included adequate information and an explanation of its source selection methodology in its regional haze plan submission and that the information submitted supports a finding that Idaho examined a reasonable set of sources for the second implementation period.

Comment: “DEQ evaluated potential reasonable progress measures for its sources using an unreasonably low cost-effectiveness threshold. DEQ's average cost-effectiveness threshold for evaluating controls was just $6,100. DEQ should have used a higher cost-effectiveness threshold, similar to that employed by other states like Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico, all of which used a $10,000 per ton threshold.”

Response: As the EPA stated in the NPRM, the EPA did not establish a cost-effectiveness threshold for the second implementation period. Rather, the EPA's 2019 Guidance clarified that States had the flexibility to decide a reasonable approach to evaluating costs. 12 Further, the RHR does not provide a specific cost effectiveness threshold. The fact that Idaho used a cost-effectiveness threshold that is lower than another State's threshold is not, by itself, an adequate basis for disapproving a State's regional haze plan.

In developing its regional haze plan for the second implementation period, Idaho established a cost-effectiveness threshold of $6,100 per ton by adjusting the $5,000 per ton best available retrofit technology (BART) cost-effectiveness threshold (used during the first implementation period) for inflation. 13 Idaho then analyzed potential control measures using the four statutory factors for specific units at selected facilities. Control measures that would cost over $6,100 per ton were considered too costly for purposes of the second implementation period. While there is no threshold for percentage of emissions captured for analysis, Idaho's approach is well reasoned and therefore we continue to find that Idaho documented a reasonable approach to evaluating costs and met its obligations under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i).

Additionally, although Nevada did set a $10,000 per ton cost-effectiveness threshold in its second planning period regional haze SIP, the EPA disagrees with commenters' assertion that both New Mexico and Colorado also set $10,000 per ton thresholds. Colorado only mentioned the possibility of a $10,000 per ton threshold in its prehearing statement and in early drafts of its SIP revision for the second implementation period. However, this threshold was not carried over into the final SIP revision submitted to the EPA. Also, as of the time this comment was submitted, New Mexico has not yet submitted their SIP revision for the second implementation period. Although New Mexico's draft SIP revision references a $10,000 per ton threshold in its analysis, New Mexico has yet to submit a formal SIP revision to the EPA.

Comment: “DEQ evaluated control measures for Clearwater Paper Corporation and determined that the figure of $9,556/ton for selective catalytic reduction (SCR) was greater than the threshold of $6,100/ton that DEQ set. DEQ then failed to propose SCR controls at No. 4 Power Boiler based on cost-effectiveness. In their SIP comments to Idaho's 2024 submission, NPS encouraged DEQ to evaluate whether requiring SCR to control NO X emissions from the No. 4 Power Boiler would be reasonable. The Conservation Organizations support that recommendation and urge EPA to ensure SCR controls at No. 4 Power Boiler are included in its final proposal.”

Response: We disagree with the commenters. In the 2024 submission, Idaho assessed the feasibility and costs of retrofitting the No. 4 Power Boiler with additional NO X controls, including low-NO X burners (LNB), Ultra-low NO X burners (ULNB), selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR), selective catalytic reduction (SCR), and low-temperature oxidation (LoTOx). 14 Idaho determined that ULNB and flue gas recirculation were technologically infeasible. For the remaining, feasible controls, Idaho concluded that the cost to install LNB, SNCR, SCR, and LoTOx would exceed the State's established cost-effectiveness threshold. 15 For SCR specifically, Idaho estimated that add-on controls would cost $9,556 per ton of NO X removed. Idaho used vendor quotes and the EPA's Control Cost Manual to estimate this cost. 16 As discussed above, Idaho reasonably explained the basis for its cost effectiveness threshold of $6,100/ton reduced. States may evaluate the cost factor using a cost threshold and use that threshold to provide a reasonable justification for four-factor analysis outcomes. Thus, Idaho was reasonable to reject SCR as too costly based on this threshold.

Comment: “[T]he NPS recommended that a wet packed scrubber would likely be cost-effective to reduce SO 2 emissions from the East Sulfuric Acid Plant. In the SIP Supplement, DEQ updated the information provided in appendix B including a new facility Four-Factor Analysis and DEQ's review of the analysis. In its review, DEQ provided an adjusted cost effectiveness for wet flue gas desulfurization or hydrogen peroxide scrubbing of about $8,000/ton SO 2 removed. While the cost exceeds DEQ's cost threshold of $6,100/ton of SO 2, given the facility's impact on Class I areas, we support NPS's recommendation on the SIP Supplement to require SO 2 scrubbing in this planning period.”

Response: We disagree with this comment. As discussed above, the EPA finds that Idaho was reasonable in using a cost effectiveness threshold of $6,100 to evaluate whether controls are necessary in the second implementation period. Idaho was thus reasonable to reject controls with projected costs in excess of this threshold. This was the case with all of the controls Idaho evaluated for the East Sulfuric Acid Plant.

To the extent the comment contests Idaho's cost estimates, we also disagree. With respect to cost calculations, the EPA recommended in the 2019 Guidance that States follow the EPA's Control Cost Manual recommendations to ensure consistent cost calculations across controls and sources. 17 The EPA also recommended that States explain any deviations from those methods or alternative approaches. 18 Finally, the Control Cost Manual provides for generic cost estimates using a consistent methodology but recommends that States obtain facility-specific vendor cost quotes when practical. 19

In evaluating the cost of WFGD, a hydrogen peroxide scrubber, and DSI, Idaho obtained cost information from equipment vendors. 20 Idaho conducted subsequent evaluations of its initial cost estimates to ensure the cost estimates took into consideration all the ancillary equipment necessary and site-specific complexities. Idaho adequately explained its cost calculation methodology, its use of the Control Cost Manual, and its rationale for adjusting initial vendor estimates based on site-specific information. Therefore, the EPA's position remains that Idaho adequately considered cost, along with the other three factors in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2), in determining the controls necessary for reasonable progress at the East Sulfuric Acid Plant and the State was reasonable in rejecting controls with costs above $6,100 per ton reduced.

Comment: “the NPS explained that because the Itafos analysis included a vendor quote for a packed tower wet scrubber using hydrogen peroxide and caustic soda as scrubbing reagents and the Simplot plants have higher permitted production capacity but are similar to the Itafos facility plant, the NPS used the Itafos vendor quote PEC and the “six-tenths” rule to apply these costs to the Simplot plants. The NPS explained that it detailed all analysis assumptions in the written documentation. The NPS's cost-effectiveness figures demonstrate that scrubbers on the Simplot sulfuric acid plants are cost effective for Plants No. 300 and 400, reducing emissions by 98% or roughly 733 tons per year. Thus, the EPA must ensure that Four-Factor Analyses are conducted and emission controls are included for these plants in the final action. Although the SIP Supplement concludes that existing permit conditions for both sulfuric acid plants are sufficient and that no Four-Factor Analysis or additional SO 2 controls are needed this planning period, we agree with NPS's recommendation that a wet packed-tower scrubber is still likely cost-effective for Plants No. 300 and 400 and should be required in this planning period.”

Response: We disagree with the commenters that four-factor analyses are required for evaluating retrofit SO 2 controls on the Don Siding Plant sulfuric acid plants. In our NPRM, we proposed to approve the Idaho DEQ's determination that the Don Siding sulfuric acid plants were already subject to BACT-level SO 2 limits per a 2015 Federal consent decree to resolve PSD applicability issues and that those limits constituted existing effective controls. 21 In our NPRM we stated that in the EPA 2019 Guidance, the EPA acknowledged that a control technology review under the four regional haze factors was unlikely to find feasible, cost-effective controls for sources that recently went through PSD BACT. 22 In this instance, both plants are subject to 2015 BACT limits imposed through a Federal consent decree with the EPA. Consistent with the EPA 2019 Guidance, and based on the submitted information, the EPA agreed with Idaho that additional control technology review under the four regional haze factors would be unlikely to find feasible, cost-effective controls. 23

As background, it is helpful to review the technology already in place on the plants to control SO 2 emissions. The No. 300 Sulfuric Acid Plant is already equipped with scrubber technology to reduce SO 2 emissions, specifically a DynaWave reverse-jet wet gas scrubber and an Ammsox packed bed ammonium scrubber in series. The No. 400 Sulfuric Acid Plant uses a double contact/double absorption (DCDA) process and makes use of a high-efficiency catalyst to maximize conversion of SO 2 to SO 3 , which in turn reduces SO 2 emissions. In an SO 2 BACT analysis conducted in 2013, Simplot determined the No. 400 plant could meet BACT-level SO 2 limits based on DCDA technology and high-efficiency catalysts alone. 24 In its research for the BACT analysis, Simplot found that wet scrubbing is not typically used in combination with DCDA technology for SO 2 emissions control and that the use of a wet scrubber in combination with a high-efficiency catalyst would provide only marginal SO 2 reductions at significant cost. 25

We continue to find that Idaho's decision was reasonable—that additional control technology review under the four regional haze factors would be unlikely to find additional feasible, cost-effective retrofit SO 2 controls on the Simplot sulfuric acid plants. Therefore, we concur with Idaho that the existing consent decree limits constitute existing effective controls for purposes of the regional haze second implementation period.

Comment: “NPS recommended removing coal as a fuel for the pulp dryers at the TASCO-Paul facility to further reduce SO 2 and NO X emissions. In the SIP Supplement, DEQ found that eliminating coal from the north and south pulp dryers at the Paul facility is the most cost-effective option with the greatest emission reductions. However, no additional controls were required for this planning period due to the Foster-Wheeler boiler fuel conversion at the TASCO-Twin Falls facility. We agree with NPS in their 2024 SIP Supplement that emission reductions at one facility do not justify bypassing cost-effective controls at another. We support NPS's recommendation to remove coal as a fuel for the pulp dryers at the TASCO-Paul facility to reduce haze-causing emissions in this planning period.”

Response: In its submission, Idaho selected controls to achieve emissions reductions at the TASCO Nampa and Twin Falls facilities over the TASCO Paul facility because doing so would achieve greater overall emissions reductions and because the Nampa and Twin Falls facilities have greater visibility impacts on Class I areas. The RHR does not prohibit States from maximizing emissions reductions across multiple facilities impacting the same Class I area. We continue to find that Idaho's approach is consistent with the RHR.

Comment: “The Conservation Organizations echo the recommendation of NPS to require the use of low-sulfur fuel oil as an alternative fuel in the No. 4 Power Boiler at this facility to ensure short-term changes in emissions.”

Response: In our NPRM we stated that we concur with Idaho's assessment that it is not feasible to require the facility to fire lower sulfur fuel oil in the No. 4 Power Boiler at this time. Information in the 2024 submission stated that the No. 4 Power Boiler fires hog fuel and natural gas primarily, and while being permitted to fire higher sulfur fuel oil, the facility must limit the amount of fuel oil fired due to operational requirements and to ensure compliance with the current 100 ton per year SO 2 emission limit. 26

Comment: “The IDEQ Air Permits and the site-specific permit conditions included in the proposed approval are federally enforceable through state delegated and EPA approved air quality programs, specifically New Source Review (and related Permits to Construct) and Title V (known as Tier I permits). While the IDEQ Air Permits included in the Idaho SIP contain conditions acceptable to ASC when the Idaho SIP was developed, economic and operational changes can and frequently do prompt necessary revisions. Revisions to federally enforceable permits issued by IDEQ are governed by state law and the applicable Federal framework incorporated by reference into state law. If the Idaho SIP is approved as proposed, with inclusion of specific permit conditions, then those included permit conditions are also subject to Federal processes to revise the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) when circumstances at a facility change. This approach is impractical, creates delay and drains resources of ASC, IDEQ, and EPA.”

Response: The visibility requirements of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) require each applicable implementation plan to contain such emission limits, schedules of compliance and other measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal of preventing and remedying visibility impairment in class I areas. See Clean Air Act 169A(b)(2). Consistent with these requirements, Idaho submitted for incorporation into its SIP permit conditions detailing emission limits, fuel requirements, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and compliance schedules that Idaho determined were necessary for reasonable progress. Accordingly, the EPA proposed to approve and incorporate by reference into the SIP these enforceable requirements. We acknowledge the commenter is concerned about future, potential necessary changes to permit conditions. The EPA commits to working collaboratively with Idaho on any future revisions to these permit conditions to ensure the revisions meet Clean Air Act requirements and to minimize processing delays.

Comment: “Permit T1-2019-0020 issued November 5, 2021, to ASC's Paul facility, includes many conditions proposed to be incorporated into the Idaho SIP. Specifically, conditions 4.4, 4.6, and 4.7, among others, limit utilization of the boilers at the ASC Paul facility, with some of the conditions overlapping others. ASC plans to request a permit revision from IDEQ to remove condition 4.6 to allow for greater flexibility in the facility's boiler utilization. Future operations may need to run three boilers simultaneously to achieve preferred load distribution and steam generation. Federally enforceable condition 4.4 limits the emissions generated by the facility boilers annually and condition 4.7 limits the amount of total energy consumed by the facility boilers annually (in therms). These conditions sufficiently limit the annual emissions of pollutants subject to regulation under the regional haze program. The facility's compliance with conditions 4.4 and 4.7, makes condition 4.6 redundant and unreasonably limits operational flexibility of the boiler system at the facility. ASC requests that EPA disapprove Idaho SIP inclusion of condition 4.6 of Permit T1-2019-0020 issued November 5, 2021, because it is redundant and unnecessary for reasonable further progress.”

Response: The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality withdrew condition 4.6 of Permit T1-2019-0020 via a letter sent on August 12, 2025, because the State determined that this condition is not necessary for reasonable progress during the second planning period. The EPA agrees with the State. The EPA reviewed Idaho's 2022 and 2024 submissions and confirmed that condition 4.6 is not needed to sufficiently limit emissions from these specific boilers for purposes of the regional haze second implementation period. As discussed in the NPRM and in section II.A.6. of this preamble, Idaho determined that controls on TASCO Paul were not necessary for reasonable progress for the second implementation period because of the surplus emissions reductions at the TASCO Twin-Falls facility.

Therefore, our final action is not incorporating condition 4.6 by reference into the SIP.

Comment: “IACI urges the restructuring of the Regional Haze Program to simplify and streamline future permit revisions by deferring to federally enforceable actions of state permitting agencies that comply with the provisions of the Clean Air Act and applicable Federal regulations to avoid additional EPA process and delay and IACI urges EPA to revise the Regional Haze Program with sanity and purpose. This proposed action, incorporating existing and already enforceable site-specific permit conditions into the CFR, will result in impractical and unreasonable layers of process to revise permit conditions that support future economic growth in local communities and manifest the Great American Comeback. Additional processes also erode the cooperative federalism framework under the Clean Air Act and will add to the persistent SIP backlog.”

Response: The EPA acknowledges IACI's concerns with the current RHR and support for revising the rule. On March 12, 2025, Administrator Zeldin announced the EPA's intention to review the RHR and to restore sanity and purpose to the program. 27 We encourage IACI to participate in any future regional haze rulemaking effort. This review of the RHR is separate from the EPA's actions on regional haze SIPs for the second planning period. The EPA's position remains that Idaho's regional haze plan for the second implementation period meets the requirements of Clean Air Act section 169A and 40 CFR 51.308(f).

Please see the EPA's response to the Amalgamated Sugar Company at section II.B.1. of this preamble for an explanation of the need to adopt source-specific enforceable emission limits into the SIP.

Regarding IACI's concern about economic growth, the EPA notes that adoption of existing emission limits into the SIP does not impact nor limit construction of new stationary sources or emission units within existing stationary sources. New construction will be governed by Idaho's existing minor and major new source review permit programs.

With respect to IACI's comment regarding the timing of the EPA's NPRM, the EPA notes that it is subject to a Consent Decree obligation to finalize action on Idaho's regional haze plan by August 28, 2025 (originally May 30, 2025, before the Court granted the EPA's motion for extension). The EPA must publish proposed actions in sufficient time for the public to comment prior to finalization. Additionally, with respect to the commenter's concern about the SIP backlog, there are currently no backlogged Idaho SIP submissions, except this regional haze plan on which we are taking final action.

For the reasons stated in our NPRM (90 FR 13516, March 24, 2025) and in section II. of this preamble, we are approving the Idaho SIP revision submitted on August 5, 2022, supplemented on September 27, 2024, and clarified on August 12, 2025, as satisfying the regional haze requirements for the second implementation period contained in 40 CFR 51.308. Idaho submitted the SIP revision to meet visibility protection requirements pursuant to Clean Air Act sections 169A and 169B and the EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 51.308.

We are approving the SIP revision as meeting the following requirements:

• Identification of Class I area requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f);

• Calculation of baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions; progress to date; and uniform rate of progress requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1);

• Long-term strategy requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2);

• Reasonable progress goal requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3);

• Reasonably attributable visibility impairment requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(4);

• Monitoring strategy and other plan requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6);

• 5-year progress report requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(5) and (g); and

• State and Federal Land Manager coordination requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(i).

We are also approving and incorporating by reference into the Idaho SIP at 40 CFR 52.670(d), EPA approved source-specific requirements, the following source-specific control requirements as part of Idaho's long-term strategy for regional haze:

In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the regulatory provisions described in section III. of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 10 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the Clean Air Act as of the effective date of the final rule of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation. 28

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, this final action is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal Governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Consistent with EPA policy, the EPA contacted four Tribes, specifically the Coeur d'Alene Tribe, the Shoshone Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation, the Nez Perce Tribe, and the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, and offered an opportunity to consult on a government-to-government basis in letters dated July 22, 2022. We received no consultation or coordination requests. The letters may be found in the docket for this action.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 4, 2025. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

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

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

On March 31, 2025, 1 the EPA proposed to approve the “2023 Revision to the California State Implementation Plan for Carbon Monoxide”  2 as a SIP revision to remove CO contingency measures and monitoring requirements from the “2004 Revision to the California State Implementation Plan for Carbon Monoxide”  3 for the Chico, Modesto, and Stockton maintenance areas. The proposal includes the EPA's analysis of monitoring data demonstrating that ambient levels of CO in the three maintenance areas were well below the CO national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) throughout the maintenance period, as well as the EPA's evaluation of the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) demonstration that future CO emissions are consistent with continued compliance with the CO NAAQS through 2050. 4 We proposed to approve this revision because we determined that it complies with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action contains more information on the revision and our evaluation.

The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period that closed April 30, 2025. During this period, we received one non-germane comment and one comment opposing our action due to the human health and climate effects of CO.

The commenter correctly notes CO is a precursor for ozone, which is a greenhouse gas, and that high levels of CO have negative human health effects. However, as noted in our proposal, the ambient concentration of CO in the Chico, Stockton, and Modesto maintenance areas is well below the NAAQS for CO (the level that the EPA has determined to be protective of human health and the environment) and this action will not interfere with the maintenance of the CO NAAQS or other CAA requirements related to this standard. 5 Further, these areas have been attaining the CO NAAQS for at least 20 years, CARB has demonstrated that they will likely continue to maintain the NAAQS due to declining CO emissions, 6 and assessing the indirect effect of CO on the formation of greenhouse gases is beyond the scope of this action. Finally, CARB has satisfied the requirements in 40 CFR 58.14 to discontinue the CO monitors in the Chico Urbanized Area, Stockton Urbanized Area, and Modesto Urbanized Area.

No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the SIP revision, as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act and for the reasons provided in our March 31, 2025 proposed rulemaking, the EPA is taking final action to approve into the California SIP the “2023 Revision to the California State Implementation Plan for Carbon Monoxide,” submitted to the EPA on April 5, 2024.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 4, 2025. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

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

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

On June 22, 2010, the EPA published a new 1-hour primary SO 2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb). 1 Subsequently, the EPA designated portions of Rusk and Panola Counties, Texas as nonattainment for this 2010 1-hour primary SO 2 NAAQS, effective January 12, 2017. 2 The primary major source of emissions in the area is the Martin Lake Steam Electric Station (Martin Lake), a coal-fired power plant owned by Luminant Generation Company LLC (Luminant), a subsidiary of Vistra Energy Corporation (Vistra). Under section 191 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), Texas was required to submit an SO 2 attainment plan to the EPA within 18 months of the effective date of the nonattainment designation, i.e., by no later than July 12, 2018, for the Rusk-Panola area. Under CAA section 179(c)(1), the EPA was required to determine whether the nonattainment area had attained the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, in this case, January 12, 2022.

On August 10, 2020, the EPA published “Findings of Failure to Submit State Implementation Plans Required for Attainment of the 2010 1-Hour Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)” addressing requirements for three SO 2 nonattainment areas, including the finding that Texas failed to submit the required SIP for the Rusk Panola nonattainment area by the July 12, 2018 CAA deadline. 3 This finding, effective on September 9, 2020, triggered sanction clocks and the CAA section 110(c) requirement for the EPA to promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) for the area within two years of the finding (September 9, 2022) unless the state submitted and obtained EPA approval of a SIP revision correcting the deficiency. On February 28, 2022, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) submitted an attainment plan SIP for the Rusk Panola area. On August 24, 2022, the EPA determined that the submittal was complete under 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which stopped the mandatory emissions offsets sanctions that were in effect and the 24-month sanction clock for the imposition of highway funding sanctions. 4 However, this completeness determination did not eliminate the EPA's FIP obligation required by the FFS.

On December 17, 2024, the EPA published a “Finding of Failure To Attain the Primary 2010 One-Hour Sulfur Dioxide Standard” determining that Texas failed to attain the NAAQS for the Rusk Panola area by the January 12, 2022, CAA deadline. Under CAA section 179(d)(2), following a Finding of Failure to Attain, the responsible air agency has up to 12 months from the effective date of the determination to submit a revised SIP for the area demonstrating attainment. According to CAA section 179(d)(3), this revised SIP is to achieve attainment of the one-hour SO 2 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years from the effective date of the area's failure to attain.

Following the January 12, 2017, nonattainment designation of the Rusk Panola area, the State of Texas and industry petitioners (collectively, Petitioners) filed Petitions for Review challenging EPA's final action. The Fifth Circuit initially denied the petitions for review and upheld the nonattainment designation on January 11, 2024. Texas v. EPA, 91 F.4th 280 (5th Cir. 2024), vacated by, 137 F.4th 353 (5th Cir. 2025). Subsequently, Petitioners filed a petition for rehearing en banc. On May 16, 2025, the Court, in a panel rehearing, issued a revised opinion granting the petitions for review. Texas v. EPA, 137 F.4th 353 (5th Cir. 2025). The Court's mandate took effect on July 8, 2025, which vacated the nonattainment designation for the Rusk Panola area and remanded the designation of the area “. . . for EPA to consider the data that is available now . . . .” Id. at 375. As a result of the court's decision in Texas v. EPA, the Rusk Panola area no longer retains a nonattainment designation and therefore the EPA is withdrawing the August 2020 FFS and December 2024 FFA. The August 2020 FFS was required under CAA section 179(a)(1) where the EPA “. . .finds that a state failed, for an area designated as nonattainment. . . to submit a plan . . .”. However, this finding is no longer appropriate in light of the court's decision. The December 2024 FFA was required under CAA section 179(c) where the EPA must determine whether a nonattainment area has attained the NAAQS by the relevant attainment date. However, this finding is also no longer appropriate following the court's vacatur of the designation. Pursuant to the court's decision, the FFS for Rusk Panola must be withdrawn and the FFA for Rusk Panola must be withdrawn and removed from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

In accordance with the court's decision in Texas v. EPA, the EPA is withdrawing the August 2020 finding that Texas failed to submit an attainment plan SIP for the Rusk Panola area. EPA is also withdrawing the December 2024 finding that the Rusk Panola area failed to attain the NAAQS by its applicable CAA attainment date. This action does not impact the other areas addressed in the August 2020 FFS action. The requirements for the EPA to impose sanctions under CAA sections 179(a) and (b) and promulgate a FIP under CAA section 110(c) following an effective FFS are no longer applicable. The CAA requirement for Texas to submit a revised SIP for the Rusk Panola area demonstrating attainment under 179(d)(2) and the requirement for the Rusk Panola area to attain under an updated attainment date under 179(d)(3) following an effective FFA are no longer applicable.

The EPA is taking this action as a final rule without providing an opportunity for public comment or a public hearing because the EPA finds that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) good cause exemption applies. In general, the APA requires that general notice of proposed rulemaking shall be published in the Federal Register . Such notice must provide an opportunity for public participation in the rulemaking process. However, the APA does provide an avenue for an agency to directly issue a final rulemaking in certain specific instances. This may occur when an agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons in the rule issued) that notice and public participation are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Because the court's mandate has already vacated the nonattainment area designation, EPA actions following are no longer valid and EPA must now reflect those changes. The EPA has determined that it is unnecessary to provide a public hearing or an opportunity for public comment on this action because the withdrawals of the August 2020 FFS as it applies to the Rusk Panola area and the December 2024 FFA are simply necessary ministerial acts to carry out the Fifth Circuit's judgment in Texas v. EPA. Because the court vacated the 2017 nonattainment designation for the Rusk Panola area, the EPA no longer has the authority to uphold findings relying on the former, now vacated designation. Therefore, in as much as this action to withdraw these findings merely implements the binding, nondiscretionary decision of the court, it would serve no useful purpose to provide an opportunity for public comment or a public hearing on this issue as EPA no longer has authority to uphold those actions.

In addition, notice and comment would be contrary to the public interest because it would unnecessarily delay the withdrawal of the FFS and FFA and removal of the FFA from the CFR which could result in uncertainty for the state air agency and regulated industry about how the court's decision impacts the 2017 nonattainment designation, the 2020 and 2024 findings relying on this designation, and the sanctions and other requirements stemming from these findings. Promulgation of this rule soon after the court's decision serves to clarify that the vacatur of the nonattainment designation also serves to eliminate the basis for, and therefore requires a withdrawal of, the FFS and FFA. Given the potential costs and burdens on the State of Texas and industry associated with this uncertainty, it is in the public interest for the EPA to issue the withdrawals and amend the CFR without delay.

For those reasons, the EPA finds good cause to issue a final rulemaking pursuant to section 553 of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

This action is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094, and was therefore not subject to a requirement for Executive Order 12866 review.

This action is considered an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action. This final rule provides burden reduction by withdrawing two rules that are no longer applicable to the State of Texas and associated industry.

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. This proposed action does not establish any new information collection requirements.

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 UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or Tribal governments or the private sector.

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

This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action withdraws two rules impacting the State of Texas. No Tribe is subject to the requirement to submit an implementation plan under the findings of inadequacy relevant to this action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it withdraws two rules that are no longer applicable to the State of Texas and does not directly or disproportionately affect children

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

This proposed action does not involve technical standards.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 4, 2025. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.

This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

On August 23, 2021, EGLE submitted a revision to its SIP to address regional haze requirements for the second implementation period. On July 24, 2025, EGLE submitted a supplement (Supplement) to its original submission providing expanded source-specific analyses and emissions updates. EGLE made this SIP submission to satisfy the requirements of the CAA's regional haze program pursuant to CAA sections 169A and 169B and 40 CFR 51.308.

EPA proposed to approve EGLE's submission into the SIP on June 18, 2025. A full background, the specifics of the Michigan regional haze plan, and EPA's evaluation of the plan are given in the proposed rule and will not be restated in this rule. See 90 FR 25975 (June 18, 2025). EGLE submitted the Supplement in draft for parallel processing on April 3, 2025. Detail on parallel processing is provided in the proposed rule.

In this final action, EPA is affirming that it is now the Agency's policy that, where visibility conditions for a Class I Federal area impacted by a State are below the uniform rate of progress (URP) and the State has considered the four statutory factors, the State will have presumptively demonstrated reasonable progress for the second planning period for that area. EPA acknowledges that this final action reflects a change in policy as to how the URP should be used in the evaluation of regional haze second planning period SIPs but believes that this policy better aligns with the purpose of the statute and RHR: achieving “reasonable” progress towards natural visibility.

As described in the approval of West Virginia's regional haze plan (90 FR 29737, July 7, 2025), EPA has discretion and authority to change its policy. In FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court plainly stated that an agency is free to change a prior policy and “need not demonstrate . . . that the reasons for the new policy are better than the reasons for the old one; it suffices that the new policy is permissible under the statute, that there are good reasons for it, and that the agency believes it to be better.” 566 U.S. 502, 515 (2009) (referencing Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983)). See also Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Assn., 135 S. Ct. 1199 (2015).

The Class I areas impacted by emissions from Michigan sources are all below the 2028 URP, and EGLE's SIP submission demonstrated that the State took into consideration the four reasonable progress factors listed in CAA 169A(g)(1)  1 with respect to an adequate number of emissions sources. Thus, EPA determines that EGLE's SIP revision is fully approvable.

In developing the regulations required by CAA section 169A(b), EPA established the concept of the URP for each Class I area. The URP is determined by drawing a straight line from the measured 2000 to 2004 baseline conditions (in deciviews) for the 20 percent most impaired days at each Class I area to the estimated natural conditions (in deciviews) for the 20 percent most impaired days in 2064. From this calculation, a URP value can be calculated for each year between 2004 and 2064. EPA developed the URP to address the diverse concerns of Eastern and Western States and account for the varying levels of visibility impairment in Class I areas around the country while ensuring an equitable approach nationwide. For each Class I area, States must calculate the URP for the end of each planning period ( e.g., in 2028 for the second planning period). 2 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(vi)(A). States may also adjust the URP to account for impacts from anthropogenic sources outside the United States and/or impacts from certain wildland prescribed fires. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(vi)(B). Then, for each Class I area, States must compare the reasonable progress goal (RPG) for the 20 percent most impaired days to the URP for the end of the planning period. If the RPG is above the URP, then an additional “robust demonstration” requirement is triggered for each State that contributes to that Class I area. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B).

In the 2017 RHR Revisions, EPA addressed the role of the URP as it relates to a State's development of its second planning period SIP. 82 FR 3078 (January 10, 2017). Specifically, in response to comments suggesting that the URP should be considered a “safe harbor” that relieve States of any obligation to consider the four statutory factors, EPA explained that the URP was not intended to be such a safe harbor. Id. at 3099. “Some commenters stated a desire for corresponding rule text dealing with situations where RPGs are equal to (“on”) or better than (“below”) the URP or glidepath. Several commenters stated that the URP or glidepath should be a `safe harbor,' opining that States should be permitted to analyze whether projected visibility conditions for the end of the implementation period will be on or below the glidepath based on on-the-books or on-the-way control measures, and that in such cases a four-factor analysis should not be required.” Id.

Other comments indicated a similar approach, such as “a somewhat narrower entrance to a `safe harbor,' by suggesting that if current visibility conditions are already below the end-of-planning-period point on the URP line, a four-factor analysis should not be required.” Id. EPA stated in its response that we did not agree with either of these recommendations. “The CAA requires that each SIP revision contain long-term strategies for making reasonable progress, and that in determining reasonable progress States must consider the four statutory factors. Treating the URP as a safe harbor would be inconsistent with the statutory requirement that States assess the potential to make further reasonable progress towards natural visibility goal in every implementation period.” Id.

Importantly, EPA's recently adopted policy does not make the URP a safe harbor. The policy merely creates a presumption that the State's second planning period SIP is making reasonable progress for a Class I Federal Area if the State has taken into consideration the four statutory factors of 169A(g)(1) and that area is below the URP. This is consistent with the CAA and RHR.

The public comment period on EPA's proposed approval ended on July 18, 2025. During this period, EPA received three sets of comments. The Power Generators Air Coalition (PGen) and the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANEVU) each submitted a set of comments. Four conservation groups, including the National Parks Conservation Association, the Sierra Club, the Environmental Law and Policy Center, and the Coalition to Protect America's National Parks, submitted a third set of comments and are collectively referred to as “the Conservation Groups” throughout this document.

EPA has included all comments in the rulemaking docket for this action. The August 25, 2025, Response to Comments (RTC) document is included in the docket for this rulemaking under Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2021-0577 and provides full and detailed responses to all significant comments that further explain the basis for our final action.

EPA received comments on the proposed rule that covered several topics including, but not limited to, EPA's URP policy, 3 an “Ask” from a regional planning organization, source selection, analysis of effectively controlled sources, incorporation of measures into the SIP, four-factor analyses, 4 and the impact on local communities.

PGen's comments, summarized as Comment 1 in the RTC document, are supportive of the proposed approval and EPA's URP policy. EPA concurs with the supportive comments and acknowledges the comment on the URP policy.

MANEVU commented on EPA's URP policy and its “Asks” about the DTE- St. Clair Power Plant. MANEVU's comments and EPA's responses can be found in the RTC document at Comment 2a and 2b and Response 2a and 2b. EPA disagrees with MANEVU's comment as the URP policy is consistent with the statute for the reasons as detailed in Response 2a in the RTC document. EPA also disagrees with MANEVU's comment regarding DTE-St. Clair Power Plant since EGLE fully responded to MANEVU's “Asks”  5 in the Supplement, section 2.2. See Response 2b in the RTC document for more detail on how EGLE addressed the MANEVU “Asks.”

The Conservation Groups commented on the economic, public health, and environmental benefits of reducing air pollution through Michigan's regional haze SIP. EPA notes, as explained in Response 3 of the RTC, that EGLE has made progress in reducing visibility-impairing pollution during the second implementation period as demonstrated in the monitoring data collected at the impacted Class I areas. EPA also notes that regional haze program is designed to address visibility concerns and that the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, required by the CAA, protect human health.

The Conservation Groups argue that EGLE's source selection process is arbitrary and capricious since EGLE did not select sources that the Conservation Groups previously recommended for selection. As explained in Response 4 of the RTC, EPA disagrees with the comment. EGLE addressed the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) in its source selection process. EGLE provided information on its source selection process and the results in section 3.2.2 of its Supplement.

The Conservation Groups commented that EPA's proposal to approve EGLE's determination that no additional measures were necessary to make reasonable progress in the second implementation period is arbitrary and capricious. The Conservation Groups claim that EPA has no system to determine how current control technologies or past and potential ongoing emission reductions should be considered when evaluating whether additional measures are necessary. The Conservation Groups also assert that EPA failed to provide adequate public notice because the proposed approval did not provide a metric or an analysis to determine that no additional measures are necessary. See Comment and Response 5 in the RTC document for further details. EPA disagrees with the comment. EPA fully evaluated the information EGLE provided for the sources with current effective control technologies, as well as emission reductions achieved in the second implementation period. In the proposed rule, EPA articulated its rationale in determining how to weigh current effective control measures and emission reductions to approve EGLE's determination that no additional measures are necessary for reasonable progress, citing references to effective control demonstrations in section 3(f) of the 2019 Regional Haze Guidance. See 90 FR 25975 (June 18, 2025). The record in the docket for this rulemaking contains evidence of enforceable emission reductions, as well as EPA's evaluation of emissions reductions in the Technical Support Document (TSD) accompanying the proposed rule. Therefore, EPA disagrees with the Conservation Groups that consideration of these emission reductions was improper in EGLE's determination that no additional measures are necessary to make reasonable progress in the second implementation period. EPA's proposed approval was not arbitrary or capricious because of a lack of a metric and analysis and, as such, does not constitute a failure of public notice.

The Conservation Groups claim that EGLE inappropriately failed to perform four-factor analyses for seven facilities that were improperly determined to be effectively controlled. The Conservation Groups state that the plain language of the CAA and the RHR does not allow EGLE or EPA to eliminate sources from analysis based on assertions that the sources are effectively controlled, but rather requires that States consider the four statutory factors. The Conservation Groups comment that the seven facilities are not effectively controlled and that there are likely cost-effective controls available for each of the sources that would further reduce emissions. The Conservation Groups also commented on two sources that EGLE did not select for analysis, saying EPA did not address or analyze EGLE's decision. As explained in Response 6 of the RTC document, EPA disagrees with this comment. Neither CAA section 169A(b)(2), CAA section 169A(g)(1), nor the RHR prohibit States from forgoing a four-factor analysis based on a source being effectively controlled. As outlined in the 2017 RHR, “the EPA has consistently interpreted the CAA to provide States with the flexibility to conduct four-factor analyses for specific sources, groups of sources or even entire source categories, depending on State policy preferences and the specific circumstances of each State.” 82 FR 3088, January 10, 2017. EPA acknowledges that a State may reasonably decide not to select sources that have recently installed effective controls. EPA notes that if a source's emissions are already well-controlled, it is unlikely that further cost-effective reductions are available. In this case, EGLE evaluated the seven units, including permit limitations, control efficiencies, regulations, actual emissions, past emission trends, and projected 2028 emissions to demonstrate that the existing level of control makes it reasonable to conclude that the controls are effective and that a full four-factor analysis would likely result in the conclusion that no further controls are necessary. EPA also disagrees with the comment regarding two sources EGLE did not select for evaluation of potential additional control measures. EGLE properly addressed the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) in the source selection process it used.

The Conservation Groups commented that EGLE's analyses of existing effective controls are flawed and that EPA's TSD for the proposed rule does not support EPA's proposed approval of EGLE's Regional Haze SIP revision. The Conservation Groups also commented that EGLE did not perform four-factor analyses for specific sources. Detail on the general existing effective controls is given in Comment and Response 6 in the RTC document. Comment and Response 6a in the RTC document provide details on the TSD comment. More detail on the comments regarding the specific sources EGLE did not perform a four-factor analysis on and the responses are found in the RTC document under Comment and Response 6b: J. H. Campbell, Units 1, 2, and 3; Comment and Response 6c: Consumers Energy—Dan E. Karn Units 3 and 4; Comment and Response 6d: Tilden Mining Company Kiln 1; Comment and Response 6e: Belle River Power Plant Units 1 and 2; Comment and Response 6f: St. Mary's Cement—Charlevoix Plant; Comment and Response 6g: Holcim US Lafarge Alpena Plant; and Comment and Response 6h: Neenah Paper Michigan-Munising. EPA disagrees with the assertion that CAA sections 169A(b)(2), (g)(1), or the RHR require every source exceeding the source selection threshold to require a four-factor analysis. EPA disagrees with the commentors on what those portions of the CAA and the RHR require of selected sources. Specifically, States have the flexibility to determine that a source is effectively controlled. As detailed in Response 6 in the RTC document, CAA section 169A(b)(2) does not discuss which sources, types of sources, or groups of sources must be considered to determine reasonable progress. Reasonable progress is addressed in CAA section 169A(g)(1) in that States must “take into consideration” the four statutory factors. Similarly, the RHR does not give minimum source selection criteria. EPA disagrees that the TSD does not provide support for the proposed approval. As explained in the TSD and RTC, EPA's approval of the Michigan regional haze plan is based on the consideration of all evidence provided in EGLE's submission and additional information provided in the docket. EPA also disagrees with the notion that a four-factor analysis is required for each of the specific units that were identified by the Conservations Groups. In summary, EPA finds that EGLE reasonably concluded that the units are effectively controlled and that conducting a four-factor analysis would not likely result in additional measures being needed for reasonable progress.

The Conservation Groups also commented with concerns that two specific sources, Midland Cogeneration Venture and EES Coke Battery, were not selected for evaluation of possible additional control measures. Further information regarding these two sources is found in the RTC at Response 6i: Midland Cogeneration Venture and Response 6j: EES Coke Battery. EPA disagrees that Midland Cogeneration Venture and EES Coke Battery should have been selected for analysis and EPA finds that EGLE's source selection process was appropriate and well supported. EGLE sufficiently captured the State's sources with the greatest impact on visibility impairment.

The Conservation Groups expressed concerns about EPA's review of EGLE's four-factor analyses, arguing that EPA did not provide an evaluation of EGLE's analyses or a conclusion as to whether the State's determinations complied with the CAA and RHR. The Conservation Groups also made specific comments on the four-factor analyses for three facilities. A summary of this comment and EPA's full response can be found as Comment and Response 7 in the RTC document. The comments and responses on specific four-factor analyses for Tilden Mining Company LLC Kiln 2, Billerud—Escanaba LLC Power Boiler 11, and Graymont Western Lime Kiln 1 are detailed in the RTC document as Comments and Responses 7a, 7b, and 7c, respectively. EPA disagrees with this comment. As explained in the proposed rule, EPA carefully evaluated EGLE's entire SIP submission, including the Supplement, the comments from the FLM consultation and the State's responses to comments received during the State comment period. EGLE worked directly with the sources in evaluating potential measures and concluded that additional control measures are not necessary for reasonable progress during the second implementation period based on the four factors. EPA disagrees with the comments on these specific facilities. EGLE considered the four statutory factors, current effective control technologies, emission reductions that have already occurred during the second implementation period, and the projected 2028 visibility conditions for Class I areas influenced by emissions from Michigan sources. EPA therefore finds that EGLE reasonably concluded that no additional measures are necessary to make reasonable progress in the second implementation period for any of the three identified sources.

The Conservation Groups commented that EPA did not analyze the impact of haze-forming pollution from Michigan sources on the communities that surround these facilities. See Comment and Response 8 in the RTC document. The RHR does not require an analysis of health impacts. Instead, the National Ambient Air Quality Standards are established to separately protect human health.

The Conservation Groups argue that EPA's URP Policy violates the CAA's visibility provisions. The Conservation Groups comment on specific portions of the CAA and cite several cases. Those comments and EPA's responses are detailed in Comments and Responses 9, 9a, 9b, 9c, and 9d in the RTC document. EPA disagrees with the comments. EPA's URP policy is consistent with the CAA. Pursuant to CAA 169A(a)(4), Congress explicitly delegated the authority to EPA to promulgate regulations regarding reasonable progress towards meeting the national goal. In determining the measures necessary to make reasonable progress, Congress mandated “tak[ing] into consideration the cost of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, and the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of any existing source subject to such requirement.” CAA 169A(g)(1). However, nothing in the statute defines what it means “to take into consideration” the four factors under CAA 169A(g)(1). Under this statutory framework, Congress has empowered EPA to give meaning to this statutory phrase. Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 395 (2024). The phrase “to take into consideration” implies a broader process not limited to the four statutory factors, allowing States to weigh other factors, like visibility, to support their determination of whether additional measures are necessary to make reasonable progress at Class I areas. This follows from the fact that reasonable progress requires the improvement of visibility. CAA 169A(b)(2). As such, visibility improvement must be a fundamental part of determining the extent of progress that is considered reasonable. Being below the URP does not relieve a State of its obligations under the CAA and the RHR to make reasonable progress.

The Conservation Groups state that the URP policy is inconsistent with the RHR. The Conservation Groups comment that, “EPA cannot square its new policy with the RHR.” See Comment 10 and Response 10 in the RTC document for further detail. EPA disagrees with this comment. EPA's URP policy is consistent with the RHR. To meet the reasonable progress goal requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3), the reasonable progress goals established by a State must reflect the measures it deemed to be necessary to make reasonable progress within the applicable implementation period and must be projected to be achieved by the end of the applicable implementation period. Therefore, it is sufficient under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3) that this SIP establishes reasonable progress goals that reflect visibility conditions that are projected to be achieved by the end of the second planning period.

The Conservation Groups commented that the URP policy violates the procedural requirements of the CAA. The Conservation Groups comment that the URP policy unlawfully departs from national policy, that the URP policy is inconsistent with actions across EPA Regions, that the URP policy effectively revises the RHR, and that EPA must determine if its URP policy has a nationwide scope. The comments and responses on each point are presented in detail as Comments and Responses 11a, 11b, 11c, and 11d in the RTC document. EPA disagrees with each comment. As for the comment noting that the URP policy was announced in a regional action and that this change violates the CAA requirements that SIP actions be consistent with national policy, EPA disagrees that our Regional Consistency regulations at 40 CFR part 56, and 40 CFR 56.5(b) in particular, are relevant to this action. The Conservation Groups mention other regional haze actions in commenting that the URP policy is inconsistent with actions across EPA Regions. EPA disagrees that its change in policy means that all of its actions on second planning period regional haze SIPs that pre-date its proposed approval of the West Virginia second planning period submittal are inconsistent with the URP policy. See 90 FR 29737 (July 7, 2025). The policy is consistent with EPA's long-standing position that the URP is not a “safe harbor.” EPA's policy establishes a presumption that the reasonable progress requirements of the CAA and the RHR are met if the State has taken into consideration the four statutory factors and the visibility impairment for each Class I Area is projected to be below the URP ( i.e., the “glidepath”) at the end of the applicable planning period. Unlike treating the URP as a “safe harbor,” the policy does not exempt or allow a State to evade the requirements of the CAA or the RHR. Treating the URP as a “safe harbor” would exempt States from considering the four statutory factors and would allow States to exclude measures necessary for reasonable progress from the SIP. EPA disagrees with the comment that it must determine if the URP policy has a nationwide scope. EPA notes that this action applies to a SIP submission from one State—Michigan. EPA also states that the comment that EPA “must” publish a finding that this action is “based on a determination of nationwide scope [or] effect” is also unsupported and incorrect. Under CAA section 307(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1), a petition for review of an action that is “locally or regionally applicable may be filed only in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit,” with one exception: if (i) the action “is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect” and (ii) “if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination,” then any petition for review must be filed in the D.C. Circuit. The Administrator has not made and published a finding that this action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect. Accordingly, any petition for review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate regional circuit.

The Conservation Groups commented that EGLE's SIP Revision and Supplement do not meet EPA's URP policy for presumptive approval. The Conservation Groups commented on EGLE relying on the IMPROVE Network to satisfy the monitoring requirement of the RHR and EGLE's URP adjustments, as well as on EGLE not addressing additional Class I areas. As explained in Responses 12a, 12b, and 12c of the RTC document, EPA disagrees with these comments. The IMPROVE network was in operation up to the time EGLE submitted its SIP revision. EGLE continues to support and participate in the IMPROVE network. Concerns regarding the future funding of the IMPROVE network are speculative, out of the control of EGLE, and beyond the scope of the basis for our action on EGLE's second planning period SIP. As for the URP adjustments, the RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) also provides the option for States to propose adjustments to the URP line for a Class I area to account for visibility impacts from anthropogenic sources outside the United States and the impacts from wildland prescribed fires that were conducted for certain, specified objectives. EGLE provided this analysis for its Class I areas. Under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(B), States must consider and address the emissions reduction measures identified by other States for their sources as being necessary to make reasonable progress in the mandatory out-of-state Class I area. EGLE analyzed the Class I areas impacted by Michigan emissions using Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) modeling, as the comment noted. EGLE identified 13 out-of-state Class I areas in addition to its own two Class I areas where Michigan sources contribute to total visibility impairment above 1 percent. EGLE also identified two additional Class I areas within the LADCO States, Voyageurs National Park and Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in Minnesota, even though Michigan sources contribute below 1 percent to total visibility impairment in each of those areas. The comment included several additional Class I areas. EGLE found no additional measures to be necessary to make reasonable progress in the out-of-state Class I areas. The contribution from Michigan sources would be even smaller at more distant Class I areas so there is no reason to expect that EGLE would find additional measures necessary to make reasonable progress for those distant Class I areas. EPA concludes that EGLE properly considered Michigan sources that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment Class I areas.

EPA is approving the Regional Haze SIP revision submitted by EGLE on August 23, 2021, and supplemented on July 24, 2025, as satisfying applicable requirements under the CAA and RHR for the program's second implementation period.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 4, 2025. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

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

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

The EPA is approving revisions to the Missouri SIP received on April 23, 2025. The EPA proposed to approve these revisions on June 27, 2025 (90 FR 27491). In its submission, Missouri requested rescinding 10 CSR 10-6.260 “Restriction of Emission of Sulfur Compounds” and replacing it with a newer statewide regulation, 10 CSR 10-6.261 “Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions” (state effective date May 30, 2025) in the Missouri SIP. Specifically, the revisions resulting from this action include adding an exemption for units burning ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel; removing sulfur compound stack gas concentration limits for non-indirect heating units along with eliminating these sources from the rule's applicability; consolidating all facility-specific SO 2 emission rate limits into a single table and removing the limits that are no longer necessary; consolidating and clarifying reporting, recordkeeping, and testing requirements; and making a number of other minor changes and error corrections.

The revisions also reinstate SO 2 emission limits applicable to Ameren-Labadie and Evergy-Hawthorn power plants that Missouri had previously removed from 10 CSR 10-6.261, which addresses the deficiencies identified in the EPA's disapproval action finalized on January 4, 2023 (88 FR 291). Regarding the Hawthorn SO 2 emission limit for boiler 5A, the revisions incorporate requirements for natural gas usage and dry scrubber operation during periods of startup and shutdown, ensuring that a continuous limit is in place. In addition, because the Hawthorn boiler 5A numeric limit along with the necessary monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements are now fully incorporated into the SIP via this action, any potential deficiencies in the SIP with respect to Hawthorn have been addressed and the enforceability and protectiveness of the limit previously approved into the SIP have been enhanced.

Concurrent with approving these revisions to the Missouri SIP, the EPA is approving a negative declaration submitted on May 4, 2022 pursuant to the state's approved Clean Air Act (CAA) 111(d) plan for Sulfuric Acid Mist from Existing Sulfuric Acid Production Plants, which is codified at 40 CFR 62.6353. The negative declaration is necessary for Missouri to remove portions of 10 CSR 10-6.260 that are linked to the state's 111(d) plan for sulfuric acid production. The lone facility included in the state's 111(d) plan at 40 CFR 62.6353, W.R. Grace and Company, Joplin, Missouri, has permanently closed.

The proposed rule and the EPA's technical support document (TSD) included in this docket discuss our analysis of the Missouri SIP and 111(d) plan revisions in greater detail.

The State's submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfies the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The State provided an initial 60-day public review and comment period on the Regulatory Impact Report, draft version of 10 CSR 10-6.261, and the CAA section 110(l) demonstration from February 2, 2024 to April 2, 2024. The State provided an additional public notice period from November 1, 2024 to December 12, 2024 and received zero (0) comments. A public hearing was held December 5, 2024. In addition, as explained in section III. of the proposed rule and in more detail in the TSD included in the docket for this action, the revisions meet the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

The public comment period on the EPA's proposed rule opened June 27, 2025, the date of its publication in the Federal Register , and closed on July 28, 2025. During this period, the EPA received no comments.

The EPA is taking final action to amend the Missouri SIP by approving the State's request to incorporate 10 CSR 10-6.261 “Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions” and revise 40 CFR 62.6353.

In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Missouri state rule 10 CSR 10-6.261 discussed in section I. of this preamble and as set forth below in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 7 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the State Implementation Plan, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation. 1

Also, in this document, as described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below, the EPA is removing provisions of the EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations and Statutes from the Missouri State Implementation Plan, which is incorporated by reference in accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR part 51.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 4, 2025. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR parts 52 and 62 as set forth below:

On August 16, 2024 (89 FR 66662), the EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of West Virginia. In the August 2024 NPRM, the EPA proposed approval of amendments that West Virginia made to 45 Code of State Rules (CSR) 33, Acid Rain Provisions and Permits. The formal Title V Operating Permits Program revision was submitted by West Virginia on May 10, 2021. Specifically, WVDEP amended 45 CSR 33-1.3, 45 CSR 33-1.4, 45 CSR 33-1.5, 45 CSR 33-1.6, 45 CSR 33-2.2, and 45 CSR 33-4.1. The amendment to 45 CSR 33-4.1 incorporated by reference final regulations promulgated by the EPA and codified in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 72, 74, 75, 76, and 77 under the CAA's Title IV Acid Rain program. West Virginia has requested that the EPA approve the submitted amendments to revise the West Virginia Title V Operating Permits Program approved at 40 CFR part 70, appendix A. West Virginia indicates that this revision to its approved 40 CFR part 70 program is necessary to ensure that 45 CSR 33 stays up to date with its Federal counterpart regulations, consistent with section 22-1-3(c) of the West Virginia Code.

The CAA requires all state and local permitting authorities to develop Operating Permits Programs that meet the requirements of Title V of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7661-7661f, and its implementing regulations, 40 CFR part 70. The West Virginia State Operating Permits Program under Title V of the CAA is codified in 45 CSR 30 of the West Virginia Code of State Rules.

The EPA is approving into West Virginia's EPA-approved Title V program the amendments that the state made to 45 CSR 33, referenced above. Most notably, the amendment to 45 CSR 33-4.1 adopted and incorporated by reference the following Federal regulations: 40 CFR part 72, “Permits Regulation;” 40 CFR part 74, “Sulfur Dioxide Opt-Ins;” 40 CFR part 75, “Continuous Emission Monitoring;” 40 CFR part 76, “Acid Rain Nitrogen Oxides Emission Reduction Program;” and 40 CFR part 77, “Excess Emissions,” as they existed on June 1, 2020. These Federal regulations included time-limited changes to the emissions reporting regulations applicable to sources that monitor and report emissions under the Acid Rain Program, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), and/or the nitrogen oxides (NO X ) state implementation plan (SIP) Call. These time limited changes were necessary during the COVID-19 national emergency to protect on-site power plant operators and other essential personnel from unnecessary risk of exposure to the coronavirus. These changes have since expired.

West Virginia's revisions to 45 CSR 33-1.3, 45 CSR 33-1.4, 45 CSR 33-1.5, 45 CSR 33-1.6, and 45 CSR 33-2.2 are described in detail in the August 2024 NPRM.

West Virginia's submittal requested that the EPA approve the state's amended regulations to its Acid Rain Provisions and to its Title V program. The EPA finds that the May 10, 2021 submittal has met the requirements of CAA section 502, and is consistent with applicable EPA requirements in the Title V Operating Permits Program of the CAA and 40 CFR part 70. This rule approves the amendments to 45 CSR 33 contained in the West Virginia submittal as a revision to the EPA's approved Title V program for West Virginia by adding a paragraph (i) into 40 CFR part 70 appendix A under West Virginia. This new paragraph will indicate the EPA's approval of the revision. It should be noted that while the August 2024 NPRM proposed the addition of a paragraph (h) into 40 CFR part 70 appendix A under West Virginia, another paragraph (h) has since been added under this section as the result of an unrelated rulemaking, necessitating the addition of a paragraph (i).

Additional information regarding West Virginia's submittal and the rationale for the EPA's action are explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPRM.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 70.4(i)(2), the EPA is approving the revision to the West Virginia Title V Operating Permits Program. The revision meets the relevant requirements of section 502 of the CAA and the implementing regulations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 4, 2025. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 70 as follows:

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

The EPA is publishing this final rule approving the SDCAPCD's proposed title V program revisions without prior proposal because we consider it to be a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of this Federal Register publication, the EPA is simultaneously publishing a proposal that will also serve as a public notice of San Diego's proposed title V program revisions pursuant to title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), section 70.4(i).

The CAA Amendments of 1990 include title V, which requires states to develop an operating permits program that meets the federal criteria codified in 40 CFR part 70. The title V program requires certain sources of air pollution to obtain federal operating permits from their respective states. These federal operating permits improve enforcement and compliance by consolidating all applicable federal requirements into one federally enforceable document. Before states can issue title V permits, the EPA must approve their programs as amendments to appendix A of part 70. States may submit revisions to their approved programs for EPA approval. See EPA's Technical Support Document (TSD) for a more detailed discussion of the history of the title V program approvals for SDCAPCD.

Table 1 lists the rule submitted as part of the SDCAPCD's title V program revisions and the date it was adopted by the District and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), which is the governor's designee for California rule submittals.

The District submitted revisions to Rule 1415 (Title V Operating Permits—Permit Process—Public Notification) at Sections (a), (c), (d), (g), and (j) to conform to current public noticing, application publication, and record retention requirements codified at 40 CFR 70.5(c), 70.7(h) and 70.8(a)(3). Details regarding the revisions made, including a change-copy of Rule 1415, can be found in the TSD and the docket.

EPA finds the District revisions to Rule 1415 (Title V Operating Permits—Permit Process—Public Notification) at Sections (a), (c), (d), (g), and (j) conform to and are consistent with current public noticing, application publication, and record retention requirements codified at 40 CFR 70.5(c), 70.7(h) and 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(ii)(B), respectively. Details regarding the revisions made can be found in the TSD available at https://www.regulations.gov .

As authorized in 40 CFR 70.4(i), the EPA is fully approving the submitted revisions because we find the proposed changes to Rule 1415 align with 40 CFR part 70 program elements. Therefore, the proposed changes are approvable as title V program revisions. We do not anticipate adverse comments, so we are finalizing this action without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register , we are simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rule. If we receive adverse comments on the proposed revisions by October 6, 2025, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct final approval will not take effect. The EPA would then address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. If we do not receive timely adverse comments, this direct final approval will be effective without further notice on November 4, 2025. Pursuant to section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of this final agency action may be sought by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days of publication in the Federal Register . We do not plan to open a second comment period on this action, so any parties interested in commenting should do so at this time.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve title V operating permit program revisions that comply with the Act and applicable federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7661a(d). Thus, in reviewing title V permit program submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

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

• Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866;

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

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

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

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

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

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

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

This rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the Title V action is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 4, 2025. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review, nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action approving California title V permit program revisions may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

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

On March 17, 2025, 1 the EPA proposed to grant California's request for a one-year extension of the Extreme attainment date for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, from June 15, 2024, to June 15, 2025, for the Coachella Valley. The proposed action was based on the EPA's evaluation of air quality monitoring data, and our determination that the State has satisfied the two statutory criteria for a one-year extension under CAA section 181(a)(5) and 40 CFR 51.907. For details regarding the EPA's reasons for proposing to grant the one-year extension, please see the March 17, 2025, proposal.

The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received comments from Amber R, Air Law for All (ALFA), and Colin Williams. All the comments, which were received on April 16, 2025, are summarized and addressed below. The comments from Amber R and Colin Williams have been combined.

Comment 1: One commenter acknowledged the potential for wildfires to affect ozone levels but questioned their use to justify another extension. The commenter emphasized the need for bold action by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and CARB to “accelerate efforts to reduce ozone forming emissions.” Another commenter was concerned that the EPA was prolonging exposure to respiratory illnesses, such as emphysema and bronchitis. The commenter recommended immediate aggressive response to reduce emissions, improve air quality, more stringently enforce existing regulations, develop a more robust system to monitor air quality, and adopt cleaner technologies.

Response 1: As discussed in the proposal to grant the one-year extension of the attainment date, the EPA reviewed 2023 annual mean concentrations at each of the regulatory monitoring sites in the Coachella Valley. We determined that such data indicate that ozone concentrations were at or below 0.084 parts per million (ppm), 2 which is one of two minimum criteria necessary to grant an extension.

Our determination relied on the exclusion of certain air quality monitoring data based on our December 10, 2024, concurrence on the State's exceptional events demonstration. As described in our proposal, Congress provided the statutory authority for the exclusion of data influenced by “exceptional events” meeting specific criteria by adding section 319(b) to the CAA and granted the EPA with the authority to propose regulations to review and manage air quality monitoring data influenced by exceptional events. As stated in CAA section 319(b), an exceptional event is an event that “(1) affects air quality, (2) is not reasonably controllable or preventable, (3) is caused by human activity that is unlikely to recur at a particular location or was a natural event, and (4) is determined by the Administrator through a process established in regulations to be an exceptional event.” For EPA to concur on an exceptional event demonstration, the exclusion of data showing an exceedance or violation of the NAAQS must have regulatory significance. Here, the Highland, Rabbit, and Reche wildfires had regulatory significance to qualify the area for an attainment date extension, pursuant to 40 CFR 50.14(1)(i)(D). Furthermore, under the EPA's regulations implementing CAA section 319(b) for wildfires, the EPA is required to exclude exceptional events from wildfires “where a State demonstrates to the Administrator's satisfaction that emissions from wildfires caused a specific air pollution concentration in excess of one or more national ambient air quality standard at a particular air quality monitoring location.”  3 Because we found that the State's demonstration satisfied the regulatory requirements and concurred on the demonstration, the excluded days were not considered in our evaluation of the air quality criteria for a one-year extension, as required by our regulations. 4

Despite the extension, the area will remain subject to Extreme classification requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The area is not relieved of any planning obligations under the CAA as a result of the extension. Within six months of the June 15, 2025 attainment date, the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations obligate the EPA to publish, in the Federal Register , a determination of whether the area has attained the 1997 ozone NAAQS. If the area has met the NAAQS, the EPA will publish a determination that the area attained by its attainment date. If the State does not demonstrate attainment with the 1997 ozone NAAQS based on the 2024 design value and is not eligible for a second one-year extension, the EPA will issue a finding of failure to attain and the State will become subject to additional CAA requirements to achieve attainment of the 1997 annual ozone NAAQS in the Coachella Valley. 5 Furthermore, the nonattainment area remains subject to more stringent air quality standards under the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS.

Regarding air quality monitoring, the SCAQMD has established a monitoring network consistent with the EPA's requirements at 40 CFR part 58, which is documented in our review of the District's annual monitoring network plans and technical systems audits. The docket for the rulemaking contains the District's annual monitoring plans for 2023 and 2024, the EPA's approval letters, and the findings from the EPA's technical systems audit. More information on the nonattainment area's monitoring network can be found in section II.B.2 of the proposed rule (90 FR 12239, March 17, 2025).

Comment 2.A: Commenters assert that the EPA's proposal did not explain whether the EPA has previously granted any one-year extensions for the Coachella Valley nonattainment area pursuant to CAA section 181(a)(5). In a footnote, commenters argue that a plain language reading of CAA section 181(a)(5) indicates that the statutory limitation of two one-year extensions applies to any extension for any ozone standard for a nonattainment area. They claim that omitting additional information regarding other one-year extensions from the proposal constitutes inadequate notice. Moreover, commenters argue that proper notice requires a statement of the legal effects of the proposal, which includes an indication of how many one-year extensions the nonattainment area has remaining.

Response 2.A: The EPA disagrees with commenters that CAA section 181(a)(5) can be read to limit a nonattainment area to two cumulative one-year extensions for all ozone NAAQS. As a result, the EPA believes it provided adequate notice in the proposed approval.

First, the best reading of the statute does not suggest such a strong limitation of the extension authority. CAA section 181, under subpart 2 of part D of title I, was written for a single ozone standard, the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS. 6 Likewise, the analogous provision under subpart 1, CAA section 172(a), governs classifications and attainment dates pertaining to a single NAAQS at a time. 7 Subparts 3 and 4 also guide a state through the steps of classification and attainment dates for carbon monoxide and particulate matter nonattainment areas, respectively, for a single NAAQS at a time. 8 With this context, it would be unreasonable to conclude that Congress intended the prohibition on the number of one-year extensions to apply to all NAAQS for a particular pollutant. This interpretation would lead to the undesirable outcome that a nonattainment area would not be able to avail itself of a one-year extension for a much more stringent ozone NAAQS decades in the future because they were granted two one-year extensions prior to attaining the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS.

Indeed, in the general preamble to the 1990 CAA amendments, the EPA described situations where an ozone nonattainment area would “receive one or two extensions (under section 181(a)(5)) for the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS.”  9 But at no point in the general preamble's discussion of CAA section 181(a)(5) does the EPA caution states or nonattainment areas that these extensions, if granted, would be the only two one-year extensions they could ever receive for any ozone NAAQS. Nor does the EPA acknowledge this sort of limitation in the agency's subsequent implementation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Both the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS implementation rules include their own unique provision referencing CAA section 181(a)(5), 40 CFR 51.1107 (2008 ozone NAAQS) and 40 CFR 51.1307 (2015 ozone NAAQS). Neither regulatory provision references a limitation on one-year extensions from previously granted extensions from other NAAQS (or from earlier classifications of the same NAAQS). 10 Thus, the EPA's historical interpretation of CAA section 181(a)(5) also supports the EPA's conclusion in this final action.

Because CAA section 181(a)(5) applies to a specific NAAQS, our proposal adequately explains the history of attainment dates for the Coachella Valley nonattainment area for the purposes of providing adequate notice of the legal effects for a one-year extension of the attainment date for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. As described in our proposal, following initial classification as “Serious” nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the EPA set the Coachella Valley nonattainment area's attainment date as no later than June 15, 2013. 11 Effective June 4, 2010, the EPA granted a reclassification request from Serious to “Severe-15” and set the attainment date as no later than June 15, 2019. 12 The EPA again approved a reclassification request on July 10, 2019, to reclassify the nonattainment area from Severe-15 to Extreme and set the attainment date as June 15, 2024. 13 The EPA's proposed approval of a one-year extension concerns the extension of the June 15, 2024 attainment date.

Thus, as demonstrated in our proposal, the Coachella Valley nonattainment area has never requested and the EPA has never acted on a request from California for a one-year extension of the attainment date for the Coachella Valley nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 14 Upon finalizing this one-year extension, the Coachella Valley will be entitled to one additional one-year extension of the applicable attainment date for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, provided the nonattainment area meets the requirements of CAA section 181(a)(5). 15

Comment 2.B: Commenters argue that under CAA section 181(a)(5)(A), a state must demonstrate that it has complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the applicable implementation plan, which includes any Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) governing the nonattainment area in question. Commenters then argue that because South Coast is a delegated authority to implement EPA's federal prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) regulations, which constitute a FIP, the District is required to certify that it is complying with the EPA's PSD regulations.

The commenters note that the nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) permit program applies to Coachella Valley, but they argue that sources outside the area will impact ozone levels within the nonattainment area, and therefore, PSD regulations “pertain to the area” within the meaning of CAA section 181(a)(5).

Response 2.B: The EPA disagrees with commenters that a determination of California's compliance with Federal PSD regulations is necessary for granting a one-year extension under CAA section 181(a)(5) for the Coachella Valley nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, given the area's status under that NAAQS as Extreme and the NNSR permitting requirements that are therefore applicable to that area.

Under the CAA, a PSD permitting program applies to areas designated as attainment/unclassifiable. 16 As commenters acknowledge, the nonattainment area's NNSR permit program applies for sources of ozone precursors within the Coachella Valley because the area is subject to nonattainment area requirements for all ozone NAAQS, including the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Indeed, there are no PSD permits within the Coachella Valley nonattainment area for sources of ozone precursors. 17

The commenters appear to argue that because there may be PSD permitted sources outside of the Coachella Valley nonattainment area that impact ozone levels within the nonattainment area, PSD regulations would nonetheless apply as requirements “pertaining to the area” within the meaning of CAA section181(a)(5). The EPA does not believe there is any legal basis to this interpretation of the CAA, and the commenters do not cite to any authority to support their theory. The CAA section 181(a)(5)(A) requires that “the State has complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the applicable implementation plan.” The better reading of that provision is that it is limited to whether a state is complying with a requirement or commitment that actually applies to the area, not a requirement or commitment that could theoretically have some unspecified impact on the area. With respect to permitting requirements, the Coachella Valley SIP includes requirements for the NNSR permitting program that is applicable for new and modified sources within Coachella Valley. 18 Further, the commenter asserts with no support that sources outside the area “will impact” ozone levels within the area and thus the PSD requirements qualify as requirements “pertaining to” the area. The commenter does not provide any factual basis for how the construction or modification of sources under the PSD program, outside of the Coachella Valley area, will have any such impact on the air quality in the area. There is no legal or factual basis for the commenter's interpretation of CAA section 181(a)(5).

Comment 2.C: Commenters argue that the EPA improperly ignored its discretion in granting the one-year extension. They argue that the EPA's proposal approached the statutory language as though it required the EPA to grant the extension, instead of the correct reading of the statutory language, which permits but does not require the EPA to grant the extension. They further argue that as a result, the EPA did not evaluate additional context regarding the nonattainment area, including the area's history of nonattainment, and its decision to grant the extension is therefore arbitrary and capricious.

Response 2.C: The EPA disagrees with commenters that it is improperly exercising its discretion in approving the one-year extension. The EPA does not dispute that CAA section 181(a)(5) grants the EPA the discretion to disapprove a state application for a one-year extension of the applicable attainment date, even if the area were to satisfy the two statutory requirements under CAA 181(a)(5). But the EPA disagrees with commenters' characterization of that discretion, which turns the EPA's authority from CAA section 181(a)(5) inside-out, as well as the notion that the EPA, in responding to commenters, is now advancing a post-hoc explanation of its proposal.

First, the CAA and the EPA's associated regulations regarding one-year extensions for ozone nonattainment areas provide a clear framework for states and the EPA to evaluate whether a state qualifies for a one-year extension. To grant an extension, the EPA must determine that (1) the State has complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the applicable implementation plan; and (2) no more than one exceedance of the NAAQS level for ozone has occurred in the area in the year preceding the Extension Year. These are the elements Congress determined would indicate that an area is nearing attainment and that some flexibility may provide adequate time for the area to attain without requiring a new planning cycle. If the EPA determines that both criteria are satisfied, and the nonattainment area has not already been granted the two allowable one-year extensions for that NAAQS, the EPA may approve the one-year extension—the statute does not identify any other criteria the EPA must evaluate to do so.

Nonetheless, there are instances where the EPA may look beyond those two criteria and may even ultimately disapprove an application for a one-year extension on grounds not explicitly identified under the two statutory criteria. For example, the commenters point to guidance concerning procedures for processing bump-ups and extension requests for “Marginal” ozone nonattainment areas, including additional considerations for granting extensions to Marginal ozone nonattainment areas under CAA section 181(a)(5). 19 But this guidance is illustrative of the reasons those considerations for Marginal ozone nonattainment areas are not applicable to the Coachella Valley nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and thus, EPA's proposal adequately explained its rationale for approving the extension.

The EPA's guidance cited by commenters encourages that, given the “very tight timeframes to implement the new SIP requirements [if a Marginal area ultimately fails to attain], in addition to achieving the reductions to meet the new attainment date,” Marginal nonattainment areas applying for a one-year extension should start preparing for the potential that the area may be required to implement the next highest classification nonattainment area requirements. 20 To do so, the EPA suggested the State submit with their extension application: (1) documentation that the State has planned or begun the necessary monitoring activities to develop information for the modeling analysis that will be required for the new classification; (2) documentation that the State has examined its legislative authority and regulatory procedures to determine whether or not it can quickly adopt and implement the emissions controls needed to meet the new attainment date; and/or (3) a plan to meet the SIP submittals and attainment date required by the higher classification. 21 With this guidance, the EPA leaves open, but does not commit the agency to, the possibility that the agency may find a one-year extension for a Marginal nonattainment area inappropriate if the area does not appear prepared for a bump-up or is otherwise not nearing attainment.

Notably, Marginal ozone nonattainment areas are not required to prepare reasonable further progress demonstrations, attainment demonstrations, or implement “reasonable available control measures” as a part of their SIP planning process. The lack of these planning obligations—and associated modeling—for Marginal ozone nonattainment areas makes it all the more important that the State has the planning capacity in place if they do not have an attaining design value by the Marginal attainment date, even if they qualify for the criteria for a one-year extension. Because higher ozone nonattainment classifications, like Extreme nonattainment, are required to model attainment and implement stricter control measures, they have already undergone significant nonattainment planning and much of the information lacking from a Marginal nonattainment area's one-year extension request is already available for the EPA to fully evaluate the nonattainment area's control measure strategy for higher classifications or the likelihood that a one-year extension will lead to attainment by the extended attainment date.

Effective July 12, 2024, the EPA approved portions of the Coachella Valley's Extreme nonattainment SIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, specifically the area's RACM demonstration and attainment demonstration as well as other CAA requirements. 22 Our final action approved a determination that “the District's control strategy [is] acceptable for purposes of attaining the 1997 ozone standards in the Coachella Valley” and that the attainment demonstration “shows the area attaining the 1997 ozone standards by the outermost statutory attainment date of June 15, 2024.”  23 With this context, the EPA's proposed approval of a one-year extension for the Coachella Valley nonattainment area evaluated the state's progress towards implementing the control measures from the applicable SIP as well as the relevant air quality data for the nonattainment area. Based on our evaluation, we found that the area was complying with its SIP's implementation schedule and the area's air quality is nearing attainment of the NAAQS, with the area's air quality below the standard in 2023. 24 We therefore determined that the application was adequate to grant the one-year extension.

Commenters do not point to any specific characteristics of the Coachella Valley, the nonattainment area's control strategy, or its recent air quality that would weigh in favor of the EPA exercising its discretion to reject a nonattainment area's application that satisfies the statutory criteria. Nor do they identify any reason why rejecting the extension request and finding the area failed to attain would expedite attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The only specific detail commenters identify regarding the nonattainment area is that it has not yet attained the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The EPA acknowledges that the Coachella Valley nonattainment area has historically struggled to attain this NAAQS and did not have an attaining design value by the applicable attainment date. But absent any other supporting justifications for rejecting California's application, these facts alone are not factors Congress instructed us to consider. 25 The very purpose of a one-year extension is to provide flexibility for areas that are not yet in attainment. Thus, based on our evaluation of air quality monitoring data and the extension request submitted by the California, we are finalizing the one-year extension as proposed.

In response to the request from the State of California on October 11, 2024, the EPA is granting a one-year extension to the applicable attainment date for the 1997 ozone NAAQS for Coachella Valley. Additionally, the EPA is taking final action on the exceptional events request submitted by CARB on October 11, 2024, and concurred with by EPA on December 10, 2024. This final action extends the applicable attainment date from June 15, 2024, to June 15, 2025, for this nonattainment area. This decision is based on the State's compliance with the requirements in the applicable SIP for the area and on the 2023 ozone monitoring data from sites in the Coachella Valley.

This action provides a one-year extension of the Coachella Valley attainment date for the 1997 ozone NAAQS from June 15, 2024, to June 15, 2025, and imposes no additional requirements. For that reason, this action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 4, 2025. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends part 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

States that have received final authorization from the EPA under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, states must change their programs and ask the EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to state programs may be necessary when Federal or state statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, states must change their programs because of changes to the EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 268, 270, 273, and 279.

New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that the EPA promulgates pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) take effect in authorized states at the same time that they take effect in unauthorized states. Thus, the EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in Massachusetts, including the issuance of new permits implementing those requirements, until the State is granted authorization to do so.

On August 26, 2024, Massachusetts submitted a complete program revision application seeking authorization of revisions to its hazardous waste program. The EPA concludes that Massachusetts' application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA, as set forth in RCRA Section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C 6926(b), and 40 CFR part 271. Therefore, the EPA grants final authorization to Massachusetts to operate its hazardous waste program with the revisions described in its authorization application, and as listed below in Section G of this document.

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) has responsibility for permitting treatment, storage, and disposal facilities within its borders and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its application, subject to the limitations of HSWA, as discussed above.

This decision authorizes Massachusetts for the revisions to its authorized hazardous waste program described in its authorization application. These changes will become part of the authorized State hazardous waste program and will therefore be Federally enforceable. Massachusetts will continue to have primary enforcement authority and responsibility for its State hazardous waste program. The EPA would maintain its authorities under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, including its authority to:

• Conduct inspections, and require monitoring, tests, analyses and reports;

• Enforce RCRA requirements, including authorized State program requirements, and suspend or revoke permits; and

• Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State has taken its own actions.

This action will not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which the EPA is authorizing Massachusetts are already effective under state law and are not changed by this action.

The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the EPA views this as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no adverse comment. This action is a routine program change. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of this Federal Register , we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposed action allowing the public an opportunity to comment. For further information about commenting on this action, please refer to the ADDRESSES section and Section E of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

If the EPA receives comments that oppose this authorization, we will either withdraw this action by publishing a document in the Federal Register before the action becomes effective, or we will publish a notice containing a response to comments that either reverses the decision or affirms that the final action will take effect. In the event that the final action is withdrawn, the EPA will base any further decision on the authorization of the State's program revisions on the proposal mentioned in the previous section, after considering all comments received during the comment period. The EPA will then address all such comments in a later final action.

If EPA receives comments that oppose only the authorization of a particular revision to the State's hazardous waste program, EPA will withdraw that part of this action, but the authorization of the program revisions that the comments do not oppose will become effective on the date specified above. The Federal Register withdrawal document will specify which part of the authorization will become effective, and which part is being withdrawn.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts initially received final authorization effective February 7, 1985 (50 FR 3344, January 24, 1985) to implement its base hazardous waste management program. The EPA granted authorization for revisions to Massachusetts' regulatory program on the following dates: September 30, 1998, effective November 30, 1998 (63 FR 52180); October 12, 1999, effective immediately (64 FR 55153); March 12, 2004, effective immediately (69 FR 11801); January 31, 2008, effective March 31, 2008 (73 FR 5753); June 23, 2010, effective August 23, 2010 (75 FR 35660); and January 4, 2022, effective March 7, 2022 (87 FR 194). Additionally, on November 15, 2000, the EPA granted interim authorization for Massachusetts to regulate Cathode Ray Tubes under the Toxicity Characteristics rule through January 1, 2003, effective immediately (65 FR 68915). This interim authorization was subsequently extended to run through January 1, 2006 (67 FR 66338, October 31, 2002) which was then further extended until January 1, 2011 (70 FR 69900, November 18, 2005).

On August 26, 2024, Massachusetts submitted a final complete program revision application, seeking authorization of additional revisions to its program in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. Massachusetts seeks authority to administer the Federal requirements that are listed in Table 1 below. This table lists Massachusetts' analogous requirements that are being recognized as no less stringent than the analogous Federal requirements.

Massachusetts' regulatory references are to Title 310 of Code of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR), Chapter 30, as amended effective May 24, 2024. Massachusetts' statutory authority for its hazardous waste program is based on the Massachusetts Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1979 (Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 21C).

The EPA determines, subject to public review and comment, that Massachusetts' hazardous waste program revisions are equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program, and therefore satisfy all the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. Therefore, the EPA grants final authorization to Massachusetts for the following program revisions:

When revised State rules differ from the Federal rules in the RCRA state authorization process, the EPA determines whether the State rules are equivalent to, more stringent than, or broader in scope than the Federal program. Pursuant to RCRA section 3009, 42 U.S.C. 6929, State programs may contain requirements that are more stringent than the Federal regulations. Such more stringent requirements can be federally authorized and, once authorized, become federally enforceable. Although the statute does not prevent States from adopting regulations that are broader in scope than the Federal program, States cannot receive Federal authorization for such regulations. As such, the EPA cannot enforce broader-in-scope State rules; however, compliance with such rules is required by State law.

Massachusetts' hazardous waste program contains certain provisions that are broader than the scope of the Federal program, including, but not limited to, the following:

(a) At 310 CMR 30.311(1), Massachusetts requires that a manifest must be used for any hazardous waste transported for “off-site treatment, storage, disposal or use . . .” To the extent that material “in use” has not met the criteria for being discarded, abandoned, used in a manner constituting disposal, sham recycled, or any of the other factors in the definition of solid waste at 40 CFR 261.2, the EPA would not consider it to be a solid or hazardous waste and, therefore, not subject to the hazardous waste management program including electronic manifest requirements. Additionally, the EPA does not consider material managed in compliance with the used oil standards at 40 CFR part 279—which may involve off-site shipment of used oil for recycling, burning for energy recovery, or other allowable “use”—to be hazardous waste. Such materials are considered “State-only” wastes for purposes of the electronic manifest requirements, as addressed in 40 CFR 260.5. Wastes required by the State to be transported with a manifest, for which there is no Federal analog, make Massachusetts' universe of regulated wastes and entities larger than the EPA's and, therefore, broader in scope.

Massachusetts' hazardous waste program contains several provisions that are more stringent than the Federal RCRA program, noted in Table 1, above. They include, but are not limited to, the following:

(a) Both Massachusetts and the EPA define a Large Quantity Handler (LQH) of Universal Waste (UW) as a UW handler who accumulates 5,000 kilograms or more total of UW at any time. Under the Federal program, designation as an LQH is retained through the end of the calendar year in which the 5,000-kilogram level is met or exceeded. Massachusetts includes in its definition at 310 CMR 30.010 and 30.1010 that an LQH designation is retained until such time as a change of status request is received by MassDEP, and through the end of the calendar year in which the change of status request was received. This additional step to notify MassDEP of a change in UW handler status, also discussed in the Massachusetts UW notification requirements at 310 CMR 30.1043(3), is more stringent than the EPA UW definitions and notification requirements in 40 CFR part 273.

Massachusetts will continue to issue permits covering all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. The EPA will continue to administer and enforce any RCRA and HSWA permits or portions of permits that the EPA issued prior to the effective date of this authorization in accordance with the signed Memorandum of Agreement, dated September 30, 2021, which was included in the docket for the authorization effective March 7, 2022 (87 FR 194). Until such time as formal transfer of the EPA permit responsibility to Massachusetts occurs and the EPA terminates its permit, the EPA and Massachusetts agree to coordinate the administration of permits in order to maintain consistency. The EPA will not issue any new permits or new portions of permits for the provisions listed in Section G after the effective date of this authorization. The EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Massachusetts is not yet authorized.

Massachusetts has not applied for and is not authorized to carry out its hazardous waste program in Indian country within the State, which includes the land of the Wampanoag tribe. Therefore, this action has no effect on Indian country. The EPA retains jurisdiction over Indian country and will continue to implement and administer the RCRA program on these lands.

Codification is the process of placing citations and references to the State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste program into the Code of Federal Regulations. The EPA does this by adding those citations and references to the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. The EPA is not codifying the authorization of Massachusetts' revisions at this time. However, the EPA reserves the ability to amend 40 CFR part 272, subpart W for the authorization of Massachusetts' program at a later date.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). This action authorizes State requirements for the purpose of RCRA section 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Therefore, this action is not subject to review by OMB. This action is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) regulatory action because actions such as today's authorization of Massachusetts' revised hazardous waste program under RCRA are exempted under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). Because this action authorizes pre-existing requirements under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538). For the same reason, this action also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely authorizes State requirements as part of the State RCRA hazardous waste program without altering the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established by RCRA. This action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant and it does not make decisions based on environmental health or safety risks. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

Under RCRA section 3006(b), the EPA grants a state's application for authorization as long as the state meets the criteria required by RCRA. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for the EPA, when it reviews a state authorization application, to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in taking this action, the EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. The EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of this action in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). “Burden” is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

This is a summary of the Commission's Order, DA 25-761, adopted and released on Aug. 27, 2025. The full text of this document is available electronically via the FCC's website at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-25-761A1.pdf or via the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) website at https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs . (Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or calling the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

1. In this Order, we re-codify language that was inadvertently eliminated from §§ 73.3801(f)(6)(iii), 73.6029(f)(6)(iii), and 74.782(g)(6)(iii) of the Commission's rules (Rules) relating to information that must be provided in “non-expedited” applications for ATSC 3.0 service. This amendment to the Rules does not change any regulatory obligations.

2. In the Next Gen TV First Report and Order, 83 FR 4998 (Feb. 2, 2018), the Commission authorized television broadcasters to use the Next Gen TV transmission standard, also called ATSC 3.0, on a voluntary, market-driven basis. The Commission established a process for considering applications to deploy ATSC 3.0 service, which includes coverage requirements for a Next Gen TV station's ATSC 1.0 simulcast signal. As part of that process, the Commission affords expedited processing and a presumption in favor of grant to applications that provide ATSC 1.0 simulcast service to at least 95 percent of the predicted population within the station's original noise limited service contour (NLSC), while applicants that do not satisfy this threshold must provide a more robust public interest showing with their application and will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The required information that must be contained in applications that do not qualify for expedited processing ( i.e., “non-expedited” applications) was set forth in §§ 73.3801(f)(6)(iii), 73.6029(f)(6)(iii), and 74.782(g)(6)(iii) of the Rules.

3. Subsequently, in the Next Gen TV Third Report and Order, 88 FR 45347 (Jul. 17, 2023), the Commission modified its ATSC 3.0 rules to, among other things, permit Next Gen TV stations to license multicast streams aired over an ATSC 1.0 multicast host. The Commission also made updates to the required information for ATSC 3.0 applications in §§ 73.3801(f)(6)(i) and (ii), 73.6029(f)(6)(i) and (ii), and 74.782(g)(6)(i) and (ii) of the Commission's rules in order to facilitate multicast licensing, but it did not make changes to the requirements for non-expedited applicants set forth in §§ 73.3801(f)(6)(iii), 73.6029(f)(6)(iii), and 74.782(g)(6)(iii). However, after Federal Register publication of the Next Gen TV Third Report and Order, these subsections were removed from the Code of Federal Regulations.

4. We find that the deletion of §§ 73.3801(f)(6)(iii), 73.6029(f)(6)(iii), and 74.782(g)(6)(iii) of the Commission's rules from the Code of Federal Regulations was inadvertent, and, thus, re-codify this language. The Next Gen TV First Report and Order codified these provisions to provide clarity about the information that must be provided by non-expedited applicants for ATSC 3.0 service. The Commission never stated or implied in the Next Gen TV Third Report and Order that it intended to rescind these subsections. As noted above, the Next Gen TV Third Report and Order specifically referred to these provisions as remaining applicable. Accordingly, we amend the Rules as set out in the Appendix by including the inadvertently deleted subsections that set forth the required information non-expedited applications must include to show that such applications are in the public interest.

5. We find that notice and comment procedures are unnecessary under the “good cause” exception of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because re-codifying the inadvertently deleted subsections merely restores the provisions setting forth the showing that must be made by non-expedited applicants that the Commission adopted in the Next Gen TV First Report and Order . The Commission did not state or imply that it intended to change or eliminate §§ 73.3801(f)(6)(iii), 73.6029(f)(6)(iii), and 74.782(g)(6)(iii) in the Next Gen TV Third Report and Order . Consequently, we find notice and comment procedures are unnecessary for this action.

6. We also conclude that good cause exists to make this change effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register , pursuant to section 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act. An expedited effective date is necessary to restore the rule in the Code of Federal Regulations as originally adopted by the Commission, which included codified provisions informing non-expedited applicants of the existing requirements for information that must be included in non-expedited applications and to allow the Bureau to promptly act upon such requests. Failure to make the rule change effective immediately may result in confusion among regulated entities as to the required showing and thereby impact the Bureau's ability to determine if applications are in the public interest, and thereby delay broadcasters' ability to commence ATSC 3.0 operation and provide new, innovative services to the public.

7. Regulatory Flexibility Act. Because these rule changes are being adopted without notice and comment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., does not apply.

8. Paperwork Reduction Act. This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

9. Congressional Review Act. The Bureau has determined, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, concurs that this rule is non-major under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Bureau will send a copy of this Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.

10. It is ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 4, 5(c)(1), 7, 301, 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 155(c)(1), 157, 301, 303, and 47 CFR 0.61, 0.283, this Order is adopted and will become effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register .

11. It is further ordered that parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's rules are hereby amended as set forth in the Appendix, effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register .

12. It is further ordered that the Bureau shall send a copy of this Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 73 and 74 as follows:

The Board's regulations at 49 CFR 1002.3(a) provide for an annual update of the Board's entire user-fee schedule. Fees are generally revised based on the cost study formula set forth at 49 CFR 1002.3(d), which looks to changes in salary costs, publication costs, and Board overhead cost factors. Applying that formula, 60 of the Board's 135 fees will be increased, two will be decreased, and 73 will remain at their current levels.

Additional information is contained in the Board's decision. To obtain a free copy of the full decision, visit the Board's website at www.stb.gov or call (202) 245-0245. If you require an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, please call (202) 245-0245.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, title 49, chapter X, part 1002, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: