Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), as amended, directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “to develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade, and packaging, and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices.”

AMS is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural commodities and makes copies of official standards available upon request. The United States Standards for Grades of Fruits and Vegetables that no longer appear in the Code of Federal Regulations but are maintained by USDA, AMS, Specialty Crops Program at the following website: http://www.ams.usda.gov. AMS is proposing revisions to the U.S. Standards for Grades of Lemons using the procedures that appear in part 36 of title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR part 36).

On March 25, 2024, California Citrus Mutual, a voluntary non-profit trade association for California's citrus growers, petitioned the USDA to revise the lemon standard to incorporate a seedless lemon definition and marking requirements. The petitioner represents 95 percent of the lemon producers nationwide. In its petition, California Citrus Mutual explained that advancements in the domestic lemon industry led to the development of seedless lemon varietals. AMS worked closely with California Citrus Mutual throughout the development of the proposed revisions, soliciting their comments and suggestions about the standards through discussion drafts and presentations. These proposed revisions seek to establish a definition for seedless lemons and marking requirements to maintain consistency in the industry.

AMS is proposing to revise the U.S. Standards for Grades of Lemons to add a definition for the term “seedless lemons” stating that “when marked `seedless,' a 100-count composite sample shall have not more than 6 fruit (or 6 percent) containing seeds (irrespective of number or development per fruit). Seeds would include fully developed and undeveloped seeds (or pips).” Written this way, any undeveloped seeds would be counted against that piece of fruit. The percentage of lemons with seeds is based on the number of fruit with seeds, rather than the number of seeds within a lemon. This new definition would not be applied to affect grade. In addition, marking requirements for lemons meeting this seedless definition would be incorporated into the standard and would also not affect grade. The marking requirements would require that “when lots are marked `seedless,' the term `seedless' shall be legibly marked on at least 95 percent of the containers, including consumer units.” These proposed marking requirements seek to provide buyers and consumers with clear information on the product being bought and sold between parties. Without marking requirements, it would be difficult to differentiate a lot of seedless lemons from a lot of lemons with seeds to know when the proposed definition would apply.

The proposed revisions to these grade standards would provide a common language for trade, better reflect the current marketing of fruits and vegetables, and provide uniformity on the buying and selling of seedless lemons.

A 60-day period is provided for interested persons to submit comments on the proposed grade standards. Copies of the proposed revised standards are available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. After the 60-day comment period, AMS would proceed in accordance with 7 CFR 36.3(a)(1-3).

On January 31, 2025, President Donald J. Trump issued an Executive Order entitled “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” E.O. 14192, 90 FR 9065 (Jan. 31, 2025), “to promote prudent financial management and alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens.” Id. at 9065. He stated that “[i]t is the policy of the executive branch to be prudent and financially responsible in the expenditure of funds, from both public and private sources, and to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens placed on the American people.” Id. E.O. 14192 imposes a regulatory cap for fiscal year 2025 and instructs the heads of all agencies “to ensure that the total incremental cost of all new regulations” issued during the year is “significantly less than zero.” Id. Additionally, any new incremental costs must “be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations.” Id.

Since President Trump's announcement of a deregulatory effort through E.O. 14192, the Department has carefully reviewed its pending rulemakings and has identified actions that do not align with current agency needs, priorities, and objectives, including the best means of addressing some or all of the issues covered by these actions. Some of the actions so identified have been published in the Federal Register as NPRMs, ANPRMs, or SNPRMs. Other actions have been included in one or more editions of the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (the “ Unified Agenda” )  1 but have not resulted in any publications in the Federal Register .

Accordingly, the Department is withdrawing the 16 published NPRMs, ANPRMs, and SNPRMs listed in Table 1, for which the Department plans no further action. Similarly, the Department is also withdrawing the 38 projected rulemakings listed in Table 2 previously included in the Unified Agenda that the Department no longer intends to pursue.

On January 24, 2024, the Commission published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register proposing new Commission regulation 1.13 under the Commodity Exchange Act, as well as amendments to existing Commission regulation 23.603 under the Commodity Exchange Act. 1 The proposed rules would have required futures commission merchants, swap dealers, and major swap participants to establish and implement an operational resilience framework comprised of an information and technology security program, a third-party relationship program, and a business continuity and disaster recovery plan. The proposed rules would have also imposed requirements related to governance, training, testing, recordkeeping, and incident notifications in support of the operational resilience framework. On February 26, 2024, the Commission published a release in the Federal Register which extended the comment period for the proposal to April 1, 2024. 2

The Commission is withdrawing the proposal to reconsider how the proposed rules work in practice with the operational resilience rules of other regulators, including both domestic and foreign. Many swap dealers and futures commission merchants are part of banking organizations that have already implemented comprehensive enterprise-wide operational resilience programs pursuant to U.S. or non-U.S. regulations. Thus, the Commission no longer intends to issue final rules with respect to the proposal. If the Commission decides to pursue future regulatory action in this area, it will do so by publishing new proposed rules or other issuance consistent with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, as applicable.

The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this action is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as amended, and therefore it was not subject to Executive Order 12866 review.

On July 24, 2025, construction of the new Beltway 8 Bridge (Sam Houston Tollway Ship Channel Bridge) started over the navigable waters of the Houston Ship Channel. The Coast Guard previously published a short-term temporary safety zone to cover the initial phase of this construction, which covers only a small area along the north and south shorelines around the bridge (90 FR 35438, July 28, 2025). That safety zone expires on October 22, 2025, and a long-term safety zone is necessary to provide for safety during the remainder of the construction and demolition project. The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034.

The construction of the new Southbound and Northbound lanes, and demolition of the old Beltway 8 Bridge (Sam Houston Tollway Ship Channel Bridge) are estimated to be complete around March 2030. The Captain of the Port Sector Houston-Galveston (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with construction over the ship channel will be a safety concern for anyone transiting under the bridge. Hazards associated with this project include falling construction equipment, materials or other debris. The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters during the construction of the new Beltway 8 Bridge (Sam Houston Tollway Ship Channel Bridge).

While this zone will be in effect for several years, the Coast Guard anticipates that the main navigable channel of the Houston Ship Channel will remain open for the majority of the time, and impact on vessel navigation will be minimal. During the times of overhead construction outside of the federal channel, vessels will be allowed to transit under the bridge only within the federal channel. The channel will be closed for a short period when the construction or demolition is actively occurring over the main federal channel, and these closures will be coordinated between stakeholders, the construction contractor and Sector Houston-Galveston. The Coast Guard will work closely with the project managers to ensure the public and waterway users are notified well in advance of any closure that will prohibit vessel navigation on the main channel.

The COTP is proposing to establish a temporary safety zone from October 22, 2025 to March 1, 2030. The temporary safety zone would cover all navigable waters within the following four points on the north and south shore of the Houston Ship Channel around the Beltway 8 Bridge (Sam Houston Tollway Ship Channel Bridge) overhead construction: from the southeast corner at Point 1 at 29°44.033′ N 95°8.733′ W; thence west to Point 2 at 29°44.100′ N 95°8.833′ W; thence north to Point 3 at 29°44.267′ N 95°8.817′ W; thence east to Point 4 at 29°44.267′ N 95°8.717′ W; thence returning south to Point 1.

The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters from hazards associated with bridge construction and demolition. While this area spans the width of the Houston Ship Channel, the safety zone will only be enforced in certain portions within this area where overhead construction is occurring. For most of the time this safety zone is effective, vessels will be permitted to transit through this area using the main navigation channel under the bridge. Vessel traffic will not be allowed to transit underneath where overhead construction is actively taking place, and small vessels will not be allowed to transit under the bridge outside of the main federal channel during construction. Vessel traffic on the main federal channel under the center of the bridge will be closed for a short period when the construction is actively occurring over this area. Closures will be coordinated between stakeholders, the construction contractor and Sector Houston-Galveston. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the temporary safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

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

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. During the times of overhead construction outside of the federal channel, vessels will be allowed to transit under the bridge only within the federal channel. The channel will be closed for a short period when the construction or demolition is actively occurring over the main federal channel, and these closures will be coordinated between stakeholders, the construction contractor and Sector Houston-Galveston. The Coast Guard will work closely with the project managers to ensure the public and waterway users are notified well in advance of any closure that will prohibit vessel navigation on the main channel. While this zone will be in effect for several years, the Coast Guard (CG) anticipates that the main navigable channel will remain open for the majority of the effective period.

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

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 proposed rule. If the proposed rule would 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. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This proposed rule would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) because it would 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. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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 proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the potential effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a temporary safety zone within four points on the north and south shore crossing the Houston Ship Channel around the Beltway 8 Bridge (Sam Houston Tollway Ship Channel Bridge) for the construction of the Southbound, Northbound lanes and demolition of the old Beltway 8 Bridge (Sam Houston Tollway Ship Channel Bridge) will be completed March 2030. While this zone will be in effect for several years, the Coast Guard (CG) anticipates that the main navigable channel will remain open for the majority of the effective period. Normally such actions are 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 preliminary 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. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

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

Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal Docket Management System at https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2025-0643 in the search box and click “Search.” Next, look for this document in the Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment option. If you cannot submit your material by using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule for alternate instructions.

Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as described in the previous paragraph, and then select “Supporting & Related Material” in the Document Type column. Public comments will also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following instructions on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked Questions web page. Also, if you click on the Dockets tab and then the proposed rule, you should see a “Subscribe” option for email alerts. The option will notify you when comments are posted, or a final rule is published.

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

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

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

On December 23, 2024, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted a SIP revision for the MCAQD portion of the Arizona SIP (“2024 SIP submittal”). The 2024 SIP submittal requests that the EPA approve MCAQD Rule 313—Incinerators, Burn-Off Ovens, and Crematories, revised December 11, 2024 (“Rule 313”). Additionally, the 2024 SIP submittal requests that the requirements in Rule 313 be used to replace two sets of requirements from the SIP: the version of Rule 313 currently in the SIP and MCAQD Rule 35—Incinerators, revised August 12, 1971 (“Rule 35”).

Table 1 lists the rule we are proposing for approval with the dates that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted to the EPA by the ADEQ. Table 2 lists the rules proposed to be rescinded from the SIP with the dates that they were adopted by the local air agency and approved into the SIP.

On June 23, 2025, the 2024 SIP submittal was deemed complete by operation of law. We have reviewed the submittal to ensure it meets the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.

In 2016, the EPA reformatted the Arizona SIP as codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) into a tabulated “notebook” format. While developing the updated SIP tables for that conversion, the EPA worked closely with ADEQ and the local air agencies to clarify what was in their applicable SIP, including older provisions that had not been updated or replaced to reflect local rulemakings. On September 13, 2017, because of that coordination, ADEQ submitted a SIP revision from MCAQD that requested to rescind or replace many obsolete rules in their federally enforceable SIP in favor of rules that reflect their current locally enforceable rulebook (“2017 SIP submittal”). The 2017 SIP submittal requested that the EPA rescind the SIP-approved version of Rule 35 and replace it with the version of Rule 313 currently in the SIP. However, the 2024 SIP submittal clarifies that this request has been superseded by the request to replace Rule 35 with the currently submitted revised version of Rule 313. If we finalize this rulemaking as proposed, the December 11, 2024 version of Rule 313 will replace the SIP-approved version of Rule 313 and Rule 35 in the MCAQD portion of the Arizona SIP.

Rule 313 contains particulate matter (PM) and opacity standards for incinerators, burn-off ovens, and crematories. It also contains additional requirements such as work practice standards for specific cremation procedures (such as large charges or nighttime operations), as well as monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. Rule revisions in the version adopted on December 14, 2024, include additional monitoring provisions and PM performance testing requirements, clarifications to several definitions, additional detail and clarity regarding recordkeeping requirements, and the addition of provisions or requirements established in Rule 35 to ensure that Rule 35 rescission does not result in interference with any existing CAA requirements. There are no revisions to the existing PM or opacity standards. In addition, MCAQD does not rely upon the standards established in Rule 313 to meet any nonattainment area requirements. A technical support document (TSD) that provides further analysis of Rule 313 revisions is included in the docket for this rulemaking. Rule 35 controls the emissions of PM from any incinerators located in the MCAQD. The rule includes permit conditions, daily limits, and monitoring for PM and opacity. A separate TSD that provides further analysis of Rule 35 rescission is included in the docket for this rulemaking.

Emissions limitations in the SIP must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)) and must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section 110(l)). Once a rule has been approved as part of a SIP, the rescission of that rule from the SIP constitutes a SIP revision. To approve such a revision, the EPA must determine whether the revision meets relevant CAA criteria for stringency, if any, and complies with restrictions on relaxation of SIP measures under CAA section 110(l), and the General Savings Clause in CAA section 193 for SIP approved control requirements in effect before November 15, 1990.

Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:

Rule 313 strengthens the SIP by clarifying monitoring and recordkeeping provisions. This rule meets CAA requirements and is consistent with relevant guidance regarding enforceability and SIP revisions. A portion of Maricopa County regulated by MCAQD is designated nonattainment for the particulate matter with a diameter of 10 micrometers or smaller (PM 10 ) national ambient air quality standard. However, since the Rule 313 requirements are not relied upon to meet any nonattainment area requirements, we have not evaluated it for stringency.

Additionally, we have concluded that Rule 35 is appropriate for rescission from the SIP. The requirements in Rule 35 will be replaced with analogous requirements in Rule 313 that are at least as stringent. For example, incineration is allowed during nighttime, requirements to test PM emissions are added, opacity testing now follows federal requirements, and monitoring and recordkeeping requirements are clearer. As such, the replacement of Rule 35 would not impact the overall stringency of the Arizona SIP.

The two TSDs in the docket have more detailed information on our evaluation.

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to approve the submitted rule because it fulfills all relevant requirements. The EPA also proposes to approve the requested rescission of the rest of Rule 35, and replacement with Rule 313, because it fulfills all relevant requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until October 14, 2025. If we take final action to approve Rule 313, our final action will incorporate this rule into the federally enforceable SIP.

In this document, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference Maricopa County Air Quality District, Rule 313, Incinerators, Burn-Off Ovens, and Crematories, revised December 11, 2024, which establishes emissions standards for particulate matter and opacity. In addition, the EPA is proposing to rescind Rule 35 and replace it with the submitted Rule 313 in the MCAQD portion of the Arizona SIP, because the requested replacement fulfills all relevant requirements. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

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

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

Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates that they were adopted by the local air agency and submitted to the EPA by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). This proposal addresses two versions of MCAQD Rule 335—Architectural Coatings (“Rule 335”). Because these rules have identical titles and are regulating the same source category they will be differentiated in this proposal by the year in which they were submitted to the EPA. On September 8, 2017, ADEQ submitted a SIP revision requesting that the EPA approve Rule 335, as revised on September 25, 2013, into the Maricopa County portion of the Arizona SIP (“2017 submittal”). On December 23, 2024, ADEQ submitted a SIP revision requesting that the EPA approve Rule 335, as revised on December 11, 2024, into the Maricopa County portion of the Arizona SIP (“2024 submittal”).

On March 13, 2018, the 2017 submittal was deemed by operation of law to be complete. On June 11, 2025, the 2024 submittal was deemed by operation of law to be complete. We have reviewed the submittals to ensure they meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.

We approved an earlier version of Rule 335 (adopted on July 13, 1988) into the SIP on January 6, 1992 (57 FR 354). In both the 2017 submittal and 2024 submittal, ADEQ requested that, upon approval of the revised version of Rule 335, the EPA remove the 1988 version of this rule from the SIP. If we finalize this rulemaking as proposed, then both the 2017 submittal and 2024 submittal of Rule 335 will replace the 1988 version of this rule in the SIP. The 2024 submittal of Rule 335 will not become effective until and unless contingency measures are triggered for the 2015 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).

Rule 335 regulates the emissions of VOC from architectural coatings. Architectural coatings are coatings that are applied to stationary structures and their accessories. They include house paints, stains, industrial maintenance coatings, traffic coatings, and other similar products. VOC is emitted from coatings during application, curing, and from the associated solvents used for thinning and clean-up. Emissions of VOC contribute to the production of ground-level ozone and particulate matter (PM), which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control VOC emissions.

The 2017 submittal of Rule 335 was submitted as part of an ongoing effort by the MCAQD and the EPA to update the Maricopa County portion of the Arizona SIP to reflect the current locally adopted rules. The 2024 submittal of Rule 335 was adopted by MCAQD to meet CAA requirements related to contingency measures. Reductions in VOC emissions from architectural coatings can be achieved by limiting the VOC content of coatings. Under CAA 179(c)(9), states must adopt contingency measures for nonattainment areas that become effective in the event the EPA makes a finding of a failure to attain a NAAQS or a finding of failure to make reasonable further progress. If contingency measures are triggered for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, lower VOC content limits will apply to coatings in these categories: flat coatings, non-flat coatings, dry fog coatings, industrial maintenance coatings, primers, sealers, undercoaters, roof coatings, specialty primers, stains, traffic marking coatings, and wood preservatives.

The EPA prepared a technical support document (TSD) for each submittal of Rule 335. These TSDs are available in the docket and have more information about these rules.

Rules in the SIP must be enforceable and must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements. They also must not modify certain SIP control requirements in nonattainment areas that were in effect before November 15, 1990, without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions reductions. See, respectively, CAA sections 110(a)(2), 110(l), and 193.

Guidance and policy documents that we used to evaluate enforceability, revision/relaxation, and rule stringency requirements for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:

We evaluated these rules to ensure they meet CAA requirements and are consistent with relevant guidance regarding enforceability and SIP revisions. The version of Rule 335 in the 2024 submittal does not become effective unless the EPA makes one of the findings that triggers contingency measures for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. As a result, the 2017 submittal of Rule 335 has not been superseded and we are proposing to approve both the 2017 submittal of Rule 335 and the 2024 submittal of Rule 335 to replace the current version in the SIP from 1988. This ensures treatment of the two rule versions in the SIP will be consistent with how they are being implemented locally.

For the 2017 submittal of Rule 335, MCAQD only made minor changes to the rule compared to the SIP-approved version from 1988. The changes were limited to removal of two definitions that are already approved elsewhere into the SIP and are still incorporated into Rule 335. These revisions do not relax any current SIP requirements and are approvable under CAA sections 110(l) and 193.

The 2024 submittal of Rule 335 was evaluated to ensure enforceability under CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) and compliance with the SIP revision requirements in CAA section 110(l) and 193. MCAQD made more substantial revisions to this version, including establishing more stringent VOC emissions limitations if the Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainment area triggers contingency measure requirements. MCAQD also made significant revisions to the definitions and categories of coatings covered by the rule. We are proposing that the 2024 submittal of Rule 335 complies with CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A), 110(l), and 193.

In this proposal we are not evaluating whether the 2024 submittal of Rule 335 meets the contingency measure requirements in CAA section 179(c)(9). That evaluation will be addressed in a separate rulemaking. The TSDs for each rule have more information on our evaluation.

The TSDs include recommendations for the next time the local agency revises the rules.

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to approve the submitted rules because they fulfill all relevant requirements. We are also proposing to rescind the current SIP-approved version of Rule 335 (adopted on July 13, 1988) and replace it with the versions of Rule 335 in the 2017 submittal and 2024 submittal. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until October 14, 2025. If we take final action to approve the submitted rules, our final action will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP.

In this document, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference MCAQD Rule 335, Architectural Coatings, revised on September 25, 2013, and MCAQD Rule 335, Architectural Coatings revised on December 11, 2024, which regulate VOC emissions from architectual coatings. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed 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 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 document proposes to approve revisions to the Wyoming SIP that improve readability and incorporate updated Code of Federal Regulations weblinks to the WAQSR. We have published a direct final rule approving those revisions in the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register . EPA is approving the state's submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this action in the preamble to the direct final rule.

If we receive no relevant adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will withdraw the direct final rule, and it will not take effect. We would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule.

We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information, please see the information provided in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

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

The EPA is proposing to approve a SIP submission submitted by the State of Montana to the EPA on August 10, 2022, addressing the requirements of the second implementation period of the RHR. Specifically, the EPA is proposing approval for the portions of Montana's 2022 SIP submission relating to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1): calculations of baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions, progress to date, and the uniform rate of progress; 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2): long-term strategy; 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3): reasonable progress goals; 40 CFR 51.308(f)(4): reasonably attributable visibility impairment; 40 CFR 51.308(f)(5) and 40 CFR 51.308(g): progress report requirements; 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6): monitoring strategy and other implementation plan requirements; and 40 CFR 51.308(i): Federal Land Manager (FLM) consultation. The EPA is also proposing to approve the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) prong 4 (visibility) portion of Montana's October 1, 2018 Infrastructure SIP submission addressing the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

A detailed history and background of the regional haze program is provided in multiple prior EPA proposal actions. 1 For additional background on the 2017 RHR revisions, please refer to section III. Overview of Visibility Protection Statutory Authority, Regulation, and Implementation of “Protection of Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans” of the 2017 RHR. 2 The following is an abbreviated history and background of the regional haze program and 2017 Regional Haze Rule as it applies to the current action.

In the 1977 CAA amendments, Congress created a program for protecting visibility in the nation's mandatory Class I Federal areas, which include certain national parks and wilderness areas. 3 CAA section 169A. The CAA establishes as a national goal the “prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.” CAA section 169A(a)(1).

Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a multitude of anthropogenic sources and activities that are located across a broad geographic area and that emit pollutants that impair visibility. Visibility impairing pollutants include fine and coarse particulate matter (PM) ( e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust) and their precursors ( e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), nitrogen oxides (NO X ), and, in some cases, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia (NH 3 )). Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to form fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ), which impairs visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment reduces the perception of clarity and color, as well as visible distance. 4

To address regional haze visibility impairment, the 1999 RHR established an iterative planning process that requires states containing Class I areas and states containing sources whose emissions “may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility” in a Class I area in another state to periodically submit SIP revisions to address such impairment. CAA section 169A(b)(2); see also 40 CFR 51.308(b), (f) (establishing submission dates for iterative regional haze SIP revisions); (64 FR at 35768, July 1, 1999).

On January 10, 2017, the EPA promulgated revisions to the RHR (82 FR 3078, January 10, 2017) that apply for the second and subsequent implementation periods. The reasonable progress requirements as revised by the 2017 rule (referred to here as the 2017 RHR Revisions) are codified at 40 CFR 51.308(f).

Because the air pollutants and pollution affecting visibility in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, successful implementation of the regional haze program requires long-term, regional coordination among multiple jurisdictions and agencies that have responsibility for Class I areas and the emissions that impact visibility in those areas. To address regional haze, states need to develop strategies in coordination with one another, considering the effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in another. Five regional planning organizations (RPOs), which include representation from state and Tribal governments, the EPA, and FLMs, were developed in the lead-up to the first implementation period to address regional haze. RPOs evaluate technical information to better understand how emissions from state and Tribal land impact Class I areas across the country, pursue the development of regional strategies to reduce emissions of particulate matter and other pollutants leading to regional haze, and help states meet the consultation requirements of the RHR.

The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), one of the five regional planning organizations described in the previous paragraph, is a collaborative effort of state governments, local air agencies, Tribal governments, and various federal agencies established to initiate and coordinate activities associated with the management of regional haze, visibility, and other air quality issues in the Western United States. Members include the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wyoming, and 28 Tribal governments. 5 The federal partner members of WRAP are the EPA, U.S. National Parks Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management.

WRAP formed a workgroup to develop a planning framework for state regional haze second planning period SIPs. Based on emissions and monitoring data supplied by its membership, WRAP produced a technical system to support regional modeling of visibility impacts at Class I areas across the West. The WRAP Technical Support System consolidated air quality monitoring data, meteorological and receptor modeling data analyses, emissions inventories and projections, and gridded air quality/visibility regional modeling results. The Technical Support System is accessible by member states and allows for the creation of maps, figures, and tables to export and use in state plan development. It also maintains the original source data for verification and further analysis. Montana collaborated with WRAP on various aspects of the State's 2022 SIP submission, including the identification of Class I areas outside of Montana that may be affected by sources in the state, source selection, analysis of air quality monitoring data, preparation of emission inventories, development of reasonable progress goals, and air quality modeling, which together informed the development of its long-term strategy.

The CAA requires that regional haze plans for the first implementation period (2008 through 2018) include, among other things, a long-term strategy for making reasonable progress and BART requirements for certain older stationary sources, where applicable. 6

On September 18, 2012, the EPA promulgated a federal implementation plan (FIP) that included NO X , SO 2 , and PM BART emission limits for three electricity generating units (EGUs) at two power plants and two cement kilns, as well as an emission limit for a natural gas compressor station to satisfy the reasonable progress requirements. 7 The EPA promulgated a FIP in this instance because Montana did not submit a regional haze SIP as required under section 110 of the CAA. 8

Several parties challenged the portion of the FIP addressing the EPA's NO X and SO 2 BART determinations at the power plants, Colstrip Units 1 and 2 and Corette. 9 On June 9, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded the portions of the FIP related to the NO X and SO 2 BART emission limits for J.E. Corette and Colstrip Units 1 and 2 and remanded the EPA's response to a public comment in the 2012 final rule regarding the use of visibility modeling in determining BART for Colstrip Units 1 and 2. 10 The BART emission limits for the Ash Grove and Trident cement kilns, the PM emission limits for the EGUs, and the reasonable progress requirements for the Blaine Compressor Station were not at issue in the petitions filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 11

On September 12, 2017, the EPA amended aspects of the remaining 2012 FIP by (1) revising the BART NO X emission limit for the Trident cement kiln, and (2) correcting errors in our original FIP regarding the reasonable progress determination for the Blaine Compressor Station and the instructions for compliance determinations for PM BART emission limits at the EGUs and cement kilns. 12 Ultimately, the EPA removed the reasonable progress requirements for the natural gas compressor station from the FIP after correcting the error that resulted in the source no longer being subject to reasonable progress requirements.

On June 26, 2023, the EPA approved a SIP revision that addressed NO X and SO 2 BART requirements for the J.E. Corette and Colstrip (Units 1 and 2) power plants and replaced portions of the original FIP promulgated by the EPA in 2012. 13 14

On August 10, 2022, Montana submitted a SIP submission to address its regional haze obligations for the second implementation period (2018-2028). Montana's 2022 SIP submission contains the State's long-term strategy to address regional haze visibility impairment for each Class I area within the State and each Class I area outside the State that may be affected by emissions from the State. In developing its long-term strategy, the State examined the need to implement additional enforceable emission limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress since the first implementation period. Specifically, Montana's 2022 SIP submission contains an assessment of visibility progress made at Class I areas since the first implementation period and a long-term strategy to address regional haze visibility impairment at Class I areas the State identified, including: Montana's selection of sources that may affect visibility in Class I areas within the State and outside the State for four-factor analysis; its evaluation of the selected sources to determine what emission reduction measures constitute reasonable progress for the long-term strategy; regional scale modeling of the State's long-term strategy to set reasonable progress goals for 2028; and ultimately, Montana's determinations on what control measures are necessary for the long-term strategy to address regional haze visibility impairment in the Class I areas. The State concluded that no additional emission reduction measures for Montana facilities are required for the second implementation period under its long-term strategy.

Under the CAA and the EPA's regulations, all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands were required to submit regional haze SIPs satisfying the applicable requirements for the second implementation period of the regional haze program by July 31, 2021. Each SIP must contain a long-term strategy for making reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal of remedying any existing and preventing any future anthropogenic visibility impairment in Class I areas. CAA section 169A(b)(2)(B). To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f) lays out the process by which states determine what constitutes their long-term strategies, with the order of the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) through (3) generally mirroring the order of the steps in the reasonable progress analysis  15 and (f)(4) through (6) containing additional, related requirements.

Broadly speaking, a state first must identify the Class I areas within the state and determine the Class I areas outside the state in which visibility may be affected by emissions from the state. These are the Class I areas that must be addressed in the state's long-term strategy. See 40 CFR 51.308(f), (f)(2). For each Class I area within its borders, a state must then calculate the baseline (five-year average period of 2000-2004), current, and natural visibility conditions ( i.e., visibility conditions without anthropogenic visibility impairment) for that area, as well as the visibility improvement made to date and the “uniform rate of progress” (URP). The URP is the linear rate of progress needed to attain natural visibility conditions, assuming a starting point of baseline visibility conditions in 2004 and ending with natural conditions in 2064. This linear interpolation is used as a tracking metric to help states assess the amount of progress they are making towards the national visibility goal over time in each Class I area. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1).

Each state having a Class I area and/or emissions that may affect visibility in a Class I area must then develop a long-term strategy that includes the enforceable emission limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress in such areas. A reasonable progress determination is based on applying the four factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1) to sources of visibility impairing pollutants that the state has selected to assess for controls for the second implementation period. Additionally, as further explained below, the RHR at 40 CFR 51.3108(f)(2)(iv) separately provides five “additional factors”  16 that states must consider in developing their long-term strategies. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). A state evaluates potential emission reduction measures for those selected sources and determines which are necessary to make reasonable progress. Those measures are then incorporated into the state's long-term strategy.

After a state has developed its long-term strategy, it then establishes reasonable progress goals (RPGs) for each Class I area within its borders by modeling the visibility impacts of all reasonable progress controls at the end of the second implementation period, i.e., in 2028, as well as the impacts of other requirements of the CAA. The RPGs include reasonable progress controls not only for sources in the state in which the Class I area is located, but also for sources in other states that contribute to visibility impairment in that area. The RPGs are then compared to the baseline visibility conditions and the URP to ensure that progress is being made towards the statutory goal of preventing any future and remedying any existing anthropogenic visibility impairment in Class I areas. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)-(3). There are additional requirements in the rule, including FLM consultation, that apply to all visibility protection SIPs and SIP revisions. See e.g., 40 CFR 51.308(i).

While states have discretion to choose any source selection methodology that is reasonable, whatever choices they make should be 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).

Once a state has selected the set of sources, the next step is to determine the emissions reduction measures for those sources that are necessary to make reasonable progress for the second implementation period. 17 This is accomplished by considering the four factors—“the costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of any existing source subject to such requirements.” CAA section 169A(g)(1). The EPA has explained that the four-factor analysis is an assessment of potential emission reduction measures ( i.e., control options) for sources; “use of the terms `compliance' and `subject to such requirements' in section 169A(g)(1) strongly indicates that Congress intended the relevant determination to be the requirements with which sources would have to comply to satisfy the CAA's reasonable progress mandate.” 82 FR at 3091. Thus, for each source it has selected for four-factor analysis, 18 a state must consider a “meaningful set” of technically feasible control options for reducing emissions of visibility impairing pollutants. Id. at 3088.

The EPA has also explained that, in addition to the four statutory factors, states have flexibility under the CAA and RHR to reasonably consider visibility benefits as an additional factor alongside the four statutory factors. 19 Ultimately, while states have discretion to reasonably weigh the factors and to determine what level of control is needed, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) provides that a state “must include in its implementation plan a description of . . . how the four factors were taken into consideration in selecting the measures for inclusion in its long-term strategy.”

As explained above, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires states to determine the emission reduction measures for sources that are necessary to make reasonable progress by considering the four factors. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2), measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal must be included in a state's long-term strategy and in its SIP. If the outcome of a four-factor analysis is that an emissions reduction measure is necessary to make reasonable progress towards remedying existing or preventing future anthropogenic visibility impairment, that measure must be included in the SIP.

The characterization of information on each of the factors is also subject to the documentation requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii). The reasonable progress analysis is a technically complex exercise, and also a flexible one that provides states with bounded discretion to design and implement approaches appropriate to their circumstances. Given this flexibility, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) plays an important function in requiring a state to document the technical basis for its decision making so that the public and the EPA can comprehend and evaluate the information and analysis the state relied upon to determine what emission reduction measures must be in place to make reasonable progress. The technical documentation must include the modeling, monitoring, cost, engineering, and emissions information on which the state relied to determine the measures necessary to make reasonable progress.

Additionally, the RHR at 40 CFR 51.3108(f)(2)(iv) separately provides five “additional factors” that states must consider in developing their long-term strategies: (1) Emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control programs, including measures to address reasonably attributable visibility impairment; (2) measures to reduce the impacts of construction activities; (3) source retirement and replacement schedules; (4) basic smoke management practices for prescribed fire used for agricultural and wildland vegetation management purposes and smoke management programs; and (5) the anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by the long-term strategy.

Because the air pollution that causes regional haze crosses state boundaries, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) requires a state to consult with other states that also have emissions that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in a given Class I area. If a state, pursuant to consultation, agrees that certain measures ( e.g., a certain emission limitation) are necessary to make reasonable progress at a Class I area, it must include those measures in its SIP. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A). Additionally, the RHR requires that states that contribute to visibility impairment at the same Class I area consider the emission reduction measures the other contributing states have identified as being necessary to make reasonable progress for their own sources. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(B). If a state has been asked to consider or adopt certain emission reduction measures, but ultimately determines those measures are not necessary to make reasonable progress, that state must document in its SIP the actions taken to resolve the disagreement. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C). Under all circumstances, a state must document in its SIP submission all substantive consultations with other contributing states. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C).

Reasonable progress goals “measure the progress that is projected to be achieved by the control measures states have determined are necessary to make reasonable progress based on a four-factor analysis.” 82 FR at 3091. For the second implementation period, the RPGs are set for 2028. Reasonable progress goals are not enforceable targets. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(iii). While states are not legally obligated to achieve the visibility conditions described in their RPGs, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i) requires that “[t]he long-term strategy and the reasonable progress goals must provide for an improvement in visibility for the most impaired days since the baseline period and ensure no degradation in visibility for the clearest days since the baseline period.”

RPGs may also serve as a metric for assessing the amount of progress a state is making towards the national visibility goal. To support this approach, the RHR requires states with Class I areas to compare the 2028 RPG for the most impaired days to the corresponding point on the URP line (representing visibility conditions in 2028 if visibility were to improve at a linear rate from conditions in the baseline period of 2000-2004 to natural visibility conditions in 2064). If the most impaired days RPG in 2028 is above the URP ( i.e., if visibility conditions are improving more slowly than the rate described by the URP), each state that contributes to visibility impairment in the Class I area must demonstrate, based on the four-factor analysis required under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i), that no additional emission reduction measures would be reasonable to include in its long-term strategy. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii). To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii) requires that each state contributing to visibility impairment in a Class I area that is projected to improve more slowly than the URP provide “a robust demonstration, including documenting the criteria used to determine which sources or groups [of] sources were evaluated and how the four factors required by paragraph (f)(2)(i) were taken into consideration in selecting the measures for inclusion in its long-term strategy.”

Section 51.308(f)(6) requires states to have certain strategies and elements in place for assessing and reporting on visibility. Individual requirements under this section apply either to states with Class I areas within their borders, states with no Class I areas but that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area, or both. Compliance with the monitoring strategy requirement may be met through a state's participation in the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring network, which is used to measure visibility impairment caused by air pollution at the 156 Class I areas covered by the visibility program. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6), (f)(6)(i), (f)(6)(iv).

All states' SIPs must provide for procedures by which monitoring data and other information are used to determine the contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility impairment in affected Class I areas, as well as a statewide inventory documenting such emissions. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(ii), (iii), (v). All states' SIPs must also provide for any other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and other measures, that are necessary for states to assess and report on visibility. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(vi).

Section 51.308(f)(5) requires a state's regional haze SIP revision to address the requirements of paragraphs 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) through (5) so that the plan revision due in 2021 will serve also as a progress report addressing the period since submission of the progress report for the first implementation period. The regional haze progress report requirement is designed to inform the public and the EPA about a state's implementation of its existing long-term strategy and whether such implementation is in fact resulting in the expected visibility improvement. See 81 FR 26942, 26950 (May 4, 2016), (82 FR at 3119, January 10, 2017). To this end, every state's SIP revision for the second implementation period is required to assess changes in visibility conditions and describe the status of implementation of all measures included in the state's long-term strategy, including BART and reasonable progress emission reduction measures from the first implementation period, and the resulting emissions reductions. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) and (2).

CAA section 169A(d) requires that before a state holds a public hearing on a proposed regional haze SIP revision, it must consult with the appropriate FLM or FLMs; pursuant to that consultation, the state must include a summary of the FLMs' conclusions and recommendations in the notice to the public. Consistent with this statutory requirement, the RHR also requires that states “provide the [FLM] with an opportunity for consultation, in person and at a point early enough in the State's policy analyses of its long-term strategy emission reduction obligation so that information and recommendations provided by the [FLM] can meaningfully inform the State's decisions on the long-term strategy.” 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). For the EPA to evaluate whether FLM consultation meeting the requirements of the RHR has occurred, the SIP submission should include documentation of the timing and content of such consultation. The SIP revision submitted to the EPA must also describe how the state addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3). Finally, a SIP revision must provide procedures for continuing consultation between the state and FLMs regarding the state's visibility protection program, including development and review of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports, and the implementation of other programs having the potential to contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas. 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4).

Finally, the state SIP must meet the approval requirements in CAA section 110(a)(2) for plans “submitted by a State under this chapter” to the extent not already addressed in the regulations described previously. As relevant here, the state must provide “necessary assurances” that the state has adequate personnel, funding, and authority to carry out the implementation plan, that the state “is not prohibited by any provision of Federal or State law from carrying out such implementation plan or portion thereof,” and that the state can lawfully rely on regional and local instrumentalities to implement the SIP, as applicable. CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i)-(iii).

In section IV. of this document, we describe Montana's 2022 SIP submission and evaluate it against the requirements of the CAA and RHR for the second implementation period of the regional haze program.

Section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA requires each state in which any Class I area is located or “the emissions from which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility” in a Class I area to have a long-term strategy for making reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal. The RHR implements this statutory requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(f) for the second and subsequent planning periods for regional haze. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) requires states to submit a long-term strategy that addresses regional haze visibility impairment for each mandatory Class I area within the state and for each mandatory Class I area located outside the state that may be affected by emissions from the state.

There are 12 designated Class I areas within the State of Montana, including two national parks managed by the U.S. National Park Service (Glacier National Park and Yellowstone National Park) and ten wilderness areas managed by the U.S. Forest Service (Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness Area, Bob Marshall Wilderness Area, Cabinet Mountains Wilderness Area, Gates of the Mountains Wilderness Area, Medicine Lake Wilderness Area, Mission Mountain Wilderness Area, Red Rock Lakes Wilderness Area, Scapegoat Wilderness Area, Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area, UL Bend Wilderness Area). 20 In its 2022 submission, Montana acknowledges that emissions from in-state sources contribute to visibility impairment at its 12 Class 1 areas. 21 Montana demonstrated in their 2022 SIP submission that all of their Class I areas are projected to be below the 2028 URP for each area. 22

Montana also evaluated Class I areas outside the State where visibility may be affected by Montana sources. Using the WRAP's 2028OTBa2 source apportionment modeling Montana identified three Class I areas where the State contributes 0.11 deciviews or greater: Wind Cave (0.12 deciviews, 1.2%); Theodore Roosevelt (0.11 deciviews, 0.8%); and Lostwood (0.11 deciviews; 0.7%) based on combined percentages of nitrate + sulfate impairment at these Class I areas from Montana sources. 23

All Class I areas in Montana as well as the three out-of-state Class I areas most impacted by Montana sources are projected to be below the adjusted glidepath for 2028. 24

Section 51.308(f)(1) requires states to determine the following for “each mandatory Class I Federal area located within the State”: baseline visibility conditions for the most impaired and clearest days, natural visibility conditions for the most impaired and clearest days, progress to date for the most impaired and clearest days, the differences between current visibility conditions and natural visibility conditions, and the URP. This section 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/or the impacts from wildland prescribed fires that were conducted for certain specified objectives. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(vi)(B).

The IMPROVE monitoring network measures visibility impairment caused by air pollution at Class I areas. Montana's 2022 SIP submission provides visibility conditions for each IMPROVE monitor and associated Class I area in Montana (table 1). 25

The State also determined the URP for the most impaired and clearest days for Montana Class I areas. 26 Montana also provided haze indices and the URP for IMPROVE monitors and associated Class I areas outside the State. 27

Based on the information provided in Montana's 2022 SIP submission, the EPA is proposing to approve the State's visibility condition calculations for Cabinet Mountains Wilderness Area, Gates of the Mountains Wilderness Area, Glacier National Park, Medicine Lake Wilderness Area, Bob Marshall Wilderness Area, Mission Mountains Wilderness Area, Scapegoat Wilderness Area, Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness Area, Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area, UL Bend Wilderness Area, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, and Yellowstone National Park 28 as meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) related to the calculation of baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions; progress to date; and the URP.

Each state having a Class I area within its borders or emissions that may affect visibility in any Class I area outside the state must develop a long-term strategy for making reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal for each impacted Class I area. CAA section 169A(b)(2)(B). As explained in the Background section of this document, reasonable progress is achieved when all states contributing to visibility impairment in a Class I area are implementing the measures determined—through application of the four statutory factors to sources of visibility impairing pollutants—to be necessary to make reasonable progress. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). Each state's long-term strategy must include the enforceable emission limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). After considering the four statutory factors, all measures that are determined to be necessary to make reasonable progress must be in the long-term strategy. In developing its long-term strategy, a state must also consider the five additional factors in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv). As part of its reasonable progress determinations, the state must describe the criteria used to determine which sources or group of sources were evaluated ( i.e., subject to four-factor analysis) for the second implementation period and how the four factors were taken into consideration in selecting the emission reduction measures for inclusion in the long-term strategy. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).

Under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i), SIP submittals must include a description of the criteria a state used to determine which sources or groups of sources to evaluate through four-factor analysis. Montana used a Q/d screening approach to identify sources for four-factor analysis. The Q/d screening metric uses a source's annual emissions in tons (Q) divided by the distance in kilometers (d) between the source and the nearest Class I area, along with a reasonably selected threshold for this metric. The larger the Q/d value, the greater the source's expected effect on visibility in each associated Class I area.

Using a WRAP-devised screening threshold of Q/d > 4 and emissions information from the 2014-2017 average annual emissions, Montana identified sources in the State that may be affecting visibility at Class I areas. 29 Montana first categorized all permitted stationary sources into two groups based on average combined annual NO X and SO 2 emissions. 30 The first group included 24 facilities emitting 100 tons per year or more, which were automatically selected for further evaluation using a Q/d > 4 to represent the point source emissions impacting Class I areas, resulting in 15 selected sources. Montana then applied the Q/d > 4 to the second group of smaller sources, identifying an additional two sources with lower emissions but close proximity to Class 1 areas. In total, Montana selected 17 point sources for four-factor analysis (table 2). 31 32 These 17 point sources contributed approximately 36,620 tons per year of NO X and SO 2 emissions, representing about 90% of total emissions from point sources in the state.

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

Under the CAA, the EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for certain pervasive air pollutants, including, among others, ozone and particulate matter (PM). Under CAA section 110(a), states are required to adopt and submit SIPs to implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS. Under CAA section 107(d), the EPA has designated all areas of the country as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassifiable for the NAAQS. Areas designated as nonattainment must adopt and submit SIP revisions that, among other things, provide for attainment of the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.

The MDAQMD regulates stationary sources of air pollution within California's “Mojave Desert Air Basin,” which lies within the previously designated “Southeast Desert Air Basin.”  1 The MDAQMD's jurisdiction includes the desert portion of San Bernardino County and the far eastern portion of Riverside County. 2 The EPA has designated two areas in the San Bernardino County portion of the District as nonattainment areas for PM equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter (PM 10 ): (1) the Trona planning area, located in the northwestern portion of the county, and (2) the larger San Bernardino nonattainment area that covers the remaining portion of San Bernardino County regulated by the MDAQMD, excluding the Trona planning area. 3 A portion of San Bernardino County within the District is also in the West Mojave Desert ozone nonattainment area. 4 The Riverside County portion of the District is designated as unclassifiable/attainment for all the NAAQS.

In 1972, when the original California SIP was submitted and approved by the EPA, the San Bernardino County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD) had jurisdiction over stationary sources within all of San Bernardino County, and the Riverside County Air Pollution Control District (RCAPCD) had jurisdiction over stationary sources within all of Riverside County. On July 16, 1975, the Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District (LACAPCD), Orange County Air Pollution Control District (OCAPCD), RCAPCD, and SBCAPCD were unified into the Southern California Air Pollution Control District (“SoCalAPCD”). On February 1, 1977, California split the SoCalAPCD into four agencies. The western coastal area became regulated by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the remaining eastern desert portions of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties were seperated back into air pollution control districts for each county ( i.e., LACAPCD, SBCAPCD, and RCAPCD). The original jurisdiction of the SCAQMD covered an area referred to as the “South Coast Air Basin” that included all of Orange County and the western non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. The jurisdiction of the LACAPCD, SBCAPCD, and RCAPCD extended over a portion of an air basin referred to as the “Southeast Desert Air Basin.”  5

The Southeast Desert Air Basin portion of Riverside County was added to the SCAQMD on December 1, 1977. Effective December 1, 1977, under state law, all SCAQMD Rules and Regulations became applicable within the Southeast Desert Air Basin portion of Riverside County. 6 In 1982, the applicability of SCAQMD rules that had been approved as part of the California SIP was extended to the Southeast Desert Air Basin portion of Riverside County. 7 On July 1, 1993, the SBCAPCD was re-formed as the MDAQMD with jurisdiction in the desert portion of San Bernardino County. On July 1, 1994, the Palo Verde Valley area in far eastern Riverside County (and that is a part of the Southeast Desert Air Basin portion of Riverside County) left the SCAQMD and joined the MDAQMD. 8 No changes to the District's boundaries have been made since 1994 and, as stated above, today the MDAQMD's jurisdiction is within the Mojave Desert Air Basin and consists of the desert portion of San Bernardino County and the Palo Verde Valley area in the far eastern portion of Riverside County.

An outgrowth of the complicated regulatory history of the MDAQMD is that the applicable portion of the California SIP for the area that the District regulates consists of a mixture of rules from current and former agencies. Rules that have been adopted by the MDAQMD apply “District-wide,” meaning to the desert portion of San Bernardino County and the Palo Verde Valley area in the far eastern portion of Riverside County, while SBCAPCD rules apply only in the San Bernardino County portion of the District; and rules adopted by the RCAPCD, SoCalAPCD, or the SCAQMD only apply in the Riverside County portion of the District.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted revisions to the MDAQMD portion of the California SIP, including MDAQMD rules and rescissions, to the EPA for approval on the following dates: September 23, 2022, 9 November 30, 2022, 10 May 11, 2023, 11 and January 10, 2024. 12 The purpose of these submissions is to align the SIP versions of the rules with the current versions in effect in the MDAQMD. 13 In the May 11, 2023 submission, the MDAQMD clarified that the package of amended rules and rescissions that were submitted includes the rescission of all the existing SIP rules comprising SCAQMD “Regulation VII—Emergencies,” as applicable in the Riverside County portion of the MDAQMD. 14 We have already taken action on some of the rules and rescissions included in these submissions, 15 and we are proposing action herein on a second set of rules and rescissions. The remaining rules and rescissions included in these submissions will be addressed in separate, future rulemakings.

The current rulemaking is summarized in the tables below. Table 1 of this document lists the rules that are covered by this proposed action and submitted for approval as part of the MDAQMD portion of the SIP, with the dates they were adopted by the MDAQMD and submitted to the EPA by CARB. Table 2 of this document lists the rules submitted for rescission from the MDAQMD portion of the SIP (excluding Regulation VII rules) that are covered by this proposed action, with the dates that they were adopted by the MDAQMD, the dates they were submitted by CARB, and the dates (and associated Federal Register citations) that the rules were previously approved by the EPA. Table 3 of this document lists the rules from Regulation VII submitted for rescission that are associated with the applicable SIP for the San Bernardino County portion of the MDAQMD portion of the California SIP, and Table 4 of this document lists the rules from Regulation VII submitted for rescission that are associated with the applicable SIP for the Riverside County portion of the MDAQMD portion of the California SIP.

The September 23, 2022, November 30, 2022, May 11, 2023, and January 10, 2024 SIP submissions were deemed complete by operation of law with respect to the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V on March 23, 2023, May 30, 2023, November 11, 2023, and July 10, 2024, respectively.

We approved an earlier version of MDAQMD Rule 701 as listed in Table 1 of this document that had been adopted by the MDAQMD's predecessor agency, the SBCAPCD. SBCAPCD Rule 701 was locally approved on September 26, 1977, and approved into the SIP on June 21, 1982. 16 If we finalize this rulemaking as proposed, then the SBCAPCD Rule 701 will be superseded in the applicable SIP by MDAQMD Rule 701. For the remaining rules listed in Table 1 of this document, MDAQMD Rules 464, 1102, and 1114, the EPA previously approved these versions into the SIP. These SIP rules are already federally enforceable District-wide because the EPA's approval occurred after the District's boundaries were finalized in 1994. As such, we propose no further action on MDAQMD Rules 464, 1102 and 1114 is needed at the present time.

Emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NO X ) contribute to the production of ground-level ozone, which harm human health and the environment. Emissions of PM, including PM equal to or less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM 2.5 ) and PM equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter (PM 10 ), contribute to effects that are harmful to human health and the environment, including premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease, decreased lung function, visibility impairment, and damage to vegetation and ecosystems.

CAA section 110(a)(2) requires states to submit regulations that control emissions of criteria air pollutants or their precursors, including VOCs, NO X , and PM, as part of the SIP. Over the years, MDAQMD's predecessor agency, the SBCAPCD, adopted many administrative and prohibitory rules to meet SIP requirements, including those that are the subject of this proposed action, for the San Bernardino County portion of the MDAQMD portion of the California SIP. The RCAPCD, SoCalAPCD, and SCAQMD did the same for the Riverside County portion of the MDAQMD portion of the California SIP. The purpose of the SIP submissions in this rulemaking is to align the SIP versions of the rules applicable in these areas with those that are currently in effect in the MDAQMD, the agency that currently has jurisdiction to regulate these areas.

The EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) have more information about these rules. We have prepared one TSD for MDAQMD Rule 701 and related Regulation VII rule rescissions and a second TSD for all the other MDAQMD rules and rule rescissions included in this rulemaking.

Under CAA section 110(l), SIP revisions must be adopted by the state, and the state must provide for reasonable public notice and hearing prior to adoption. 17 Emissions limitations in the SIP must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193). In approving new requirements into the SIP or removing existing requirements from the SIP, we consider whether these CAA requirements are met.

Generally, SIPs must require implementation of reasonably available control technology (RACT) for each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document as well as each major source of VOCs and NO X in ozone nonattainment areas classified as Moderate or above (see CAA section 182(b)(2) and 182(f)). A portion of the San Bernardino County portion of the MDAQMD is part of an ozone nonattainment area (referred to as “West Mojave Desert”) that is classified as “Severe” for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS. 18 SIPs must also implement reasonably available control measures (RACM), including RACT, in “Moderate” PM 2.5 /PM 10 nonattainment areas (see CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C)). The two PM 10 nonattainment areas in the District are classified as Moderate (the Trona planning area and the remaining portion of San Bernardino County regulated by the MDAQMD, excluding the Trona planning area). Prior to rescinding requirements from the SIP, we consider whether the rescission would cause CAA requirements such as these to no longer be met. However, in this rulemaking, we are not evaluating the adequacy of the SIP under CAA sections 172(c)(1), 182(b)(2), 182(f), or 189(a)(1)(C). Such evaluations are generally performed in the context of our review of broader attainment plan SIP submittals.

Guidance and policy documents that we used to evaluate enforceability, revision/relaxation, and rule stringency requirements for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:

The purpose of the submission of the MDAQMD rules and rescissions is to align the versions of the rules that are part of the SIP with the versions found in the current District rulebook. The rules that are the subject of this rulemaking can be organized into two categories. The first category includes rescissions of rules from the MDAQMD portion of the California SIP adopted by SBCAPCD, SoCalAPCD, or SCAQMD that can be replaced by the requirements in MDAQMD rules that we are either proposing to approve in this rulemaking or that we have previously approved. The second category includes rescissions of rules that were adopted by SBCAPCD, SoCalAPCD, or SCAQMD and that have been submitted for rescission without replacement by a corresponding MDAQMD rule. The following is a summary of our analysis. Our TSDs have more information on our analysis of the rules.

We are proposing to approve the rescission of SCAQMD Rule 405 from the Riverside County portion of the MDAQMD portion of the California SIP because it can be replaced by the requirements of MDAQMD Rule 405. The EPA previously approved MDAQMD Rule 405 in December 2024. 19 A comparison of the two rules shows that the requirements would be unchanged in the Riverside County portion of the MDAQMD except for equipment completed and put into service before July 1, 1976. However, any such equipment is not subject to SCAQMD Rule 405's emissions limitation because the equipment either has gas-fired combustion with minimal solid particulate emissions or is controlled by a baghouse and limited by MDAQMD Rule 404, “Particulate Matter Concentration,” or stack opacity limits. The EPA previously approved MDAQMD Rule 404 in December 2024. 20 Thus, the rescission of SCAQMD Rule 405 would not interfere with attainment and RFP or any other requirement of the Act for the purposes of CAA section 110(l).

We are proposing to approve the rescission of SCAQMD Rule 409 from the Riverside County portion of the MDAQMD portion of the California SIP because it can be replaced by MDAQMD Rule 409. The EPA previously approved MDAQMD Rule 409 in December 2024. 21 MDAQMD Rule 409 has the same emissions limit as SCAQMD Rule 409, and in the staff report for the rescission of SCAQMD Rule 409, the MDAQMD explained that MDAQMD Rule 409 applies more broadly because it does not include the internal combustion engine exclusion that exists in SCAQMD Rule 409. 22 Thus, the rescission of SCAQMD Rule 409 would not interfere with attainment and RFP or any other requirement of the Act for the purposes of CAA section 110(l).

In response to this request, we are proposing that no action is necessary to rescind SoCalAPCD Rule 464 and SCAQMD Rule 464 because these rules were rescinded from the Riverside County portion of the MDAQMD portion of the California SIP in previous actions. SoCalAPCD Rule 464 was replaced by SCAQMD Rule 464 in 1981 and SCAQMD Rule 464 was replaced by MDAQMD Rule 464 in 1995. 23 Further, the submitted version of MDAQMD Rule 464 is the same version the EPA has already approved into the SIP and no further action is needed to approve this rule for the MDAQMD portion of the California SIP. 24 However, in our 1981 and 1995 actions we did not revise the section of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that contains the California SIP to reflect these replacements. We are proposing to correct this error by amending the CFR to reflect our prior actions to rescind SoCalAPCD Rule 464 and SCAQMD Rule 464 from the MDAQMD portion of the California SIP.

The EPA is proposing approval of the rescission of SCAQMD Rule 1176 from the Riverside County portion of the MDAQMD portion of the California SIP because it has been replaced by MDAQMD Rule 464. As applicable to the MDAQMD portion of the California SIP, the EPA approved SCAQMD Rule 1176 in 1992. 25 In the January 10, 2024 SIP submittal, the MDAQMD explained that, while SCAQMD Rule 1176 is primarily applicable to the petroleum refinery industry, it can also be applied to other similar equipment in different source categories. 26 The MDAQMD also explained that the District has adopted Federal Negative Declarations certifying that the petroleum refinery industry is not present within its jurisdiction. 27 The MDAQMD concluded that the District is only required to have a RACT rule for such other similar equipment, that MDAQMD Rule 464 provides such regulation, and that rescission of SCAQMD Rule 1176 is warranted on that basis. 28

We agree with the MDAQMD's evaluation and conclusion, but we also note that the Riverside County portion of the MDAQMD is not subject to the RACT requirement because it is unclassifiable/attainment for all the NAAQS. As such, the rescission of SCAQMD Rule 1176 would not interfere with attainment and RFP or any other requirement of the Act for the purposes of CAA section 110(l).

The EPA is proposing to rescind SBCAPCD Rules 702-714 (see Table 3 of this proposed rulemaking) and SCAQMD Regulation VII Rules (see Table 4 of this proposed rulemaking) because they can be replaced by our proposed approval of MDAQMD Rule 701. These rules relate to contingency plans to address air pollution emergency episodes under CAA section 110(a)(2)(G). Currently, the emergency episode contingency plan requirements for MDAQMD are provided through SBCAPCD Regulation VII rules approved by the EPA in 1980 and 1982 for the San Bernardino County portion of the MDAQMD and SCAQMD Regulation VII rules approved by the EPA in 1978, 1981 and 1983 for the Riverside County portion of the MDAQMD. 29 The emergency episode contingency plan rules approved for the SBCAPCD and SCAQMD for the MDAQMD are supplemented by the EPA's emergency episode contingency plan FIP promulgated at 40 CFR 52.274(p).

On September 26, 2022, MDAQMD adopted amendments to Rule 701 that update and consolidate the emergency episode contingency plan rules that had been codified as SBCAPCD Regulation VII, Rules 701 through 714. 30 As such, the amended Rule 701 represents an improvement in the existing SIP and, thus, we are proposing approval of MDAQMD Rule 701 and rescission of SBCAPCD Rules 702-714 and SCAQMD Regulation VII Rules because the amended emergency episode contingency plan rule would strengthen the SIP if approved.

The SIP submission did not request that these rule revisions be used as a basis to remove the existing FIP related to emergency episode contingency plans applicable within the District. Nonetheless, the EPA compared the amended MDAQMD Rule 701 with the requirements in 40 CFR 51.152 and found that amended MDAQMD Rule 701 meets some of the applicable requirements but not all of them. Our TSD for MDAQMD Rule 701 includes recommendations for revisions to MDAQMD Rule 701 that could allow for the removal of the FIP in the future.

The EPA approved SBCAPCD Rules 466 and 467 in 1978. 31 In 1999, the EPA approved a request from MDAQMD to remove SBCAPCD Rules 466 and 467 from the SIP. 32 Thus, SBCAPCD Rules 466 and 467 are no longer a part of the San Bernardino County portion of the MDAQMD portion of the California SIP, and no further action is warranted in response to CARB's request for rescission of these two rules.

SCAQMD Rules 466, 466.1, and 467 became applicable to the Riverside County portion of the MDAQMD portion of the California SIP when they were approved by the EPA in 1987, 1982, and 1983, respectively. 33 SCAQMD Rules 466.1 and 467 apply to refineries and chemical plants, and SCAQMD Rule 466 applies more generally to “any pump or compressor handling reactive organic compounds.”  34 The MDAQMD provided a document  35 individually comparing SCAQMD Rules 466, 466.1, and 467 to SIP-approved MDAQMD Rules 446, 467, and 1102 that shows that the requirements in MDAQMD Rule 1102 are generally the same as or more stringent than those in the SCAQMD Rules and concluded that there is no need to retain SCAQMD Rules 466, 466.1, and 467 in the Riverside County portion of the MDAQMD portion of the California SIP. 36 The EPA agrees with this assessment and finds that the rescission of SCAQMD Rules 466, 466.1, and 467 would not interfere with attainment and RFP or any other requirement of the Act for the purposes of CAA section 110(l). We, therefore, are proposing approval of the rescission of SCAQMD Rules 446, 466.1, and 467 from the Riverside County portion of the MDAQMD portion of the California SIP.

SCAQMD Rule 1104 became applicable to the Riverside County portion of the MDAQMD portion of the California SIP when it was approved by the EPA in 1994. 37 A comparison between MDAQMD Rule 1114 and SCAQMD Rule 1104 reveals that SCAQMD Rule 1104 includes more stringent control requirements for some sources covered therein compared to the control requirements for those sources under MDAQMD Rule 1114. However, a comparison of SCAQMD Rule 1104 with the approved Federal Negative Declarations  38 for MDAQMD shows that there are no such sources in the MDAQMD. The remainder of the control requirements in SCAQMD Rule 1104 are comparable to, and less stringent than, the control requirements in MDAQMD 1114. The EPA also confirmed that there are no wood panel manufacturing facilities, as applicable to SCAQMD Rule 1104, in the Riverside County portion of the MDAQMD via Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes and CARB's facility search tool in CARB's California Emissions Inventory Data Analysis and Reporting System (CEIDARS) emissions database. 39 Thus, the rescission of SCAQMD Rule 1104 would not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment, reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the Act for the purposes of CAA section 110(l). Therefore, the EPA is proposing to approve the rescission of SCAQMD Rule 1104.

The MDAQMD indicates that SoCalAPCD Rule 432 and SBCAPCD Rule 432 are no longer needed in the MDAQMD portion of the California SIP because the specifications for gasoline contained in the rules have been superseded in the SIP by CARB's Reformulated Gasoline Regulation. 40 The EPA approved CARB's Reformulated Gasoline Regulation as part of the California SIP in 2010. 41 The EPA agrees that CARB's Reformulated Gasoline Regulation has superseded the specifications for gasoline in SoCalAPCD Rule 432 and SBCAPCD Rule 432 and that EPA's approval of CARB's Reformation Gasoline Regulation has eliminated any need to retain SoCalAPCD Rule 432 or SBCAPCD Rule 432 in the MDAQMD portion of the California SIP. As such, we find that the rescissions of SoCalAPCD Rule 432 and SBCAPCD Rule 432 would not interfere with attainment and RFP or any other requirement of the Act for the purposes of CAA section 110(l). Therefore, the EPA is proposing to approve the rescissions of SoCalAPCD Rule 432 and SBCAPCD Rule 432 from the Riverside County and San Bernardino County portions of the MDAQMD portion of the California SIP, respectively.

The MDAQMD states that there are no asphalt air blowing sources located within the San Bernardino County portion of the MDAQMD, and it also confirmed that there are no asphalt air blowing sources located within the Riverside County portion of the MDAQMD. 42 On that basis, the EPA finds that the rescissions of SBCAPCD Rule 470 and SoCalAPCD Rule 470 would not interfere with attainment and RFP or any other requirement of the Act for the purposes of CAA section 110(l). Therefore, the EPA is proposing to approve the rescissions of both SBCAPCD Rule 470 and SoCalAPCD Rule 470 from the San Bernardino County and Riverside County portions of the MDAQMD portion of the California SIP, respectively.

SBCAPCD Rule 480 applies in the San Bernardino County portion of the MDAQMD. The MDAQMD's staff report indicates that the SBCAPCD originally adopted Rule 480 allegedly to “reduce potential variance applications” in case of a natural gas shortage or curtailment. 43 In the staff report for SBCAPCD Rule 480, the MDAQMD notes that there are at least six natural gas-fired control devices within the MDAQMD, and of these, none has a Rule 480 plan on file. 44 In the case of a natural gas shortage or curtailment, facilities have certain options available to them, including seeking a variance, regardless of the existence or non-existence of a Rule 480 plan. The MDAQMD concludes that Rule 480 is thus unused, unnecessary, and duplicative of already existing permit conditions as well as the MDAQMD's Hearing Board variance process. 45

The EPA has reviewed and agrees with the MDAQMD's rationale for rescission of SBCAPCD Rule 480. The EPA also notes that Rule 480 does not relate to any requirement of the CAA or the EPA's implementing regulations or establish an emissions limitation or similar requirement and that rescission of the rule from the SIP would have no effect on emissions. Thus, rescission of the rule would not interfere with attainment and RFP or any other requirement of the Act for the purposes of CAA section 110(l). For these reasons, the EPA is proposing to approve the rescission of SBCAPCD Rule 480 from the San Bernardino County portion of the MDAQMD portion of the California SIP.

SCAQMD Rule 1101 became applicable to the Riverside County portion of the MDAQMD in 1981. 46 The EPA has reviewed the materials submitted by the MDAQMD to document the absence of secondary lead smelters within the MDAQMD and has confirmed the District's finding. Because there are no sources subject to the rule, the EPA finds that the rescission of SCAQMD Rule 1101 would not interfere with attainment and RFP or any other requirement of the Act for the purposes of CAA section 110(l) and is proposing to approve the rescission of SCAQMD Rule 1101 from the Riverside County portion of the MDAQMD portion of the California SIP.

SCAQMD Rule 1175 became applicable in the Riverside County portion of the MDAQMD in 1992. 47 The EPA has reviewed the materials submitted by the MDAQMD to document the absence of polymeric cellular foam products manufacturing sources within the MDAQMD and has confirmed the District's finding by using SIC code 3086 and CARB's CEIDARS emissions database. The EPA finds that the rescission of SCAQMD Rule 1175 would not interfere with attainment and RFP or any other requirement of the Act for the purposes of CAA section 110(l) and is proposing to approve the rescission of SCAQMD Rule 1175 from the Riverside County portion of the MDAQMD portion of the California SIP.

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the MDAQMD portion of the California SIP submitted by CARB on September 23, 2022, November 30, 2022, May 11, 2023, and January 10, 2024. More specifically, the EPA is proposing the following actions:

• The EPA is proposing to approve submitted MDAQMD Rule 701 because it would strengthen the SIP.

• The EPA is proposing to approve the following rule rescissions because the rescissions of the rules meet all relevant requirements: SCAQMD Rules 405, 409, 466, 466.1, 467, 1101, 1104, 1175, and 1176; SoCalAPCD Rules 432 and 470; and SBCAPCD Rules 432, 470 and 480; and all the SBCAPCD and SCAQMD Regulation VII rules listed in Tables 3 and 4 of this document.

• The EPA is proposing to take no action on the rescissions of SoCalAPCD Rule 464 and SCAQMD Rule 464, other than to add clarifying regulatory text, because they were previously replaced in the applicable SIP by approval of MDAQMD Rule 464. EPA also proposes to take no action on the rescissions of SBCAPCD Rules 466 and 467 because they were previously removed as part of the applicable SIP and regulatory text was previously added to document their removal.

If finalized as proposed, this action would incorporate MDAQMD Rule 701 into the SIP and would remove from the applicable SIP the rules that have been rescinded or superseded. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until October 14, 2025.

In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference MDAQMD Rule 701, which establishes certain procedures and requirements for air pollution emergencies. The EPA is also proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that deletes certain rules that were previously incorporated by reference from the applicable California SIP. The rules that were previously incorporated by reference are SCAQMD Rules 405, 409, 464, 466, 466.1, 467, 1101, 1104, 1175, and 1176; SoCalAPCD Rules 432, 464 and 470; and SBCAPCD Rules 432, 470 and 480 as listed in Table 2 of this document, and the air pollution emergency rules listed in Tables 3 and 4 of this document. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

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

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

The EPA sets the NAAQS for certain ambient air pollutants at levels required to protect human health and the environment. Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal ten micrometers, or PM 10 , is one of these ambient air pollutants for which the EPA has established health-based standards. On July 1, 1987, the EPA promulgated two primary standards for PM 10 : a 24-hour standard of 150 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m 3 ); and an annual PM 10 standard of 50 µg/m 3 . The EPA also promulgated secondary PM 10 standards that were identical to the primary standards. 52 FR 24634 (July 1, 1987). Because they are identical, we refer to the primary and secondary standards using the singular term, NAAQS. Effective December 18, 2006, the EPA revoked the annual PM 10 NAAQS but retained the 24-hour PM 10 NAAQS. 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006).

Effective July 2, 2012, the EPA designated a portion of state lands in Pinal County, Arizona, (“West Pinal”) as nonattainment for the 1987 p.m. 10 NAAQS. 1 West Pinal is located in central Arizona, southeast of the Phoenix metropolitan area and northwest of the city of Tucson. Pinal County covers 5,365 square miles and has two distinct western and eastern regions with different characteristics relevant to pollution formation. The West Pinal PM 10 nonattainment area is located within the western region.

As a result of this nonattainment designation, EPA initially classified West Pinal as a “Moderate” PM 10 nonattainment area. 2 Pursuant to CAA section 188(b)(2), the EPA later determined that the West Pinal nonattainment area had not attained the 1987 24-hour PM 10 NAAQS by the attainment date for the area, which resulted in the area's reclassification as a “Serious” PM 10 nonattainment area, effective July 24, 2020. 3

The Act's preconstruction permitting requirements for stationary sources, also called New Source Review (NSR), are found in title I of the Act and in the EPA's implementing regulations addressing the SIP requirements for state NSR programs at 40 CFR part 51, subpart I. The EPA's designation of West Pinal as a nonattainment area for the 1987 PM 10 NAAQS triggered the requirement for the ADEQ to develop and submit an NNSR program to the EPA for SIP approval for that nonattainment area pursuant to CAA sections 172(c)(5) and 173 and 40 CFR 51.160-51.165, which must satisfy the NNSR requirements applicable to PM 10 nonattainment areas.

Among other CAA requirements applicable to PM 10 nonattainment areas, section 189(e) of the Act requires that the control requirements for major stationary sources of direct PM 10 also apply to major stationary sources of PM 10 precursors, except where the EPA determines that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM 10 levels that exceed the standard in the area. The EPA's regulations implementing state NNSR program requirements likewise provide that the state NNSR program requirements at 40 CFR 51.165 that are applicable to major stationary sources and major modifications of PM 10 must also apply to major stationary sources and major modifications of PM 10 precursors, except where the EPA determines that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM 10 levels that exceed the PM 10 NAAQS in the area. 40 CFR 51.165(a)(10).

In November 2015, the EPA issued a final rule taking action on a comprehensive 2012 NSR SIP submittal from the ADEQ that constituted a major update to the ADEQ's NSR program (“2015 NSR action”). 80 FR 67319 (Nov. 2, 2015). The EPA determined that this SIP submittal met most NSR requirements and significantly strengthened ADEQ's NSR program. However, the EPA also identified deficiencies with various aspects of the SIP submittal, and therefore the EPA's 2015 NSR action was a limited approval and limited disapproval of the ADEQ's NNSR program for all areas within the ADEQ's jurisdiction, including but not limited to the West Pinal PM 10 nonattainment area, based on the program not meeting certain NNSR program requirements. 80 FR 67319, 67321, 67332.

The EPA's 2015 NSR action also included additional actions, including a separate limited approval of the ADEQ's NNSR program for PM 10 only with respect to the West Pinal PM 10 nonattainment area, based on the requirements of section 189(e) of the Act, without an accompanying limited disapproval. 80 FR 67319, 67332; see also 80 FR 14044, 14058, 14060 (Mar. 18, 2015) (proposed rulemaking for the 2015 NSR action). 4 The EPA explained the basis for this limited approval specific to the West Pinal PM 10 nonattainment area in its proposal for the 2015 NSR action.

In the proposal, the EPA observed that CAA section 189(e) requires that the ADEQ's NNSR program for PM 10 nonattainment areas apply to major stationary sources of PM 10 precursors unless the EPA determines that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM 10 levels, which exceed the standard in the area. The EPA noted that while the ADEQ's NSR SIP submittal generally included NNSR requirements for PM 10 nonattainment areas, such as the PM 10 significant emissions rate, the regulation of PM 10 condensable emissions, and the applicable emissions offset requirements, the submittal contained a number of deficiencies. The EPA explained that as a result of these deficiencies it was proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of the ADEQ's NNSR submittal.

More importantly for the purposes of this proposed action, the EPA explained that separate and aside from the issues identified in the EPA's proposed limited approval and limited approval of ADEQ's NNSR submittal, the EPA was not prepared at that time to grant full approval to the ADEQ's NSR SIP submittal as to the PM 10 NNSR program requirements specifically for the West Pinal nonattainment area in light of the requirements in CAA section 189(e). The EPA explained that the evaluation of which PM 10 precursors need to be controlled to achieve the PM 10 standard in a particular area is typically conducted in the context of the state's preparation and the EPA's review of an area's attainment plan. The EPA further explained that it did not have such a plan before it for West Pinal at that time and therefore did not have the state's precursor analysis, and that it could not fully approve, as complying with the CAA, a NNSR SIP submission that did not address PM 10 precursors. 80 FR 14044, 14058.

The EPA further noted in the proposal that while the ADEQ's submittal may not contain all of the elements necessary to satisfy the CAA NNSR requirements, the revisions to the ADEQ's NNSR program represented a considerable strengthening of the Arizona SIP, which, until that time, did not address NSR requirements for PM 10 at all. The EPA therefore proposed a limited approval of the PM 10 NNSR provisions in the ADEQ's NSR submittal as they apply to the West Pinal PM 10 nonattainment area, recognizing the need to address the requirements of CAA section 189(e). The EPA indicated that once the ADEQ submitted a new PM 10 attainment plan for the West Pinal PM 10 nonattainment area, the EPA would consider whether a limited disapproval should also be proposed based on CAA section 189(e). 80 FR 14044, 14058. The EPA received no comments on our proposed limited approval for the ADEQ's NNSR program for PM 10 for the West Pinal PM 10 nonattainment area based on CAA section 189(e), and we finalized this portion of our action as proposed. See 80 FR 67319, 67332 and n.29.

Following the 2015 NSR action, the ADEQ submitted, and the EPA acted on, a number of subsequent NSR SIP submittals, both to address the deficiencies that formed the bases for the EPA's limited disapproval of the ADEQ's NSR program in the 2015 NSR action and to make other updates to its NSR program. Among these actions, in a 2018 rulemaking, the EPA reviewed and approved revisions to the ADEQ's NNSR program into the Arizona SIP that were intended to address the deficiencies with the ADEQ's NNSR program that had been identified by the EPA in its 2015 limited disapproval of the ADEQ's NNSR rules. See 83 FR 19631 (May 4, 2018) (the “2018 Major NSR action”). The EPA determined in the 2018 Major NSR action that the ADEQ's revised NNSR rules addressed the deficiencies in the ADEQ's NNSR program under Part D of the CAA that had formed the basis for its limited disapproval of the NNSR program in the 2015 NSR action for PM 10 and other nonattainment pollutants. 5 The issue of whether PM 10 precursors must be regulated by the ADEQ under the NNSR program in the West Pinal PM 10 nonattainment area pursuant to CAA section 189(e) and 40 CFR 51.165(a)(10) was not a basis for the EPA's limited disapproval in its 2015 NSR action, and the ADEQ SIP submittal that the EPA acted on in the 2018 Major NSR action did not address this issue; therefore, the EPA did not address the issue as part of the 2018 Major NSR action. 6

On December 15, 2023, the ADEQ submitted the “2023 Five Percent Particulate Plan for PM-10 for the West Pinal County Nonattainment Area” (“2023 PM 10 Plan”) as a revision to the Arizona SIP. The ADEQ is the governor's designee for submitting official revisions of the Arizona SIP to the EPA. The EPA reviewed this December 2023 SIP submission for completeness, and we issued a letter dated June 14, 2024, in which it determined that the SIP revision met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. 7

The 2023 PM 10 Plan includes Chapter 3, an “Assessment of Air Quality Conditions,” which discusses PM 10 formation in the West Pinal PM 10 nonattainment area and summarizes the State's PM 10 precursor evaluation and determination that precursors do not contribute significantly to PM 10 levels that exceed the NAAQS in the West Pinal PM 10 nonattainment area. In addition, Chapter 9 of the 2023 PM 10 Plan, Appendix A, Exhibit 1, Attachment A, includes a “Weight of Evidence Demonstration that Particulate Matter Precursors Do Not Significantly Contribute to PM-10 Exceedances in the West Pinal County PM-10 Nonattainment Area.”

The information described above that is included in this plan submittal supplements the information contained in the 2012 NSR SIP submittal. It also provides a basis on which the EPA may now make the necessary determination, for purposes of the ADEQ's NNSR program for PM 10 , pursuant to CAA section 189(e) and 40 CFR 51.165(a)(10). The information allows the EPA to determine whether major stationary sources and major modifications of PM 10 precursors contribute significantly to PM 10 levels that exceed the PM 10 NAAQS in the West Pinal PM 10 nonattainment area, and therefore must be regulated as part of the PM 10 NNSR program for West Pinal.

This proposed action is focused on the EPA's determination concerning whether the ADEQ's NNSR program for PM 10 for the West Pinal PM 10 nonattainment area satisfies the requirements of section 189(e) and 40 CFR 51.165(a)(10).

Pursuant to CAA section 189(e) and 40 CFR 51.165(a)(10), for purposes of the ADEQ's NNSR program regulating PM 10 , the EPA analyzed whether major stationary sources and major modifications of PM 10 precursors contribute significantly to PM 10 levels that exceed the PM 10 NAAQS in the West Pinal PM 10 nonattainment area. An EPA determination that such sources and modifications do not contribute significantly means that the ADEQ's NNSR program for PM 10 for this nonattainment area is consistent with CAA section 189(e) and 40 CFR 51.165(a)(10) without regulating PM 10 precursors.

The State's submission provided three lines of evidence to support its conclusion that PM 10 precursors do not significantly contribute to PM 10 exceedances in the West Pinal PM 10 nonattainment area: (1) an evaluation of co-located PM 2.5 /PM 10 ratios and concentrations on PM 10 exceedance days in the nonattainment area, (2) a chemical characterization of coarse and fine fraction particulate matter in the nonattainment area on PM 10 exceedance days, and (3) photochemical modeling of the impact of the precursors on PM 2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment area.

In its analysis of monitoring data from co-located PM 2.5 and PM 10 monitors, the State examined the ratio of PM 2.5 to PM 10 concentrations on exceedance days from 2016 to 2020. Because secondarily formed PM is generally smaller, falling into the PM 2.5 category, where the ratio of PM 2.5 to PM 10 is low, this is generally indicative of wind-blown or other fugitive dust sources. The data in the submitted analysis show that most exceedance days correspond to low PM 2.5 to PM 10 ratios, and the State has provided plausible justifications for those days where the ratio is somewhat higher.

In its analysis of the chemical characterization of coarse and fine fraction PM, the State shows that the concentration of secondary inorganic particulate matter is low, suggesting that ammonia (NH 3 ), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), and oxides of nitrogen (NO X ) are unlikely to contribute to PM 10 exceedances. The State also analyzed organic aerosols in captured PM and compared these data to chemically analyzed soil samples, reaching the conclusion that most of the organic portion of PM 10 was due to primary emissions. The submitted analysis also suggests that precursor contributions may have dropped in the last fifteen years, as activities leading to emissions of precursors in the nonattainment area have decreased during that time.

In its analysis of photochemical modeling, the State estimated precursor pollutant contributions to PM 2.5 using the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAM X ) model. Anthropogenic emissions of NH 3 , NO X , SO 2 , and volatile organic compounds (VOC) from the 2017 National Emissions Inventory were reduced by 70 percent in the modeling to determine the sensitivity of PM 2.5 concentrations to these precursor emissions. The modeling results show reduction of 0.5 µg/m 3 or less when each precursor pollutant was reduced by 70 percent.

The EPA has evaluated the precursor demonstration submitted by the State and proposes to conclude that these lines of evidence, when taken together, sufficiently support the conclusion that precursor pollutants to PM 10 do not significantly contribute to PM 10 exceedances in the West Pinal PM 10 nonattainment area. Our Technical Support Document (TSD), which is included in the docket for this action, provides a more detailed discussion of our analysis supporting this determination.

As described in section III.A. of this document, the EPA is proposing to determine that major stationary sources and major modifications of PM 10 precursors do not contribute significantly to PM 10 levels that exceed the PM 10 NAAQS in the West Pinal PM 10 nonattainment area for purposes of the ADEQ's NNSR program, and therefore the ADEQ's NNSR program for PM 10 for the West Pinal PM 10 nonattainment area is consistent with CAA section 189(e) and 40 CFR 51.165(a)(10) without regulating PM 10 precursors.

As discussed in section I.C. of this document, the EPA has previously reviewed and fully approved the ADEQ's NNSR program for all pollutants, including PM 10 , in all areas within the ADEQ's jurisdiction, with the exception of the ADEQ's NNSR program for PM 10 in the West Pinal PM 10 nonattainment area, for which the EPA issued a limited approval in its 2015 NSR action specifically based on the need for the EPA to make a determination regarding the program's consistency with CAA section 189(e) and 40 CFR 51.165(a)(10) for this area. In these prior actions on the ADEQ's NSR SIP submittals, the EPA determined that the ADEQ's NNSR program for PM 10 met all relevant CAA requirements in all areas, other than the requirements of CAA section 189(e) and 40 CFR 51.165(a)(10) in the West Pinal PM 10 nonattainment area.

The EPA's determination in this action that the ADEQ's NNSR program for PM 10 for the West Pinal PM 10 nonattainment area is consistent with CAA section 189(e) and 40 CFR 51.165(a)(10) resolves the issue that led the EPA to issue a limited approval of the 2012 comprehensive NSR submittal for the ADEQ's NNSR program for PM 10 for the West Pinal PM 10 nonattainment area in our 2015 NSR action, which is the only remaining issue to be resolved from the 2012 submittal regarding the full approvability of the ADEQ's NNSR program for PM 10 in West Pinal. Therefore, the EPA is now proposing full approval of the ADEQ's NNSR program for PM 10 for the West Pinal PM 10 nonattainment area based specifically on our determination that the program is consistent with the requirements of CAA section 189(e) and 40 CFR 51.165(a)(10). If finalized, this proposed approval would address the only remaining element from the 2012 submittal that was not acted upon in the 2015 NSR action.

For the reasons discussed in this document, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to fully approve the ADEQ's NNSR program for PM 10 for the West Pinal PM 10 nonattainment area because we have determined that it fulfills the relevant CAA requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until October 14, 2025, and will consider those comments before taking final action.

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

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

On October 3, 2024, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted a SIP revision to the EPA from MCAQD requesting that the EPA approve MCAQD Rule 331—Solvent Cleaning (“Rule 331”), as revised on September 25, 2024 (“2024 SIP Submittal”). Additionally, the 2024 SIP Submittal requests that we rescind two sets of requirements from the SIP: MCAQD Rule 331, as revised on April 21, 2004, and paragraphs F, G, H, I, J, and K of Rule 34—Organic Solvents—Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) (“Rule 34”), as revised on June 23, 1980.

Table 1 lists the rule we are proposing for approval with the dates that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted to the EPA by the ADEQ. Table 2 lists the rules proposed to be rescinded from the SIP with the dates that they were adopted by the local air agency and approved into the SIP.

On April 3, 2025, the 2024 SIP Submittal was deemed by operation of law to be complete. We have reviewed the submittal to ensure it meets the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.

In 2016, the EPA reformatted the Arizona SIP as codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) into a tabulated “notebook” format. While developing the updated SIP tables for that conversion, the EPA worked closely with ADEQ and the local air agencies to clarify what was in their applicable SIP, including older provisions that had not been updated or replaced to reflect local rulemakings. On September 13, 2017, because of that coordination, the ADEQ submitted a SIP revision from MCAQD that requested to rescind or replace many obsolete rules in their federally enforceable SIP in favor of rules that reflect their current locally enforceable rulebook (“2017 SIP submittal”).

The 2017 SIP Submittal included requests related to Rule 34, MCAQD Rule 330—Volatile Organic Compounds (“Rule 330”), and Rule 331. The submittal requested that paragraphs F, G, H, I, J, and K of Rule 34  1 be replaced in the SIP by approval of Rule 330, as adopted on September 25, 2013. The submittal also requested that the EPA remove SIP-approved Rule 331  2 and replace it in the SIP with Rule 331, as revised on September 24, 2013. As clarified by MCAQD in the 2024 SIP Submittal, these requests have been superseded by the 2024 SIP Submittal. Although these requests have been superseded, this action is a part of this ongoing effort.

If we finalize this rulemaking as proposed, Rule 331, as revised on September 25, 2024, would replace Rule 34—paragraphs F, G, H, I, J, and K and Rule 331, as revised on April 21, 2004, in the Maricopa County portion of the Arizona SIP.

Under title I of the CAA, the EPA has established ambient air quality standards for six common air pollutants (“criteria pollutants”) known to be harmful to human health and the environment: carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), ozone, particulate matter (PM), and sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ). These standards are known as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit SIP requirements for the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. Rules 34 and Rule 331 regulate emissions of VOC from solvent cleaning operations, including metal degreasing. Emissions of VOC contribute to the production of ground-level ozone and PM. Cleaning solvents are used to remove contaminants such as adhesives, inks, paint, dirt, soil, oil, and grease from parts, products, tools, machinery, equipment, vessels, floors, walls, and other work production related work areas. These operations take place for a variety of reasons, including safety, operability, and to avoid product contamination.

Additionally, MCAQD submitted revised Rule 331 to meet CAA reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements. CAA sections 182(b)(2) and (f) require RACT for each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document as well as each major source of VOC or oxides of nitrogen (NO X ) in ozone nonattainment areas classified as “Moderate” or above. MCAQD regulates air quality in the Maricopa County portion of the Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainment area, which is classified as “Moderate” for the 2008 and 2015 8-hour ozone standards. 3 Rule 331 regulates categories of sources covered by CTG documents related to solvents. For the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, MCAQD relied on Rule 331, as revised on April 21, 2004, to meet RACT requirements for certain CTG categories. MCAQD revised Rule 331 to meet RACT requirements for the 2015 8-hour ozone standard. The EPA will evaluate Rule 331 for RACT purposes when we review MCAQD's evaluation in their RACT SIP for the 2015 8-hour ozone standard in a separate, future action.

MCAQD does not rely on Rule 34 to meet RACT requirements. MCAQD is requesting the rescission of the remaining portions of Rule 34  4 in the SIP as part of the ongoing effort to update the Maricopa County portion of the Arizona SIP.

A technical support documents (TSD) was prepared for each rule, Rule 34 and 331. The TSDs have more information about the rules.

Emissions limitations in the SIP must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)) and must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section 110(l)). Once a rule has been approved as part of a SIP, the rescission of that rule from the SIP constitutes a SIP revision. To approve such a revision, the change must comply with restrictions on relaxation of SIP measures under CAA sections 110(l) and 193. CAA section 193 requires control requirements in effect in nonattainment areas prior to November 15, 1990, to remain in effect unless the modification ensures equivalent or greater emissions reductions.

Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate enforceability and revision/relaxation requirements for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:

1.“Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11, 1990).

2. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).

Rule 331 establishes general work practices to minimize VOC emissions for all solvent cleaning machines and for the handling of cleaning solvents. For vapor and non-vapor cleaning machines, 5 operators must meet additional solvent specifications, work practices, control requirements, and/or design standards that limit VOC emissions based on the type of cleaning machine utilized. Operators can also choose to use an add-on emissions control system in lieu of the requirements for cleaning machines if it meets an overall capture and control efficiency of 85 percent. Additionally, using a “Low VOC Cleaner” can justify exemption from many requirements in the rule, especially for non-vapor cleaning machines.

Compared to the current SIP-approved version of Rule 331, the most significant change was to revise the definition of “Low VOC Cleaner” from 50 grams per liter (g/L) to 25 g/L. This encourages operators to switch to a lower emitting solvent to avoid the more substantive requirements in the rule. Other revisions improve the overall clarity and enforceability of the rule, such as providing clearer requirements for emissions control systems, adding a compliance schedule section, clarifying definitions, and clarifying monitoring, testing, and recordkeeping requirements.

Rule 331, as revised on September 25, 2024, would strengthen the SIP by establishing a more stringent emissions limitation for Low VOC Cleaners and by clarifying monitoring and recordkeeping provisions. This rule meets the relevant CAA requirements in section 110 and is consistent with relevant guidance regarding enforceability and SIP revisions.

Additionally, we are proposing that the requirements in Rule 331 can be used to replace Rule 34, paragraphs F, G, H, I, J, and K, in the SIP. The requirements in Rule 34 would be replaced with requirements in Rule 331 that are at least as stringent. For example, Rule 331 provides updated terminology, more stringent standards ( e.g., operational and equipment standards, and work practices) and clarity on monitoring and testing requirements.

Based on our evaluation, the replacement of Rule 34 with Rule 331, as revised on September 25, 2024, would not impact the overall stringency of the Arizona SIP and complies with CAA sections 110(l) and 193.

Our two TSDs have more information on our evaluations.

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to approve Rule 331, as revised on September 25, 2024, because it fulfills all relevant CAA requirements. It would replace the current version of Rule 331 in the SIP. The EPA also proposes to approve the requested rescission of Rule 34, sections F, G, H, I, J, and K, by replacing it with Rule 331, as revised on September 25, 2024, because it fulfills all relevant CAA requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until October 14, 2025. If we take final action to approve Rule 331, our final action will incorporate this rule into the federally enforceable SIP.

In this document, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference Maricopa County Air Quality District, Rule 331, Solvent Cleaning, revised September 25, 2024, which regulates emissions of VOC from solvent cleaning operations. In addition, the EPA is proposing to rescind Rule 34, sections F, G, H, I, J, and K, and replace it with the submitted Rule 331 in the MCAQD portion of the Arizona SIP, because the requested replacement fulfills all relevant requirements. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed 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 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 document proposes to take action on California's changes to its hazardous waste management program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended. We have published a final action authorizing these changes in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this action in the preamble to the final action.

If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will either publish a withdrawal notification promptly in the Federal Register informing the public that the final action will not take effect, or we will publish a notification 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, we would address all public comments and make a final decision on authorization in a subsequent final action.

We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information, please see the information provided in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

EPA has explained the reasons for this action in the preamble to the direct final rule. For additional information see the direct final rule published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this issue of the Federal Register .

EPA has explained the reasons for this action in the preamble to the direct final rule. For additional information, see the direct final rule published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this issue of the Federal Register .

EPA is issuing a proposed rule to delete one site from the NPL and requests public comments on this proposed action. EPA will accept comments on the proposal to delete the site for thirty (30) days after publication of this document in the Federal Register .

The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the NCP, which EPA created under section 105 of the CERCLA statute of 1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as those sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). As described in 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, a site deleted from the NPL remains eligible for Fund-financed remedial action if future conditions warrant such actions.

Section II. of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III. of this document discusses procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV. of this document discusses the site proposed for deletion and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria, including reference documents with the rationale and data principally relied upon by the EPA to determine that the Superfund response is complete.

The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have been met:

i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;

ii. All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or

iii. The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA conducts five-year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted from the NPL. EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available that indicates it is appropriate. As described in 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3), whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.

The following procedures apply to the deletion of the sites in this proposed rule:

(1) EPA consulted with the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico before developing this Notice of Intent for deletion.

(2) EPA has provided the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 30 working days for review of site deletion documents prior to publication of it today.

(3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, EPA has determined that no further response is appropriate.

(4) The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, through the PRDNER, has concurred with the proposed deletion action.

(5) Concurrently with the publication of this Notice of Intent for deletion in the Federal Register , a notice is being distributed to local elected officials and the surrounding community, via news releases, listservs, social media, and the site's web page. The notices announce the 30-day public comment period concerning the proposed action for deletion.

(6) EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for public inspection and copying at the Regional Records Center identified above.

If comments are received within the 30-day comment period on this document, EPA will evaluate and respond accordingly to the comments before making a final decision to delete the site. If necessary, EPA will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public comments received. After the public comment period, if EPA determines it is still appropriate to delete the site, EPA will publish a final Notice of Deletion in the Federal Register . Public notices, public submissions and copies of the Responsiveness Summary, if prepared, will be made available to interested parties and included in the site information repositories listed above.

Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.

The site to be deleted from the NPL, the location of the site, and docket number with information including reference documents with the rationale and data principally relied upon by the EPA to determine that the Superfund response is complete are specified in table 1. The NCP permits activities to occur at a deleted site, or that media or parcel of a partially deleted site, including operation and maintenance of the remedy, monitoring, and five-year reviews. These activities for the site are entered in table 1, if applicable, under Footnote such that: 1= site has continued operation and maintenance of the remedy; 2= site receives continued monitoring; and 3= site five-year reviews are conducted.

Table 2 includes information concerning whether the full site is proposed for deletion from the NPL or a description of the area, media or Operable Units (OUs) of the NPL site proposed for partial deletion from the NPL, and an email address to which public comments may be submitted if the commenter does not comment using https://www.regulations.gov.

EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Deletion from the NPL does not preclude further remedial action. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not affect responsible party liability in the unlikely event that future conditions warrant further actions.

The BLM is proposing to rescind the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule adopted on May 9, 2024, via 89 FR 40308, with an effective date of June 10, 2024, and codified in amendments to 43 CFR part 1600 and the newly created 43 CFR part 6100 (2024 Rule). The 2024 Rule established a “policy for the BLM to build and maintain the resilience of ecosystems on public lands in three primary ways: (1) protecting the most intact, functioning landscapes; (2) restoring degraded habitat and ecosystems; and (3) using science and data as the foundation for management decisions across all plans and programs.” (89 FR 40308).)

The BLM has determined, based on a review of the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, that the 2024 Rule is unnecessary and violates existing statutory requirements. Among other things, the 2024 Rule is unnecessary to facilitate, and even undermines, the BLM's management of the public lands under applicable law, including the direction in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) to manage public land under principles of multiple use and sustained yield, except where the land has been dedicated to a specific use by other provisions of law. The 2024 Rule constrains agency flexibility necessary to manage under such principles. Accordingly, we propose to rescind the 2024 Rule in full and seek comment on that proposal.

The 2024 Rule's leasing provisions threaten to upset the appropriate balance that the BLM must strike when managing public land under principles of multiple use and sustained yield. The BLM is charged by statute to regulate the “use, occupancy, and development” of public lands in accordance with the principles of “multiple use” and “sustained yield.” 43 U.S.C. 1732. 1 But the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule identifies conservation—a non-use—as a productive use for leases and permits. This is contrary to the BLM's mandate and statutory authority. Conservation is not a “use” under the statute. Under a more appropriate implementation of FLPMA's mandate, the BLM works to conserve resources, as appropriate, to ensure balanced resource use while also achieving and maintaining appropriate output of those resources, in all cases consistent with the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. It does so through its own affirmative land management work and in partnership with other entities, including other government agencies, but it does not follow that FLPMA's leasing authority may be used to that end.

As many commenters pointed out during the public comment process on the 2024 Rule, the restoration and mitigation leases for which the Rule provides may preclude other uses of the public lands, running contrary to the notion of multiple use. The Rule ultimately vests too much discretion in individual authorizing officers to preclude other, productive uses, such as grazing, mining, and energy development, as incompatible with the goals of the restoration or mitigation under the lease, potentially over large tracts of public land. In reviewing the need for the 2024 Rule, the BLM has determined that it has sufficient tools to manage the public lands without inviting third parties to seek land use authorizations for those types of activities traditionally performed by the Bureau. For example, Interior may withdraw land under 43 U.S.C. 1714, but only after following certain procedural requirements. The 2024 Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, to the contrary, permits the BLM to take effectively the same action under a different guise without following the statutorily required procedures. For these reasons, the BLM has determined it is appropriate to repeal the leasing provisions at 43 CFR 6102.4 and 6102.4.1.

Congress often permits agencies to set aside land and to prevent development for preservation purposes, such as when Congress designates a Wilderness Area or National Park. But when Congress does take such action, it says so explicitly. The Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, therefore, makes no sense in statutory context and is not supported by clear statutory authority. West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697 (2022).

The 2024 Rule also unlawfully and unnecessarily expanded the scope of the BLM's regulations governing the designation and management of areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs). ACEC designations (and nominations) can create conflicts with the use of BLM-managed land for recreation, grazing, development, and extractive uses. ACEC nominations often target public land that is subject to pending project applications, causing project delays even when the nominations are clearly without merit. In order to manage the public lands under principles of multiple use and sustained yield, the BLM must have the flexibility to protect resources while also allowing for productive use of the land, in all cases where appropriate. The 2024 Rule allows for temporary management of ACECs with hardly any of the procedures usually required to designate ACECs. This distorts the normal ACEC process. These temporary management areas not yet designated as ACECs interfere with productive use of the land without engaging in the planning process. Thus, the 2024 Rule denies opportunities for public participation to determine whether the ACEC designation is even warranted. Moreover, the 2024 Rule's heightened standard for de-designation of an existing ACEC puts an added and unnecessary burden on any effort to revisit the continuing need for protection in those places, including where a different use of the land would be both appropriate and productive. For these reasons, the BLM proposes to restore the ACEC regulations to the form they took prior to promulgation of the 2024 Rule. The BLM is also inviting public comment as to whether those legacy ACEC regulations should be restored verbatim, as is proposed, or revised to allow for more efficient and flexible management of ACECs as part of managing under principles of multiple use and sustained yield. It is the policy of the Secretary that ACEC regulations should be as flexible as possible to allow for productive uses of land consistent with FLPMA.

The 2024 Rule's land health regulations, meanwhile, include provisions that often require the BLM to act on a fixed or rapid timetable, interfering with previously authorized use of the public lands. These provisions hamstring the Bureau by displacing its usual processes to meet a deadline. The 2024 Rule therefore interferes with the Bureau's ability to reach the decision that best balances management of the public lands for multiple use and sustained yield. Because that action-forcing mechanism is the lynchpin of the land health provisions, the BLM is proposing to repeal 43 CFR subpart 6103, promulgated by the 2024 Rule.

The BLM has also determined that the balance of the regulations promulgated by the 2024 Rule across 43 CFR part 6100 add unnecessary burdens to BLM decision making and management of the public lands. Although they tend not to compel specific BLM action, they affect BLM processes by requiring that the BLM consider certain values ( e.g., “intact landscapes”) in planning or document a justification for implementation-level decisions that would have certain impacts. The BLM should, and already does, consider and account for the full range of issues and values when engaged in the planning process and for the impacts of the permitting and other implementation-level management decisions that it makes. To provide by rule for an additional requirement to do so, however, invites third-party challenge to BLM planning and permitting decisions, including many fruitless challenges designed to slow down the implementation of those decisions through litigation. For that reason, among others, the BLM is proposing to repeal those provisions.

Finally, the 2024 Rule and its economic analysis concluded that the rule was not anticipated to have wide-reaching impacts. The agency received 216,403 public comments, 152,673 of which the agency formally considered at final. Many of these comments, including those submitted by representatives of landowners, states, and municipalities, expressed concern that the 2024 Rule would have wide-ranging economic impacts that may have been materially underestimated in the analysis. In re-evaluating the 2024 Rule, the agency is taking a closer look at those public comments and believes that they may raise important questions about whether the economic impacts of the 2024 Rule were materially underestimated. The agency is therefore soliciting comment on the economic effects associated with both the 2024 Rule and this proposal to repeal that rule.

The BLM seeks comment on all of the above, as well as any other reasons to keep or rescind the 2024 Conservation and Landscape Health Rule. The BLM would appreciate comments on, among other things, the statutory authority for the 2024 Rule, the costs and benefits of the 2024 Rule, and the effect of the 2024 Rule on productive uses of land.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), whenever a Federal agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities ( i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). No regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Here, if adopted as proposed, this rule may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This proposed rule seeks comment on the rescission of the 2024 Conservation and Landscape Health Rule. When it promulgated the Conservation and Landscape Health rule in 2024, the BLM certified that it would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. That analysis identified the size standards defining small businesses in the many different industries that may be affected by the 2024 Rule, including beef cattle ranching, natural resource extraction, energy production, energy transmission, and environmental consulting and remediation services. Based on these size standards, the BLM concluded that there may be small businesses affected by the 2024 Rule. However, based on the information available, the BLM did not find evidence suggesting there would be a significant impact on these small businesses.

Because this proposed rule would rescind that 2024 Rule, it is expected that there may be impacts on small businesses but in the reverse. The size of the potential impact on these businesses is unknown at this time. Repeal of certain provisions of the 2024 Rule, such as the provisions related to restoration or mitigation leases and land health standards, may decrease restoration and mitigation activity on public lands. This may negatively impact small entities working in environmental consulting and remediation, or other land users. Conversely, the proposed rule may benefit small entities in grazing or extractive resource sectors if provisions of the 2024 Rule would have reduced their opportunities to operate on public lands.

The reasons for this deregulatory action are set out above, along with a succinct statement of the objectives and legal basis for the proposed rule. See 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(1)-(2). Further description of the number of small entities potentially impacted by this deregulatory action and the size of any impact is provided in the document titled, “Economic Analysis for Draft Rescission: Conservation and Landscape Health Rule,” which is part of the eRulemaking docket. As part of the public comment process and for its final regulatory flexibility analysis under 5 U.S.C. 604, if one is required, the BLM will undertake that estimate process in consultation with the Office of Advocacy.

The BLM considered two alternatives to the proposed rule. First, the BLM considered a partial repeal of the 2024 requirements that would repeal all sections except those related to restoration and mitigation leases (43 CFR 6102.4). Such a repeal was not selected because there are serious questions concerning the BLM's authority to maintain those provisions and because repeal of the leasing provisions is of particular policy concern. Second, the BLM considered phasing in the repeal of the 2024 Rule over time. This option was not selected because it would unnecessarily delay any benefits from this Proposed Rule.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) generally provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and not withstanding any other provision of law a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The information collection requirements contained in Part 6100 are approved by OMB under OMB Control Number 1004-0218 with a current expiration date of January 31, 2028.

The proposed rule would eliminate the following information collection requirements:

• Restoration and Mitigation Leasing/Restoration or Mitigation Development Plan—43 CFR 6102.4(a)(6) and (7);

• Restoration and Mitigation Leasing/Additional Information 43 CFR 6102.4(a)(8);

• Restoration and Mitigation Leasing/Monitoring Plan—43 CFR 6102.4(a)(9);

• Restoration and Mitigation Leasing/Annual Report—43 CFR 6102.4(a)(9);

• Termination and Suspension of Restoration and Mitigation Leases/written request to resume or suspended activity—43 CFR 6102.4.1(d)(3);

• Bonding for Restoration and Mitigation Leases—43 CFR 6102.4.2(a);

• Mitigation/Approval third parties as mitigation fund holders—43 CFR 6102.5.1(e); and

• Mitigation/Approval third parties as mitigation fund holders/Annual Fiscal Reports—43 CFR 6102.5.1(e).

Upon the publication of the final rule in the Federal Register , as applicable, the BLM will submit a request to OMB to discontinue OMB Control Number 1004-0218. The proposed rescission of these regulations, along with the information collection requirements contained therein and the discontinuance of OMB Control Number 1004-0218 would reduce public information collection burdens by 63 annual responses and 1,459 annual burden hours.

If you want to comment on the proposed rescission of the information-collection requirements that would result from this proposed rule, please send your comments and suggestions on this proposed action as previously described in the DATES and ADDRESSES sections.

The BLM intends to apply the Departmental Categorical Exclusion (CX) at 43 CFR 46.210(i) to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This CX covers policies, directives, regulations, and guidelines that are of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature or whose environmental effects are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis and will later be subject to the NEPA process, either collectively or case-by-case. Further, the proposed rule does not implicate any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215. The BLM plans to document the applicability of the CX concurrently with development of the final rule.

Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 requires agencies to submit “significant regulatory actions” to OIRA for review. OIRA has determined that this proposed regulatory action constitutes a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this action was submitted to OIRA for review under E.O. 12866.

BLM is required to conduct an economic analysis in accordance with section 6(a)(3)(B) of E.O. 12866. More can be found in the document titled, “ Economic Analysis for Draft Recission: Conservation and Landscape Health Rule,” which is part of the eRulemaking docket.

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

Under E.O. 13211, agencies are required to prepare and submit a Statement of Energy Effects to the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, for those matters identified as significant energy actions. This statement is to include a detailed statement of “any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use (including a shortfall in supply, price increases, and increased use of foreign supplies) should the proposal be implemented” and “reasonable alternatives to the action with adverse energy effects and the expected effects of such alternatives on energy supply, distribution, and use.”

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

This proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, is expected to not have a significant effect on the Nation's energy supply.

This action is taken pursuant to an existing delegation of authority.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Bureau of Land Management proposes to amend 43 CFR parts 1600 and 6100 as follows:

Section 820 of the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act modified statutory responsibilities of the Board, codified at 41 U.S.C. 1501(c). These changes require the Board to conform CAS to GAAP and minimize the burden on contractors while protecting the interests of the Government. On March 13, 2019, the Board published a staff discussion paper (SDP) (84 FR 9143). The SDP established a global roadmap to help guide its approach to conformance. The roadmap identified seven standards (404, 407, 408, 409, 411, 415, and 416) as most suitable for potential conformance to GAAP. Each of these standards focuses primarily on cost measurement and assignment of costs to accounting periods.

The Board noted that despite the difference in general focus between CAS and GAAP, there has been some convergence over the years as GAAP has evolved to address cost measurement and assignment of costs to accounting periods. Furthermore, the creation of the Financial Accounting Standards Boards (FASB) and the Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) as the recognized financial accounting and reporting standards for GAAP fosters increased uniformity and consistency. The FASB is recognized by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission as the designated accounting standard setter for public companies. FASB standards are recognized as authoritative by many other organizations, including State Boards of Accountancy and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). The Board has concluded that these developments create opportunities to modify or eliminate overlapping CAS requirements—many of which have remain unchanged for over 50 years—where GAAP standards under ASC may be applied reasonably as a substitute for CAS to support contract cost and pricing.

The March 2019 SDP also included the Board's initial assessment of CAS 408 and CAS 409 to conform them, where practicable, to GAAP. Based on the public comments from the SDP, and additional research conducted by the Board, the Board published an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) (89 FR 53575) on June 27, 2024. The ANPRM noted the Board's provisional conclusions that CAS 408 could be eliminated in its entirety and the vast majority of CAS 409 could also be eliminated.

On September 18, 2020, the Board published an SDP (85 FR 58399) to solicit views with respect to the Board's initial assessment of CAS 404 and CAS 411 to conform them, where practicable, to GAAP. Based on the public comments from the SDP, and additional Board research, the Board published an ANPRM (90 FR 5803) on January 17, 2025. The ANPRM noted the Board's provisional conclusions that the vast majority of CAS 404 could be eliminated and that CAS 411 could be eliminated in its entirety.

In regards to CAS 408 and CAS 411, the Board provisionally concluded that these standards in their entirety have become unnecessary to protect the Government's interests, which may be achieved through reliance on GAAP, existing requirements in other CAS Standards, and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).

In regards to CAS 404 and CAS 409, the Board provisionally concluded that nearly all of the content in these standards has become unnecessary to protect the Government's interests which may be achieved through reliance on GAAP, existing requirements in other CAS Standards and the FAR. Because of the limited amount of content identified for retention, the Board provisionally concluded that moving the retained requirements to another Standard rather than maintaining CAS 404 and CAS 409 with minimal content would best achieve the goal of streamlining CAS.

This NPRM reflects input from the public, as well as research conducted by the Board. Unique CAS requirements were assessed for their necessity in protecting the interests of the Government or if the existing requirements in other CAS Standards or requirements in other relevant regulations may protect the interests of the Government. This NPRM is issued by the Board in accordance with the requirements of 41 U.S.C. 1502.

CAS 404 was initially published February 27, 1973, at 38 FR 5318. It requires contractors, for the purposes of cost measurement, to establish and adhere to policies with respect to capitalization of the acquisition costs of tangible assets. CAS 404 also established criteria that the contractor's policies and procedures must satisfy. CAS 404 was modified in 1996 by the addition of CAS 404-50(d) to address issues relating to the treatment of gains or losses attributable to tangible capital assets subsequent to mergers or business combinations by government contractors, along with other relatively modest changes. With the exception of the 1996 additions, CAS 404 has remained static for over 50 years.

As noted in the ANPRM, the comparison of CAS 404 with pertinent GAAP content revealed significant overlap and equivalent requirements with the noted exception of CAS 404-50(d)., which protects the government from paying duplicative costs when government contractors merge or are acquired. Absent the requirements of CAS 404-50(d)(1) the government would be at risk if an asset was increased in value such that the combined depreciation recognized by the both the acquired company and the acquiring company for government contracts exceeds the historic cost for which the asset was originally purchased for use. For all other requirements in CAS 404 a comparable requirement exists in GAAP that would protect the Government's interests and promote uniformity and consistency. The Board has concluded that reliance on GAAP would materially achieve uniformity and consistency necessary for government contracting. Furthermore, other CAS requirements adequately protect the government's interests. The Board has concluded that the Government's interests are adequately protected by relying on disclosed GAAP practices that are consistently followed and subject to notice of changes and cost recovery as follows: (1) All contractors whether subject to full or modified CAS coverage are subject to CAS 401 and will continue to be required to consistently follow their disclosed or actual cost accounting practices; and (2) They will continue to be bound by the 9903.201-4 CAS contract clauses requiring disclosure and consistency in cost accounting practices regardless of whether a specific standard exists. These contract clauses implement the statutory requirements for disclosure of 41 U.S.C. 1502(f)(1) and protections from payment of increased costs as a result of changes to contractor's cost accounting practices provided by 41 U.S.C. 1502(f)(2).

In summary, the Board has concluded that CAS 404, with the exception of CAS 404-50(d)(1), has become unnecessary to protect the Government's interests, which may be achieved through reliance on GAAP and other CAS Standards. Therefore, the Board is proposing to eliminate CAS 404 and retain the requirements CAS 404-50(d)(1) by relocating them to a new paragraph 9904.406-50(g) instead of maintaining an entire Standard. The new paragraph 9904.406-50(g) will also include the retained requirements from CAS 409 discussed in Section IV. below. The Board seeks comment on such action in this NPRM.

This action would be consistent with the Board's guiding principles for conforming CAS to GAAP because it would eliminate CAS content to minimize the burden on contractors while protecting the interests of the Federal Government. Furthermore, the Board's conclusion on CAS 404 would align with the guiding principles to rely on coverage in GAAP when it would materially achieve uniformity and consistency in cost accounting without bias or prejudice to either party, rely on other CAS Standards which may protect the Government's interests, and eliminate CAS coverage no longer necessary.

The Board has not identified any instance where the elimination of CAS 404, as contemplated, would result in a change to a contractor's disclosed cost accounting practices for government contracts. With the noted exception of CAS 404-50(d), which is being retained, the current CAS requirements are nearly identical to GAAP. The Board expects that contractors would continue to follow their existing practices as they are both compliant with CAS and GAAP. As such, having identified no cost accounting practice changes as a result of this proposed rule any current or future changes related to capitalization of the acquisition costs of tangible assets would be considered unilateral as defined in 9903.201-6(b)(2). The Board is interested in comments on this determination and any instances requiring further consideration by the Board.

The Board received two sets of public comments to the ANPRM related to CAS 404 both coming from industry associations.

Comment: Both of the public respondents agreed with the Board's provisional conclusion to eliminate CAS 404. However, they also both would prefer CAS 404-50(d)(1) not be retained. In addition, if retained they believe CAS 418 is not an appropriate location as CAS 404-50(d)(1) does not address allocation of either direct or indirect costs and relates to measurement as asserted by the Board in the ANPRM.

Response: The Board continues to believe the CAS 404-50(d)(1) difference between CAS and GAAP may create an exposure of unknown materiality and place the Government at risk of paying twice for the same assets. The Board has concluded that the underlying issue relates to the measurement of costs and therefore should be addressed by the Board. However, the Board agrees with the commentors that the location should be adjusted and is proposing to retain the requirements in CAS 404-50(d)(1) but move them to a new section in new paragraph 9904.406-50(g). This proposed action would be consistent with the Board's guiding principles to eliminate content from CAS where GAAP, other CAS Standards or other relevant regulations may protect the interests of the Government. In addition, the Board concluded that moving the retained requirement to another Standard rather than maintaining CAS 404 with minimal content would best achieve the goal of streamlining CAS. The Board is seeking comments on such actions in this NPRM.

CAS 408 was initially published September 19, 1974, at 39 FR 33681. The stated purpose of the standard was to improve, and provide uniformity in, the measurement of costs of vacation, sick leave, holiday, and other compensated personal absence for a cost accounting period, and thereby increase the probability that the measured costs are allocated to the proper cost objectives.

The principal need for the promulgation of CAS 408, which has remained nearly unchanged for 50 years, no longer exists. GAAP has been revised significantly with additional content since the original promulgation of CAS 408. Comparison of CAS 408 with pertinent GAAP content revealed significant overlap and nearly completely equivalent requirements. For each requirement in CAS 408, the Board identified that a comparable requirement exists in GAAP that would protect the Government's interests and promote uniformity and consistency.

CAS 408 is nearly duplicative of GAAP. The Board identified only one difference between CAS and GAAP that required further consideration. GAAP requires accrual of accumulated rights in addition to vested rights in the year earned, unlike CAS which only requires the accrual of entitled ( i.e., vested) rights. The Board has concluded that reliance on GAAP would materially achieve the uniformity and consistency necessary for government contracting. Furthermore, as discussed in Section II above, CAS 401 and the 9903.201-4 CAS contract clauses adequately protect the Government's interests by protecting the Government from payment of increased costs as a result of changes to a contractor's accounting practices.

In summary, the Board has concluded that CAS 408 has become unnecessary to protect the Government's interests which may be achieved through reliance on GAAP and other CAS Standards. Therefore, the Board is issuing this proposed rule that would eliminate CAS 408 and seeks comment on such action in this NPRM. This action would be consistent with the Board's guiding principles for conforming CAS to GAAP because it would eliminate CAS content to minimize the burden on contractors while protecting the interests of the Government. Furthermore, the Board's provisional conclusion on CAS 408 would align with the guiding principles to rely on coverage in GAAP when it would materially achieve uniformity and consistency in cost accounting without bias or prejudice to either party, rely on other CAS Standards which may protect the Government's interests, and eliminate CAS coverage no longer necessary.

The Board recognizes that conformance to GAAP related to CAS 408 may result in accounting practices changes in some cases as GAAP allows assigning the costs to earlier cost accounting periods than CAS 408 currently permits. Because GAAP requires estimates and adjustments for forfeitures, the Board continues to believes these differences would only result in immaterial timing differences. As such, the Board seeks to eliminate the administration burden of the cost impact process and is proposing to exempt these changes from the required cost impact process by the addition of 9903.201-9(b).

The Board received five sets of comments from the public in response to the ANPRM. These comments came from companies, industry associations, professional associations, and individuals.

Comment: Four sets of comments generally agreed with the proposed changes and basis described by the Board in the ANPRM. However, one of those commentors believes the Board should focus more on recommendations of the Section 809 Panel instead of GAAP conformance efforts. The commentor asserted that the Panel's recommendations, such as raising the thresholds for CAS applicability, full CAS compliance, and disclosure requirements would be a more impactful way of reducing CAS administrative burden and promoting competition.

Response: The Board believes CAS-GAAP harmonization, which is statutorily required, and careful consideration of the section 809 Panel's recommendations are both deserving of prioritization, as reflected in the Board's agenda, which was recently published in the Federal Register at 90 FR 29048.

Comment: One commentor generally agreed with the Board's analysis and conclusions that requirements of GAAP and CAS 408 are nearly identical, but does not believe the Board should eliminate CAS standards. They believe the resultant administrative process for GAAP noncompliances identified by the Government would be significantly more complicated, less efficient, and not as equitable.

Response: As noted above and discussed in Section II above, CAS 401 and the 9903.201-4 CAS contract clauses adequately protect the Government's interests by protecting the Government from payment of increased costs as a result of changes to contractor's accounting practices. A contractor must follow their disclosed cost accounting practices and failure to do so would result in a noncompliance with their disclosed practices not GAAP. This would be consistent with the current administrative process for resolving a noncompliance with a disclosed practice. In addition, as noted in the guiding principles for CAS-GAAP conformance efforts (85 FRN 15857) the Board will continue to monitor future changes to GAAP and the FAR to identify and evaluate their impact to CAS and revise CAS, as necessary, through the rulemaking process. The Board will also monitor future significant disputes related to the elimination of any CAS requirements in conformance to GAAP, evaluate whether the Board should address them through clarifying guidance or the rulemaking process, and take action as necessary.

CAS 409 was initially published Jan. 29, 1975, at 40 FR 4259. The purpose of CAS 409 is to provide criteria and guidance for assigning costs of tangible capital assets to cost accounting periods and for allocating such costs in cost objectives within such periods in an objective and consistent manner. CAS 409 is based on the concept that depreciation costs identified with cost accounting periods and benefiting cost objectives within periods should be a reasonable measure of the expiration of service potential of the tangible assets subject to depreciation. The original preamble to the 1975 rulemaking also noted that depreciation cost was a significant issue at the time, and explained many contractors primarily relied on the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) to measure depreciation costs. The IRC contained accelerated depreciation methods for tax purposes, and the Board viewed this as inequitable and improper cost accounting because the methods did not match the depreciation expense over the useful life of the asset. GAAP now prohibits using the accelerated depreciation methods in the IRC for financial reporting purposes if the amounts do not fall within a reasonable range of the asset's useful life. Thus, one of the principal concerns for the promulgation of CAS 409 no longer exists. In addition, GAAP has added significant content since the initial promulgation of CAS 409, while CAS for the most part has not changed over the last 50 years.

As noted in the ANPRM, the comparison of CAS 409 with pertinent GAAP content revealed significant overlap and nearly completely equivalent requirements with the noted exceptions of CAS 409-50(e)(5), CAS 409-50(j)(1), and CAS 409-50(j)(4). For all other requirements in CAS 409 a comparable requirement exists in GAAP that would protect the Government's interests and promote uniformity and consistency. The Board has concluded that reliance on GAAP would materially achieve uniformity and consistency necessary for Government contracting. Furthermore, as discussed in detail in Section II above, CAS 401 and the 9903.201-4 CAS contract clauses adequately protect the Government's interests by protecting the Government from payment of increased costs as a result of changes to contractor's accounting practices.

In summary, the Board has concluded that CAS 409, with the exception of CAS 409-50(e)(5), CAS 409-50(j)(1), and CAS 409-50(j)(4) has become unnecessary to protect the Government's interests which may be achieved through reliance on GAAP, and other CAS Standards. CAS 409-50(e)(5) retains the current flexibility of the contracting parties to agree on the estimated service life of individual tangible capital assets where the unique purpose for which the equipment was acquired or other special circumstances warrant a shorter estimated service life. CAS 409-50(j)(1) ensure that gains and losses are properly measured and assigned consistent with the costs of the associated depreciation charged. CAS 409-50(j)(4) protects the government against shifting of gains and losses associated with the disposition of tangible capital assets transferred in other than an arms-length transaction that are subsequently disposed of within 12. Therefore, the Board is issuing this proposed rule that would eliminate CAS 409 and retain the requirements of CAS 409-50(e)(5), CAS 409-50(j)(1), and CAS 409-50(j)(4) by relocating them to a new paragraph 9904.406-50(g) instead of maintaining an entire Standard 409. The new paragraph 9904.406-50(g) will also include the retained requirement from CAS 404 discussed in Section II above. The Board seeks comment on such action in this NPRM.

This action would be consistent with the Board's guiding principles for conforming CAS to GAAP because it would eliminate CAS content to minimize the burden on contractors while protecting the interests of the Government. Furthermore, the Board's conclusion on CAS 409 would align with the guiding principles to rely on coverage in GAAP when it would materially achieve uniformity and consistency in cost accounting without bias or prejudice to either party, rely on GAAP, and other CAS Standards which may protect the Government's interests, and eliminate CAS coverage no longer necessary.

The Board has not identified any instance where the elimination of CAS 409, as proposed would result in a change to a contractor's disclosed cost accounting practices for government contracts. With the noted exceptions of CAS 409-50(e)(5), CAS 409-50(j)(1), and CAS 409-50(j)(4), which would be retained, the current CAS requirements are nearly identical to GAAP. The Board expects that contractors would continue to follow their existing practices as they are both compliant with CAS and GAAP. As such, having identified no cost accounting practice changes as a result of this proposed rule any current or future changes related to capitalization of the acquisition costs of tangible assets would be considered unilateral as defined in 9903.201-6(b)(2). The Board is interested in comments on this determination, and any instances requiring further consideration by the Board.

The Board received five sets of comments from the public in response to the ANPRM. These comments came from companies, industry associations, professional associations, and individuals.

Comment: Four sets of comments generally agreed with the proposed changes and basis described by the Board in the ANPRM. One commentor generally agreed with the Board's analysis and conclusions that requirements of GAAP and CAS 409 are nearly identical, but does not believe the Board should eliminate CAS standards. They believe the resultant administrative process for GAAP noncompliances identified by the Government would be significantly more complicated, less efficient, and not as equitable.

Response: This substance of this comment was already addressed above, in the discussions of CAS 408.

CAS 411 was initially published on May 5, 1975, at 40 FR 19425. The purpose of CAS 411 is to provide criteria for the accounting for acquisition costs of material, and provisions on the use of inventory costing methods. The majority of the CAS 411 standard has remained static since the initial promulgation. The standard, however, was corrected in 1992 (57 FR 34167) to make clear that it does not cover accounting for the acquisition costs of tangible capital assets nor the accountability for government-furnished materials.

The principal need for the promulgation of CAS 411 no longer exists. As noted in the ANPRM, GAAP has been revised significantly with additional content and changes in requirements since the original promulgation of CAS 411 that has resulted in a significant overlap and nearly completely equivalent requirements between GAAP and CAS.

For requirements in CAS 411, a comparable requirement exists in GAAP, other CAS Standards, and FAR 31.205-26 Material costs that would protect the Government's interests and promote uniformity and consistency. The Board has concluded that reliance on GAAP would materially achieve uniformity and consistency necessary for government contracting. Furthermore, as discussed in Section II above, CAS 401 and the 9903.201-4 CAS contract clauses adequately protect the Government's interests by protecting the Government from payment of increased costs as a result of changes to contractor's accounting practices.

In summary, the Board has concluded that CAS 411 has become unnecessary to protect the Government's interests which may be achieved through reliance on GAAP, other CAS Standards and FAR 31.205-26 Material costs. Therefore, the Board is considering a proposed rule that would eliminate CAS 411 in its entirety. The Board seeks comment on such action in this NPRM.

This action would be consistent with the Board's guiding principles for conforming CAS to GAAP because it would eliminate CAS content to minimize the burden on contractors while protecting the interests of the Government. Furthermore, the Board's conclusion on CAS 411 would align with the guiding principles to rely on coverage in GAAP when it would materially achieve uniformity and consistency in cost accounting without bias or prejudice to either party, rely on GAAP, and other CAS Standards which may protect the Government's interests, and eliminate CAS coverage no longer necessary.

The Board has not identified any instance where the elimination of CAS 411 would result in a change to a contractor's disclosed cost accounting practices for government contracts. The Board expects that contractors would continue to follow their existing practices as they are both compliant with CAS and GAAP. As such, having identified no cost accounting practice changes as a result of this proposed rule any current or future changes related to capitalization of the acquisition costs of tangible assets would be considered unilateral as defined in 9903.201-6(b)(2). The Board is interested in comments on this determination, and any instances requiring further consideration by the Board.

The Board received two sets of public comments to the ANPRM related to CAS 411 both coming from industry associations. Both of the public respondents generally agreed with the Board's analysis and provisional conclusion to eliminate CAS 411.

The proposed rule is deregulatory in furtherance of 41 U.S.C. 1501(c), which requires the Board ensure that the Cost Accounting Standards used by contractors rely, to the maximum extent practicable, on commercial standards and accounting practices and systems. In addition, 41 U.S.C. 1501(c) requires the Board to conform CAS requirements, where practicable, to GAAP. The proposed rule would eliminate four of the current 19 CAS and retain only the minimal content the Board has identified as needed to protect the Government's interest by moving it to another standard. This would remove 68 of the 72 combined individual requirements contained in these four standards. The proposed rule will result in removal of over 10,000 words of unnecessary regulatory text currently in place in these four standards. Reliance on a contractor's disclosed GAAP practices for CAS purposes significantly reduces the regulatory footprint associated with CAS and places reliance commercial accounting practices under GAAP consistent with 41 U.S.C. 1501(c). These change if finalized are expected to reduce burden for contractors, external auditors, government auditors, and oversight functions by reducing duplicative compliance requirements.

These changes individually and in conjunction with the Board's ongoing broader CAS-GAAP conformance efforts and modernization of the CAS programmatic requirements are expected to simplify CAS administration and reduce barriers to entry for non-traditional contractors including new mid-size entities who no longer qualify as small businesses. These actions should increase competition in federal contracting, as envisioned by the Senate Armed Services Committee in promoting CAS-GAAP conformance (S. Rept. 114-25 Section 811), “The committee is concerned that the current cost accounting standards favor incumbent defense contractors and limit competition by serving as a barrier to participation by non-traditional, small business, and commercial contractors. To level the competitive playing field to access new sources of innovation it is in the government's interest to adopt more commercial ways of contracting, accounting, and oversight.”

The Board is interested in comments on the expected impact of this rule, including any quantified estimates on the cost reductions and savings expected to be achieved by the proposed elimination of CAS 404, 408, 409, and 411.

CAS Board rules do not impact small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U.S.C. 601-612. Contracts and subcontracts with small business concerns are exempted from all CAS requirements.

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is anticipated to be deregulatory action under E.O. 14192 based on the discussion in the “Expected Impact of the Rule” section.

The Paperwork Reduction Act, Public Law 96-511, does not apply to this proposed rule because this rule imposes no paperwork burden on offerors, affected contractors and subcontractors, or members of the public which requires the approval of OMB under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy proposes to amend Chapter 99 of Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below: