The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B16 (604 Variant) airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on April 7, 2025 (90 FR 14929). The NPRM was prompted by AD CF-2024-31R1, dated December 17, 2024 (Transport Canada AD CF-2024-31R1) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada. The MCAI states that the FSOBR interfaces with the flap control unit Input/Output (I/O) signals and may result in the flap control unit monitors tripping, causing Flap Fail messages and possibly an uncommanded flap movement. This event combined with other flap system failures can lead to an uncommanded flap runaway. This condition, if not addressed, could lead to loss of control of the airplane.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require the disconnection of the FSOBR and prohibit future installation of this system. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-0483.

The FAA received comments from The Boeing Company (Boeing) and an anonymous commenter. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Boeing requested clarification on the state of the FSOBR unit. Boeing stated that paragraph (h) of the proposed AD conflicts with Bombardier Service Bulletin 650-27-005, dated May 20, 2024, because the service bulletin does not require the removal of FSOBR unit, part number (P/N) 604-70201-1.

The FAA notes that this AD does not require removal of an affected FSOBR from the airplane. Instead, paragraph (g) of this AD requires disconnection of the FSOBR, which is consistent with the service bulletin instructions and other service bulletins referenced in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD. In addition, paragraph (h) of this AD prohibits installation of an affected FSOBR or FSOBR harness on or after the effective date of this AD, and reconnection of an FSOBR if one was installed on the airplane before the effective date of this AD. No change to the AD is necessary in this regard.

The anonymous commenter requested that the FAA require all affected aircraft operators to submit documentation of completed FSOBR disconnect, and mandate an independent verification process to ensure compliance, with public reporting of results for transparency.

The FAA does not agree with the request. In certain cases, the FAA might determine that additional information ( i.e., data collection) is needed to understand the problem and develop appropriate mitigation for an unsafe condition. In this case, the unsafe condition was identified, and a corrective action was developed, without the need to require operator reports. However, an operator may still choose to send relevant information to the FAA. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

The anonymous commenter requested that the FAA collect and publicly release data on any post-AD incidents involving flap control systems on Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B16 (604 Variant) airplanes for at least five years, to track effectiveness and spot emerging risks.

Under the bilateral agreement between Canada and the U.S., Transport Canada and the FAA have established implementation procedures specifying that the certificating authority is required to collect and analyze any data, and notify the other foreign authority of all known unsafe conditions and any necessary corrective actions. In this case, Transport Canada is the certificating authority for Bombardier aircraft. The FAA notes that U.S. operators may also submit any incidents to the service difficulty reporting (SDR) system at sdrs.faa.gov, which is accessible to the public. No change to the AD is necessary in this regard.

The anonymous commenter requested that the FAA require manufacturers to conduct and publish root-cause analysis of FSOBR failures and collaborate with labor and consumer safety groups in designing future onboard systems to avoid similar risks.

The FAA does not agree. As discussed in the previous comment, Transport Canada will continue to collect and analyze reports regarding the FSOBR system. The FAA has not revised the AD in this regard.

The anonymous commenter requested the FAA ensure that warranty coverage, reimbursement, or federal funding is accessible to offset compliance costs and prevent a disproportionate economic burden on smaller businesses or regional carriers.

The FAA recognizes that this AD imposes certain operational costs on operators, and that operators have an obligation to maintain their airplanes in airworthy condition. However, the FAA does not mandate warranty coverage, reimbursement, or federal funding, and has not changed this AD in this regard.

The anonymous commenter requested that the FAA provide targeted support or flexibility for compliance timelines to operators serving rural, low-income, or remote communities, ensuring continued access to Essential Air Services.

The FAA does not agree. The compliance time for this AD was developed based on the recommendations of Transport Canada and the manufacturer, the urgency associated with the subject unsafe condition, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the required actions. The FAA has determined that the compliance time required by this AD will ensure an appropriate level of safety. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

The anonymous commenter requested that the FAA require only FAA-certified technicians to perform the FSOBR maintenance and disconnect procedures, with explicit whistleblower protections for reporting safety lapses or procedural shortcuts.

The FAA notes that FAA regulations require maintenance, preventative maintenance, and alterations be performed by certified personnel (14 CFR 43.3 and 43.17). Further, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 42121) prohibits discrimination against employees of the U.S. air carrier industry and U.S. manufacturers who report information related to air carrier safety. More information about the FAA AIR-21 Whistleblower Protection Program is available at https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/whistleblower. No change to the AD is necessary in this regard.

The anonymous commenter requested that the FAA solicit feedback from frontline aviation workers and labor unions on the effectiveness and challenges of the FSOBR removal process, especially regarding time and resource requirements.

The FAA notes that this AD requires a disconnect of the FSOBR harness, not removal of the FSOBR. The FAA also notes that it invites industry stakeholders to participate in the rulemaking process by providing notice of the proposed rule in the Federal Register . Before issuing the final rule, the FAA considers all comments received and determines whether air safety requires incorporating any requested changes or adopting the AD as proposed. No change to the AD is necessary in this regard.

The anonymous commenter requested that the FAA ensure continued close coordination with Transport Canada and other international regulators to harmonize safety standards and avoid creating regulatory loopholes that could undermine safety or equity.

The FAA notes that the FAA has bilateral agreements with international civil aviation authorities, including Transport Canada, to ensure aviation regulations are harmonized as much as practicable. No change to the AD is necessary in this regard.

The anonymous commenter requested that the FAA ensure that all FSOBR removal and disposal processes comply with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines for hazardous material handling and require environmentally safe disposal of all electronic components.

The FAA acknowledges the commenter's concern. However, the FAA notes that this AD requires disconnecting the FSOBR harness, not removal and disposal of the FSOBR or other electrical components. No change to the AD is necessary in this regard.

These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletins 650-27-005, 605-27-012, and 604-27-041, all dated May 20, 2024. This material specifies procedures to disconnect the FSOBR. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane serial numbers. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 442 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model MBB-BK 117 D-2 and MBB-BK 117 D-3 helicopters. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on June 18, 2025 (90 FR 25911). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2023-0175, dated October 5, 2023, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union (EASA AD 2023-0175) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states that there have been reports of airspeed and altitude indication errors. Subsequent investigation revealed that the ACS condenser outlets are in close proximity to the static ports, and air from the outlets affects the static ports during flight. The static ports and pitot tubes measure different pressures, which are then used to calculate airspeed, altitude, and vertical speed. Incorrect readings can then occur. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to reduced situational awareness, possibly resulting in a significant increase in crew workload.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require revising the existing RFMS for the helicopter, replacing the ACS condenser outlet grids with ACS condenser outlet covers, and prohibiting the installation of ACS condenser outlet grids.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-1106.

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

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed an exception that would not require a note from the referenced service material after replacing the left-hand or right-hand exhaust cowling assembly. However, the FAA has revised this AD to remove that exception because the note is merely a recommendation and does not mandate any action. Therefore, after replacing the left-hand or right-hand exhaust cowling assembly, operators are still required to perform all actions as specified in the required material.

These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2023-0175, which specifies procedures for amending the applicable RFMS by incorporating new altitude corrections if the helicopter has ACS condenser outlet grids, and not covers, installed. EASA AD 2023-0175 also specifies procedures for replacing the ACS condenser outlet grid part number (P/N) D211M1821302 or P/N D211M1822302 with ACS condenser outlet cover P/N D211M1821402 or P/N D211M1822402 and prohibits installing ACS condenser outlet grids on any helicopter. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The MCAI applies to Model MBB-BK117 D-2m and MBB-BK117 D-3m helicopters, whereas this AD does not because those models do not have an FAA type certificate.

The MCAI requires operators to “inform all flight crews” of the revisions to the RFMS, and thereafter to “operate the helicopter accordingly.” However, this AD does not require those actions as those actions are already required by FAA regulations. FAA regulations require operators furnish to pilots any changes to the rotorcraft flight manual (RFM) (for example, 14 CFR 135.21) and that pilots are familiar with the RFM (for example, 14 CFR 91.505). As with any other flight crew training requirement, training on the updated RFM content is tracked by the operators and recorded in each pilot's training record, which is available for the FAA to review. FAA regulations also require pilots to follow the procedures in the existing RFM including all updates. Section 91.9 requires that any person operating a civil aircraft must comply with the operating limitations specified in the RFM. Therefore, including a requirement in this AD to operate the helicopter according to the revised RFM would be redundant and unnecessary.

The MCAI does not have any flight restrictions, whereas this AD requires a revision to the RFMS restricting helicopters to operation under visual flight rules (VFR) until the helicopter is modified with ACS condenser outlet covers.

The MCAI specifies amending the applicable RFMS, whereas this AD specifically requires amending the Limitations Section of the applicable RFMS.

The FAA considers that this AD is an interim action. The manufacturer is currently developing a modification that will address the unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once this modification is developed, approved, and available, the FAA might consider further rulemaking.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 71 helicopters of U.S. registry. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD.

Replacing the ACS condenser outlet grids takes 20 work-hours and parts cost $970, for an estimated cost of $2,670 per helicopter and $189,570 for the U.S. fleet. Revising the existing RFM for the helicopter takes 1 work-hour for an estimated cost of $85 per helicopter and $6,035 for the U.S. fleet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2025-0372 in the Federal Register (90 FR 11140; March 4, 2025), to amend Colored Federal Airway Green 8 (G-8), Jet Route J-115, and United States Area Navigation (RNAV) Route T-227 and establish RNAV Route Q-188 in Alaska. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. One comment in support of this action was received.

Colored Federal Airways are published in paragraph 6009, Jet Routes are published in paragraph 2004, and United States Area Navigation Routes are published in paragraph 6011 and paragraph 2006 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11K, dated August 4, 2025, and effective September 15, 2025. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11K which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by modifying Colored Federal Airway Green 8 (G-8), Jet Route J-115, and RNAV Route T-227, and establishing RNAV Route Q-188 in Alaska. The FAA is proposing this action due to the pending decommissioning of the Shemya, AK, NDB.

G-8: Prior to this final rule, G-8 extended between the Shemya, AK, NDB and the Kachemak, AK, NDB. This action revokes the segment of G-8 that extends between the Shemya NDB and the Mount Moffet, AK, NDB. As amended, G-8 would extend between the Mount Moffet NDB and the Kachemak NDB.

J-115: Prior to this final rule, J-115 extended between the Shemya, AK, NDB and the Deadhorse, AK, VOR/DME. The action revokes the segment of J-115 that extends between the Shemya NDB and the Mount Moffet, AK, NDB. As amended, J-115 extends between the Mount Moffet, AK, NDB and the Deadhorse VOR/DME.

T-227: Prior to this final rule, T-227 extended between the Shemya, AK, VOR/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) and the Deadhorse, AK, VOR/DME. This action amends RNAV Route T-227 by adding the DEJJE, AK, WP to the route. As amended, T-227 extends between the Shemya VORTAC and the Deadhorse VOR/DME.

Q-188: This action establishes RNAV Route Q-188. As established, Q-188 extends between the Shemya, AK, VORTAC and the Mount Moffet, AK, NDB.

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

The FAA has determined that this action amendment of Colored Federal Airway Green 8, Jet Route J-115, RNAV Route T-227 and establishment of RNAV Route Q-188 qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq. ) and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1G, FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures, paragraph B-2.5(a) which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points); and paragraph B-2.5(k), which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review the publication of existing air traffic control procedures that do not essentially change existing tracks, create new tracks, change altitude, or change concentration of aircraft on these tracks. As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

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

The Lehigh Valley Drawbridge across Newark Bay, between the City of Newark and City of Bayonne, NJ, mile 4.6, owned and operated by Conrail, has a vertical clearance of 35 feet above mean high water when closed and 135 feet above mean high water when open.

The operating schedule of the Lehigh Valley Drawbridge is published in 33 CFR 117.735 and will not change with the implementation of the temporary deviation allowing remote operation of the bridge.

Conrail has requested this test deviation to improve the efficiency of bridge openings. Currently the on-site bridge operator must consult with the Conrail train dispatcher in Mount Laurel, NJ, to obtain authorization to open the Lehigh Valley Drawbridge. Remote operations will facilitate direct communication between the mariner and the Conrail train dispatcher, who has much better situational awareness of the multimodal transportation picture.

This deviation will also allow the Arthur Kill Railroad Bridge and Hack Freight Railroad Bridge to be remotely operated from the Conrail North Jersey Dispatch Center in Mount Laurel, NJ, instead of being operated by the bridge tender at the Lehigh Valley Drawbridge. The operating schedules for the Arthur Kill Railroad Bridge and Hack Freight Railroad Bridge are published in 33 CFR 117.702 and 33 CFR 117.723, respectively. These regulations already authorize both bridges to be remotely operated, and their schedules will not change as a result of the implementation of remote operation of the Lehigh Valley Drawbridge.

There are 28 daily train transits that cross the Lehigh Valley Drawbridge and a daily average of four bridge openings for vessel transits. The bridge is normally maintained in the closed position due to the average daily number of trains crossing the bridge. Newark Bay is a major commercial waterway containing multiple waterfront facilities. However, most of these facilities are well south (downstream) of the Lehigh Valley Lift Bridge.

Conrail has requested to operate this bridge remotely from their railroad terminal from their Conrail North Jersey Dispatch Center, in Mount Laurel, NJ. Conrail has incorporated sensors and other technologies into the bridge to allow for the safe and efficient remote operation of the bridge. The remote operations system includes eight camera views (four marine and four rail), marine radar, sonar, automated integration system (AIS) sensors, integration software, a dedicated phone line for bridge operations, radiotelephone on VHF-FM channels 13 and 16, and an AIS transmitter to provide bridge status (LEHIGH VALLEY BRG—OPEN, LEHIGH VALLEY BRG—CLOSED, and LEHIGH VALLEY BRG—INOP). The AIS transmitter will transmit the bridge status every two minutes and upon a change in bridge status.

The remote operation system is designed to provide equal or greater capabilities compared to the on-site bridge tender in visibility of the waterway and bridge, and in signals (communications) via sound and visual signals and radio telephone (voice) via VHF-FM channels 13 and 16. The remote operation system also incorporates real-time bridge status via AIS signal to aid mariners in voyage planning and navigational decision making, a dedicated telephone line (856) 231-2301 for bridge operations, and push-to-talk (PTT) capability on VHF-FM channels 13 and 16. Vessels may push the PTT button five times while on VHF-FM channel 13 and the bridge operator will receive and respond to the request and commence opening of the bridge.

The remote operation system will be considered failed and qualified personnel will return and operate the Lehigh Valley Drawbridge, Arthur Kill Railroad Bridge, Hack Freight Railroad Bridge within 60 minutes, if any of the following conditions are found: (1) The remote operation system becomes incapable of safely and effectively operating the bridge from the remote operation center, (2) visibility of the waterway or bridge is degraded to less than equal that of an on-site bridge tender (all eight camera views are required), (3) signals (communications) via sound or visual signals or radio telephone (voice) via VHF-FM channels 13 or 16 become inoperative, or (4) AIS becomes inoperative.

The test deviation will commence at 8 a.m. on January 16, 2026, and conclude at 7:59 a.m. on July 14, 2026. During the test deviation, a bridge tender will be stationed on-site at the bridge and will be able to immediately take local control of the bridge, as required.

Vessels that require an opening shall continue to request an opening via the methods (sound or visual signals or radio telephone (VHF-FM) voice communications) as defined in 33 CFR 117.15(b) through (d), via telephone at (856) 231-2301, or push-to-talk (PTT) on VHF-FM channel 13. During the test deviation, if the North Jersey Dispatch Center does not respond to a vessel's request, or is unable to operate the bridge, the bridge tender at the bridge will take immediate action to respond to the vessel's request for a bridge opening and commence opening of the bridge in accordance with 33 CFR 177.735.

Conrail has conducted significant coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard, Port of New York and New Jersey Harbor Safety, Navigation, and Operations Committee, and other maritime stakeholders regarding remote operation of the Lehigh Valley Drawbridge and its plan to perform this test deviation.

The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

This test deviation will run simultaneously with a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, under the same name and docket number. Both documents can be found at https://www.regulations.gov and comments can be made to either document.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

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 at https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2025-0805 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 your material cannot be submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

View material in the docket. To view documents mentioned in this deviation 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 go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted, or a final rule is published of any posting or updates to the docket.

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 in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone regulation for a fireworks display at The Wharf DC from 7 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on December 6, 2025. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for recurring safety zones for fireworks displays within the USCG East District, 33 CFR 165.506, specifies the location of the safety zone for the fireworks show, which encompasses portions of the Washington Channel in the Upper Potomac River, in line 1 of Table 2 to Paragraph (h)(2). As reflected in 33 CFR 165.23, vessels in the vicinity of the safety zone may not enter, remain in, or transit through the safety zone during the enforcement period unless authorized to do so by the COTP or his representative, and they must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.

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

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

On July 28, 2025 (90 FR 35491), EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of Rhode Island. The NPRM proposed approval of amendments to Rhode Island's I/M Program. The formal SIP revision was submitted by Rhode Island on December 20, 2023. The rationale for EPA's proposed action is explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here. Two public comments were received on the NPRM.

EPA received two comments during the comment period, which are available in the docket of this rulemaking. One comment supports EPA's proposed action. The other comment recognizes that Rhode Island's SIP revision focuses on “improving test procedures and administrative alignment,” but urges EPA to consider encouraging states to incorporate carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) monitoring into their I/M programs, making Rhode Island's aggregated I/M data publicly available for the purpose of supporting state and regional planning for greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions, aligning I/M programs with GHG reduction targets, and “integrating CO 2 into I/M program design and evaluation.”

First, to the extent the comment urges broad changes to motor vehicle I/M program requirements, it is outside the scope of EPA's proposed action here, which evaluated revisions to Rhode Island's program only. Second, the comment does not provide any statutory or regulatory support for its positions, and it does not assert that the CAA requires EPA to disapprove an I/M program SIP revision that does not include the suggested program components or considerations.

EPA reviews a state's submittal for compliance with CAA requirements, and EPA is required to approve a SIP revision that complies with those requirements. CAA § 110(k)(3); 40 CFR 52.02(a). This EPA action concerns Rhode Island's I/M program SIP revision submitted in accordance with CAA § 182 and EPA's I/M regulations at 40 CFR part 51, subpart S. Under the CAA, Rhode Island is required to implement an enhanced I/M program that addresses hydrocarbon (or VOC) emissions and NO X emissions. CAA § 182(c)(3). There is no legal requirement for Rhode Island to address CO 2 emissions in its I/M SIP revision. As EPA explained in the NPRM, the revisions to Rhode Island's I/M regulation are consistent with the CAA's I/M requirements and EPA's I/M regulations, are administrative in nature, and will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS or with any other applicable requirement of the CAA. The comment does not disagree with these assertions. Accordingly, EPA is finalizing the action as proposed.

EPA is approving Rhode Island's December 20, 2023, SIP submittal containing the revised motor vehicle I/M program as a revision to the Rhode Island SIP.

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Rhode Island's Air Pollution Control Regulation (APCR) No. 34—Rhode Island Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 1 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation. 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 20, 2026. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

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

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

Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, each state is required to submit a SIP that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a revised primary or secondary NAAQS or standard. CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) requires each state to make a new SIP submission within three years after EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS for approval into the existing federally approved SIP to assure that the SIP meets the applicable requirements for new and revised NAAQS.

On July 16, 2025 EPA proposed to approve all elements of a SIP submission from the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) submitted on October 1, 2018 except for those previously approved in 87 FR 21578. We proposed approval for the following CAA section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L) and (M). Concurrently, EPA also proposed to approve revisions to appendix W submitted on December 28, 2022. An explanation of the CAA requirements, detailed analysis of the revisions, and EPA's reasons for proposing approval were provided in the proposed rulemaking (90 FR 31911).

During the public comment period of EPA's July 16, 2025, proposed rulemaking, EPA received one anonymous comment in support of our action and one anonymous adverse comment. A summary of the comments and EPA's response are provided below.

Comment: The commentor urged EPA to consider the role of CO 2 emissions and climate change in ozone formation when reviewing the Montana infrastructure SIP for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The commentor stated that climate-change driven factors such as increased temperatures, biogenic emissions, and wildfire activity is projected to influence both the frequency and severity of ozone exceedances and suggested that infrastructure SIPs should acknowledge the long-term planning risks associated with climate-driven ozone trends.

Response: EPA appreciates the commenter's concern regarding the influence of CO 2 emissions and climate change on ozone formation and air quality. However, the scope of this action is limited to determining whether Montana's SIP meets the infrastructure requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. These requirements address the basic structural elements of a state's air quality management program. EPA's review of Montana's SIP submission is limited to the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for infrastructure SIPs related to the 2015 ozone NAAQS, which the submission satisfies. Therefore, the considerations raised by the commentor are outside the scope of this rulemaking.

Comment: The commentor supported EPA's proposal to approve Montana's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, noting that Montana has met the CAA's structural requirements. The commentor encouraged EPA and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality to ensure strong public education, transparency, and community outreach efforts.

Response: EPA appreciates the commentor's support for this action. The scope of this action is limited to evaluating whether Montana's SIP submission meets the infrastructure requirements of the CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS. EPA has determined that Montana's SIP submission satisfies the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for this action.

EPA is approving the infrastructure SIP elements listed in table 1 below. These elements were included in a SIP submission from Montana certifying that its current SIP is sufficient to meet the required elements under section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Additionally, EPA is approving the revisions to appendix W submitted by the State of Montana on December 28, 2022.

In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of appendix W revisions submitted by the State of Montana as discussed in the previously mentioned proposed rulemaking that can be found in the Federal Register at 90 FR 31911. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 8 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 CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 20, 2026. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency is amending 40 CFR part 52 as follows:

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

The background for this action is discussed in detail in our August 7, 2025, proposal (90 FR 38088). In that document we proposed to approve state-initiated revisions to the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission's Regulation Number 11, “Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program” (hereafter, “Regulation No. 11”) as a revision to the Colorado SIP. Colorado submitted these changes to state regulation to the EPA as a SIP revision on May 16, 2022. The Colorado I/M program is maintained by the State and periodically revised for compliance with the applicable program requirements for SIPs under CAA sections 182(a)(2)(B), 182(b)(4), and 182(c)(3) and the EPA's regulations under 40 CFR part 51, subpart S for certain nonattainment areas for the 2008 and 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).

In the EPA's August 7, 2025, proposed rule to approve Colorado's SIP revision, we detailed the various changes to Regulation No. 11 and the resultant effects on the state's I/M program. Proposed approval of Colorado SIP revisions was limited to changes to Regulation No. 11, Part A, Part B, Part C, and Part D, and did not consider any revisions to state regulation which were submitted as “state-only” strengthening provisions that did not inhibit effectiveness of the I/M program. The EPA's proposed approval documented our evaluation of the substantive changes to the Colorado I/M program and found all revisions submitted for federal approval to have no negative impact on emission reduction benefits provided by the I/M program and to be consistent with applicable CAA requirements. 1 No comments were received on the proposed approval of the Colorado SIP revision, adverse or otherwise.

The EPA is approving the changes to Colorado's Regulation 11. Specifically, we are finalizing approval of Colorado SIP revisions submitted to the EPA on May 16, 2022, amending Regulation No. 11, Part A, sections I, II, IV, and V, Part B, section XI, Part C, sections II, III, VIII, XI, and XII, and Part D, sections I, II, and III.

In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission regulations found in the Code of Colorado Regulations (CCR) at 5 CCR 1001-13 as described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation. 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requires that the SIP include a program to provide for the regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to ensure that National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are achieved. This includes a program for permitting construction and modification of both major sources and minor sources that the State deems necessary to protect air quality. Specific elements for an approvable construction permitting plan are found in the implementing regulations at 40 CFR 51 subpart I—Review of New Sources and Modifications. Requirements relevant to minor construction programs are 40 CFR 51.160-51.164. Generally, State minor NSR programs must set forth legally enforceable procedures that allow the State to determine if a planned construction activity would result in a violation of the State's SIP or a national standard and prevent any activity that would do so. In accordance with 40 CFR 51.162, the State plan must identify the responsible agency for making permitting decisions. Under 40 CFR 51.160, the plan must identify the types and sizes of activities that are subject to the plan, including a discussion of the basis for determining which facilities will be subject to review, provide that sources undertaking an activity submit adequate information regarding the location, design, and emissions related information, and discuss the air quality data and dispersion or other air quality modeling used to determine whether the activity would comply with the CAA. Restrictions on allowable stack heights are found in 40 CFR 51.164. Under 40 CFR 51.161, the plan must meet specific criteria for public availability of information and opportunity for public comment. Finally, 40 CFR 51.163 requires that the plan identify the administrative procedures that will be followed in making permitting decisions.

Michigan's minor source preconstruction permitting rules are contained in Part 2 of the Michigan Administrative Code, which EPA last approved into the Michigan SIP on April 27, 2023 (88 FR 25498). See 40 CFR 52.1170. Michigan's SIP generally requires a permit to install (PTI) for any change resulting in an increase in the emissions of a regulated pollutant unless the change falls into one or more of the categories of exemptions contained in Michigan R 336.1280 through Michigan R 336.1290.

On September 27, 2022 (87 FR 58471), EPA proposed to approve (via a direct final rulemaking) revisions to the Michigan SIP that EGLE submitted on March 8, 2022. During the public comment period, EPA received adverse comments on the proposed approval of revisions to Michigan R 336.1285 “Permit to install exemptions; miscellaneous” and R 336.1291 “Permit to install exemptions; emission units with “de minimis” emissions.” These rules exempt certain processes and equipment from Michigan's minor NSR permitting program. On November 15, 2022 (87 FR 68364), EPA published an action withdrawing the direct final rule. On April 27, 2023 (88 FR 25498), EPA approved the revisions to Michigan's Air Pollution Control Rules Part 1, Definitions, and Part 2, Air Use Approval, for inclusion in the Michigan SIP but deferred action on the Michigan Part 2 rule revisions to R 336.1285 and R 336.1291.

On November 14, 2023, in response to comments we received on the 2022 direct final rule, Michigan supplemented its March 8, 2022, submittal with additional information regarding Michigan R 336.1285(2)(oo) and R 336.1291. On April 25, 2024 (89 FR 31677), EPA proposed approval of the Michigan Part 2 rule revisions to Michigan R 336.1285 “Permit to install exemptions; miscellaneous” and R 336.1291 “Permit to install exemptions; emission units with “de minimis” emissions.”

When determining approvability of State permitting exemption rules, EPA evaluates the possibility that an exemption might allow an activity that should be subject to major or minor source permitting requirements to escape appropriate review and permitting, that sources are required to maintain information adequate for the State to ensure that exemptions have been applied appropriately, and that the exemptions would not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment of any NAAQS and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.

Consistent with 40 CFR 51.160-51.164 and section 110 of the Act, EPA has previously approved into the Michigan SIP certain minor source air permit exemptions found in Michigan R 336.1280 through R 336.1290 (Rules 280-290), as well as Michigan R 336.1278 and R 336.1278a (Rules 278 and 278a), which explain the scope of those exemptions. See 40 CFR 52.1170. These rules provide the requirements for certain sources and emission units that are seeking to avoid air permitting, subject to the recordkeeping requirements of those provisions. The existing air permit exemptions are specific to certain categories of equipment such as oil and gas processing, plastic processing, and surface coating, among others.

Michigan's air permit exemption rules have restrictions on the use of the exemptions in Michigan R 336.1280-336.1290 and require sources using the exemptions to maintain certain records to demonstrate that the exemptions have been applied appropriately. Specific exemptions may include additional monitoring and recordkeeping as necessary to ensure that the equipment is operating as required under the exemption. As further explained below, this action pertains to additional air permit exemptions found in Michigan R 336.1285(oo) and R 336.1291. Sources seeking to rely on the new exemptions in Michigan R 336.1285(oo) and R 336.1291 would generally be subject to the same recordkeeping requirements as those that currently apply to those relying on Michigan R 336.1280-336.1290.

Under Michigan R 336.1278, the exemptions in R 336.1280 to R 336.1291 do not apply to any “activity” that is subject to the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality (PSD) regulations or NSR regulations for major sources in nonattainment areas. An “activity” is defined to include all “concurrent and related installation, construction, reconstruction, relocation, or modification of any process or process equipment,” which will ensure that projects are aggregated properly before applying an exemption. The exemptions in Michigan R 336.1280 to R 336.1291 also do not apply to the construction, modification, or reconstruction of major sources of hazardous pollutants as defined in 40 CFR parts 61 and 63. Further, the exemptions apply to the requirement to obtain a PTI only and do not exempt any source from complying with any other applicable requirement or existing permit limitation.

In this final action, EPA finds that EGLE's proposed revisions to Michigan's SIP-approved Part 2 rules meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act and the minimum program requirements of 40 CFR 51.160-51.164. EPA is approving into the Michigan SIP the following revisions to Michigan's Part 2 rules:

Michigan R 336.1285(2)(oo) exempts vapor intrusion mitigation systems from the requirement to obtain a PTI. Specifically, this exemption applies to equipment or systems, or both, used exclusively to mitigate vapor intrusion of an indoor space, that is not on the property where the release of the hazardous substance occurred, and which has an exhaust that is: (1) unobstructed vertically upward; (2) at least 12 inches above the nearest eave of the roof or at least 12 inches above the surface of the roof at the point of penetration; (3) more than 10 feet above the ground; and (4) more than 2 feet above or more than 10 feet away from windows, doors, other buildings, and other air intakes.

Michigan R 336.1291 exempts emission units with “de minimis” emissions from the requirement to obtain a PTI. Specifically, Michigan R 336.1291 exempts each emission unit in which potential emissions of non-greenhouse gas (GHG) criteria pollutants do not exceed emission rates ranging from 0.1 tons per year for lead to 10 tons per year for carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides (NO X ), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) or total particulate matter. The “de minimis” emissions threshold for GHGs is 75,000 tons per year when reported as carbon dioxide equivalents. As relevant to Michigan R 336.1291, “potential emissions” refers to the emission unit's potential to emit (PTE) as defined at Michigan R 336.1116(n), R 336.2801(hh), and R 336.2901(z). Under those provisions, PTE means the maximum capacity of a stationary source to emit an air contaminant under its physical and operational design. Any physical or operational limit on the capacity of the stationary source to emit an air contaminant, including air pollution control equipment and restrictions on the hours of operation or the type or amount of material combusted, stored, or processed, must be treated as part of its design only if the limit, or the effect it would have on emissions, is legally enforceable.

Rule 291 would provide for a general exemption from air permitting for sources and projects with de minimis emissions and can be considered a backstop for the overall air permitting exemptions across all industry types. Any emission unit that has potential emissions above those defined in Rule 291 would be required to obtain a preconstruction permit from EGLE. Rule 291 requires the owner or operator to maintain a description of the emission unit throughout the life of the unit including documentation and calculations identifying the quality, nature, and quantity of the air contaminant emissions. This information is to be maintained in sufficient detail to demonstrate that the potential emissions of the emission unit are less than those listed in Rule 291.

During the comment period, which closed on May 28, 2024, EPA received one set of consolidated comments from Great Lakes Environmental Law Center, Sierra Club Environmental Law Program, and Air Law for All, Ltd. We respond to the comments in this section.

Comment: The commenters note that section 110(l) of the CAA prohibits approval of any SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement of the Act, and that for minor NSR programs, the section 110(l) analysis must consider the program as a whole to determine whether the construction or modification of sources would interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NAAAQs.

EPA Response: The CAA's NSR program requires EPA and States to regulate the construction or modification of stationary sources of air emissions under a program of cooperative federalism. The NSR program governs both large sources of emissions, referred to as “major” sources, and small sources of emissions, referred to as “minor” sources. Because major sources have the potential to have a greater impact on air quality, the CAA's requirements largely focus on controlling those sources' emissions, and EPA and States have likewise focused most of their regulatory efforts on addressing major sources' emissions.

This final action does not change any elements of Michigan's NSR program for major sources in attainment or nonattainment areas as addressed by parts C and D of the CAA and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR 51.165 and 40 CFR 51.166. Rather, this action is limited to revisions to Michigan's minor NSR program to clarify the types of construction or modification activities that must obtain a PTI under that program.

The commenters correctly note that section 110(l) of the CAA prohibits EPA from approving a SIP revision if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress towards attainment of a NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. 42 U.S.C. 7410(l). However, EPA does not interpret section 110(l) to require a full attainment or maintenance demonstration before any changes to a SIP may be approved; rather, a SIP revision may be approved under section 110(l) if EPA finds it will at least preserve status quo air quality. See 83 FR 44493 (August 31, 2018) (citing Kentucky Resources Council, Inc. v. EPA, 467 F.3d 986 (6th Cir. 2006); GHASP v. EPA, No. 06-61030 (5th Cir. Aug. 13, 2008)).

In its final rule approving the existing air permit exemptions in Michigan R 336.1280 through Michigan R 336.1290, EPA explained that it approved Michigan's permit exemptions after examining various information EGLE provided in support of its proposed rules, including emission projections, the structure of the existing SIP permitting rules and the structure of each new exemption, and in some cases conservative modeling or qualitative air quality analysis. For example, where the exemption did not contain enforceable limitations on production and operation, and projected emission increases were greater than 10 tons per year of a criteria pollutant, EGLE provided an air quality analysis that EPA found to be adequate. EPA determined that the exemptions would not interfere with attainment of any NAAQS or any other CAA requirement because the use of the exemption would provide the same level of control measures as the control measures that would be included in an individual preconstruction permit, the exemption would result in little or no increase in emissions of a criteria pollutant, or EGLE provided a suitable air quality analysis demonstrating no interference with attainment, reasonable further progress, or any other requirement of the Act. See 83 FR 44493-44494 (August 31, 2018). 1

The Rule 291 exemptions address sources that are small, have low emissions (including several pollutants with thresholds substantially less than 10 tons per year), and which are few compared to those already relying on existing exemptions. Indeed, Michigan provided information indicating that emission units that would be exempted under Rule 291 at major sources subject to title V of the Act represent less than 1 percent of the subset of exemptions required to be included in the title V permit renewal application. Thus, Rule 291 would only allow a limited additional number of inconsequential emission units to forego minor NSR. See 86 FR 31927 (June 16, 2021) (finding that the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) adequately demonstrated that emissions from the sources and projects to be exempted from ADEQ's minor NSR program were inconsequential to attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS). Michigan's minor NSR program would continue to cover a large majority of emissions from minor stationary sources and meet applicable statutory and regulatory standards. Further, Rule 291, in conjunction with the SIP-approved Rules 278 through 290, would subject exempt emission units with potential emissions of non-GHG pollutants less than 10 tons per year to the same level of other control measures (including monitoring and recordkeeping requirements contained in any applicable State and Federal rules) as would normally be required in an individual preconstruction permit for units of that size.

Therefore, consistent with section 110(l) of the Act, Michigan has demonstrated to EPA's satisfaction that the exemptions in this action would not cause Michigan's minor NSR program to interfere with attainment, reasonable further progress, or any other requirement of the Act.

Comment: The commenters assert that the combination of existing exemptions with the new exemptions may push the minor NSR program to the point where it no longer protects the NAAQS, and that EPA cannot rely on how Michigan's minor NSR program has performed historically. In particular, the commenters note that the Detroit area is very close to the nonattainment threshold for ozone.

EPA Response: Emissions from the Rule 291 emission units are insignificant compared to those from emission units and activities that are required to obtain a PTI or are relying on the existing approved air permit exemptions. With rare exceptions, emission units of the type, size, and emissions that would be exempted under R 336.1285(2)(oo) and R 336.1291 would be subjected to the same level of other control measures (including recordkeeping requirements) as would be required in an individual preconstruction permit for such units in any area. Where additional control measures or a site-specific air quality analysis might be needed, EPA and EGLE's review of the records that are required to be kept under these rules would provide EGLE and EPA with the information needed to support imposing such additional control measures on the facility as necessary. In addition, exempt emission units would still be required to comply with all applicable non-PTI related SIP requirements or standards under the CAA and the Michigan SIP.

Based on our review of information that Michigan submitted regarding emissions from sources that are likely to use these exemptions, we disagree that the additional exemptions would impact Michigan's ability to address particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 micrometers (PM 2.5 ) or ozone NAAQS attainment issues or that their approval into the Michigan SIP would somehow push Michigan's minor NSR program over the point where it no longer protects the NAAQS. As we explained at proposal, EGLE demonstrated through single- and multiple-emission unit air quality modeling that the proposed exemptions will not affect Michigan's attainment status for any NAAQS or cause any backsliding on achieved improvements.

With respect to EPA's redesignation of the Detroit area from moderate nonattainment to attainment of the 2015 ozone standard, 2 there is no evidence suggesting that if EGLE were to require PTIs for the exempted units in an area, and the area were to subsequently fall into nonattainment, the permitting of these exempted units would have somehow precluded that from happening. Historically, where Michigan has not achieved attainment, there have been no indications that exemptions have been the cause. Similarly, when an area has come into attainment—such as the Detroit area—Michigan did not find it necessary to modify any exemptions to accomplish the attainment redesignation by permitting the affected facilities. For the Detroit area redesignation to attainment, EGLE did not need to change any air permitting exemptions as part of its plan to attain the standards to demonstrate it had met the criteria for the redesignation. Regarding those standards for which Michigan was not able to demonstrate attainment, there is no evidence the permitting of these exempted facilities would address the issue.

It is worth noting that sources and projects of the size that would be exempted by Rules 280 to 291 are not required to be modeled as part of the standard air permitting process, so a project-specific NAAQS compliance demonstration is not done for such projects. Also, additional controls are normally not prescribed when permitting such small projects regardless of the attainment status of the project's location beyond those control measures required by any applicable Federal or State regulations. In nonattainment areas, emissions offsets would be required for sources and projects that would emit at levels that are higher than the thresholds we are approving today.

Furthermore, under section 110(k)(5) of the Act, if EPA subsequently concludes that the Michigan SIP is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain a specific NAAQS, or to otherwise comply with any requirement of the Act, EPA may order the State to revise and correct its SIP as necessary. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(5).

Comment: The commenters state that Michigan's section 110(l) modeling demonstration indicates that the new exemptions could cause the Detroit area to violate the ozone standard again.

EPA Response: The commenters point to Michigan's comparison of theoretical maximum emission rates and ambient impacts to significant impact levels (SILs). SILs are modeling screening thresholds used in PSD air quality analyses to determine whether additional, comprehensive, air quality analyses are needed to demonstrate that major projects do not cause or contribute to NAAQS violations. A modeled exceedance of the SIL does not mean that the NAAQS would be violated; it is simply one step in a multi-step process of proving that the project would not cause or contribute to a NAAQS violation.

Michigan used EPA's Modeled Emission Rates for Precursors (MERPs) as a Tier 1 demonstration tool to address ozone and PM 2.5 impacts from single sources. Michigan evaluated worst case scenarios against Rule 291 exemption thresholds. As explained in Michigan's supplemental submittal, there is no evidence sources are using the Rule 291 exemptions at the levels in the modeled scenarios. Actual air quality impacts from sources relying on the Rule 291 exemptions would be much lower than those estimated in Michigan's analysis. This is confirmed by Michigan's analysis of the State's universe of permitted sources which showed that the use of Rule 291 air permit exemptions is extremely limited in practice.

Comment: The commenters object to EPA using data from Michigan's implementation of Rule 291 before it has been approved into the Michigan SIP to show that the SIP, with the new exemptions, would continue to protect the NAAQS.

EPA Response: In previous comments on our 2022 direct final rule, the commenters noted that Michigan had not provided an estimate of the air emissions from Rule 291 implementation as part of the SIP submittal. In response to this comment, Michigan supplemented its submittal with emissions data from the Michigan Air Emissions Reporting System (MAERS). Michigan's supplemental submittal provided estimates of emissions that have resulted from the application of each rule exemption including the exemptions that Rule 291 covers. The submittal contained actual emissions data submitted to EGLE according to various recordkeeping and reporting requirements of its rules and air permitting program. The submittal demonstrated that many of the exemptions would result in very low levels of emissions that are inconsequential to the overall air permitting program's ability to comply with the CAA and its implementing regulations for minor sources at 40 CFR 51.160-51.164.

The commenters have taken issue with the use of MAERS data to support the conclusion that these emissions are inconsequential but have not disputed the accuracy of the supplied data. EPA believes EGLE has supplied information that adequately illustrates the emissions that would result from implementation of the Rule 291 exemptions in conjunction with the already approved air permit exemptions. Because Michigan provided actual emissions information, not hypothetical projections, EPA has confidence that approval of the Rule 291 exemptions would not result in a consequential increase in unpermitted emissions that would otherwise interfere with Michigan's ability to protect the NAAQS.

Comment: The commenters are concerned that the new exemptions could lead to new nonattainment areas for PM 2.5 . The commenters speculate that EPA will likely designate at least three new nonattainment areas in Michigan for the new annual PM 2.5 standards and that creating new exemptions in the minor NSR program for PM 2.5 precursors will only exacerbate the problem.

EPA Response: Under section 110(a) of the Act, each State is mandated to adopt and submit to EPA a plan which provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of NAAQS within such State. EGLE has developed attainment strategies to address its nonattainment areas, which include a combination of source-specific air pollutant reduction plans and maintenance of existing attainment areas. As EPA demonstrated in its approval of the 2015 ozone standard redesignation to attainment for the Detroit area, the improvement in air quality with respect to ozone was due to Michigan and EPA programs that reduced NO X and volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions. 88 FR 32594 (May 19, 2023). These control measures include more protective vehicle emissions standards, nonroad engine emissions standards, and programs to reduce emissions from power plants. For the Detroit area, the past 20-plus years have seen a substantial decrease in ozone concentrations, with additional emission reductions expected to occur in the future. 87 FR 14210 (March 14, 2022).

It is worth noting that minor sources are not required to conduct an air quality analysis or install Best Available Control Technology (BACT) or Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate (LAER) control measures for each proposed change under the PSD and nonattainment NSR regulations found at 40 CFR 51.166 and 51.165, respectively. Neither EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.160-51.164 nor the CAA require that State minor NSR programs include requirements for BACT, LAER, or an air quality analysis as a prerequisite for obtaining a preconstruction permit for minor sources. This is in recognition of the ubiquitous nature of such sources and to ensure the State's resources are preserved for larger sources with the greatest potential impact on air quality. While States are not prohibited from including such provisions in their SIPs, EGLE has not proposed, and EPA has not approved, such provisions in the Michigan SIP. Accordingly, under the SIP, without the new exemptions, sources of PM 2.5 emissions that would otherwise qualify for the new exemptions would generally not be required to conduct a complex air quality analysis to demonstrate that their emissions do not significantly impact nearby PM 2.5 monitors, nor be required to implement additional measures beyond those required by Rule 285 and 291.

Except under rare circumstances, EPA believes the low emissions from those projects are so inconsequential to compliance with NAAQS and the ability for EGLE to maintain reasonable further progress that project-specific ambient air quality demonstrations are not necessary. EGLE, as the State permitting authority, has the discretion to require an air quality analysis or impose other control measures as necessary in the rare situations where it determines that a specific source may be causing or contributing to a violation of the NAAQS, regardless of whether the source relied on an air permit exemption to avoid permitting. In addition, EPA has enforcement authority under sections 113 and 114 of the Act to require such a demonstration as necessary. As already discussed, the air permit exemptions require the facility to adequately keep records of its emissions to ensure that they do not exceed the air permit exemption thresholds.

Comment: The commenters assert that Michigan should not rely on the minor NSR program applicable in Indian country (Tribal Minor NSR Rule) as the basis for establishing de minimis emissions thresholds for its air permit exemptions. 3

EPA Response: While Michigan relied on a similar approach to that EPA used to develop the Tribal Minor NSR Rule's thresholds when developing the de minimis thresholds in Rule 291, the State did not exclusively rely on the Tribal Minor NSR Rule's approach. As explained in Michigan's supplemental submittal, the Tribal Minor NSR Rule is simply one of many sources of thresholds ultimately used to draft the thresholds in Rule 291. Michigan also relied on EPA modeling guidance, regulatory significance emissions rates, Michigan's existing permitting policies and guidance, and decades of experience using, creating, and evaluating exemptions in Michigan's NSR program. Moreover, EPA has previously determined that the approach EPA took in developing the thresholds in the Tribal Minor NSR Rule is appropriate for establishing such thresholds in SIPs. See, e.g., 86 FR 31932 (June 16, 2021) (approving certain NSR permitting exemptions for the ADEQ's portion of the Arizona SIP).

Similar to the approach EPA followed for the Tribal Minor NSR Rule and Arizona SIP, EGLE conducted a source distribution analysis using data from MAERS and the State's database of staff reports for title V permits. Through this analysis, EPA estimates that the percentage of emissions that would be exempt from minor NSR under Rule 291's thresholds would be less than 0.1 percent for each regulated NSR pollutant except for VOC, which would be about 0.8 percent. This analysis demonstrates that sources with emissions below the proposed minor NSR thresholds in Rule 291 will be inconsequential to attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.

While the proposed thresholds apply to individual units and not groups of units, Michigan's rules implementing the PSD and nonattainment NSR significance rates, as well as Michigan R 336.1278(1)(b), would serve as a backstop for projects with multiple emissions units. Under those provisions, projects involving multiple units must sum up emissions from all affected units to determine whether the thresholds for PSD or nonattainment NSR permitting are exceeded. As already stated, the exemptions in R 336.1280 to R 336.1291 do not apply to projects that are subject to PSD or nonattainment NSR permitting requirements.

Comment: The commenters would like EPA to consider the potential cumulative impact of multiple projects relying on the air permit exemptions.

EPA Response: As already discussed, EGLE has the discretion to conduct an air quality analysis if it believes that there may be an impact on the NAAQs or PSD increments from a planned or existing activity. The commenters' main argument is that an unlimited number of sources whose impacts are less than the SILs could cumulatively cause a violation of the NAAQs or increments. However, Michigan's existing SIP already requires that major sources and sources that may cause impacts that would exceed the SILs or cause a violation of the NAAQs or increments must conduct an air quality analysis before a preconstruction permit may be issued. Further, as part of their statutory obligations, EPA and EGLE review data from air quality monitors to determine whether individual sources or groups of sources are substantively impacting air quality in certain areas. Based on the results of those reviews, EPA and EGLE have the discretion to require targeted actions that may include, but are not limited to, a comprehensive air quality modeling demonstration, source-specific control measures, or a revision of the SIP, among others.

Comment: The commenters assert that the MERPs, modeling protocol, model inputs, and model results were not provided with Michigan's supplemental submittal and thus were not available for public comment. According to the commenters, EPA is therefore required to re-propose its action and make the MERPs, modeling protocol, model inputs, and model results available for public comment before relying on them.

EPA Response: EGLE's supplemental submittal was made available for public comment by EPA. In its supplemental submittal, EGLE provided emissions data from MAERS in addition to its MERPs analysis. With respect to the MERPs analysis, EGLE stated it completed the analysis following formulas and procedures contained in an April 30, 2019, EPA guidance document addressing the subject, and utilizing data from EPA's MERPs website. The submittal noted that further details of the analysis could be provided upon request.

Significantly, EGLE provided data on emission units and pollutant levels for various exemptions demonstrating the negligible emissions that would be expected from the Rule 291 exemptions. EGLE's supplemental submittal included MAERS emissions data for all Michigan air permit exemptions including Rule 291 exemptions. While the information EGLE provided on its MERPs analysis provides additional support for the exemptions, the additional information was not needed to satisfy the Act's minimum requirements for minor NSR program submittals. Most importantly, the information EPA relied upon for today's final action was made available during the public comment period.

Comment: EPA should not draw conclusions about the performance of the new exemptions based on sources that have been “violating the SIP” during the period where Michigan's State rules contained the new, proposed exemptions but the approved SIP did not (known as the “SIP gap”).

EPA Response: The existence of a SIP gap in a particular SIP is not uncommon due in large part to the often-lengthy procedural requirements associated with approving new State rules into the SIP. The commenters correctly point out that until the new exemptions are approved into the Michigan SIP, State actions implementing those provisions are not federally enforceable. However, the commenters appear to misunderstand the intent of Michigan's inclusion in its submittal of emissions and other data related to its implementation of the SIP gap exemptions. Michigan provided emissions information from existing sources that utilized those exemptions to satisfy State requirements to address concerns that it had not sufficiently explained how implementation of the new exemptions could impact future compliance with NAAQS. EPA considers the information Michigan provided as an illustration of how the exemptions would be implemented in practice and the potential impacts from their implementation. As demonstrated in Michigan's submittal, the projected actual total emissions from the Rule 291 exemptions would be inconsequential compared to the total tons per year emitted from all the exempted units. There is no evidence that the data EGLE provided is incorrect.

Comment: The commenters assert that annual PTE limitations may not sufficiently protect short-term NAAQS. According to the commenters, an annual PTE is not more restrictive than a short-term PTE with respect to short term spikes in emissions, which is a concern for short term NAAQS such as the 8-hour ozone standard.

EPA Response: We disagree with the notion that one must have short-term PTE limits in a minor NSR SIP to protect short-term NAAQS such as the 8-hour ozone standard. While sources may have variability in their hourly or daily emissions, EPA has generally found that annual de minimis thresholds in SIPs are sufficient to ensure that only those sources with inconsequential emissions are exempted from rigorous permitting requirements, including an air quality analysis. For this reason, EPA does not require air quality analyses for pollutants whose PTE in tons per year is not “significant” or modifications that would not result in a “significant” net emissions increase in tons per year. See 40 CFR 52.21(m).

EPA and Michigan define PTE similarly: the maximum capacity of a stationary source to emit an air contaminant under its physical and operational design. See 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iii), 40 CFR 51.166(b)(4), 40 CFR 52.21(b)(4), and Michigan R 336.1116(n), R 336.2801(hh) and R 336.2901(z). In determining the PTE of an emission unit seeking to utilize the Rule 291 exemptions, federally enforceable restrictions on operations or the use of air pollution control equipment are not considered since the emission unit does not have a permit. The commenters' assertion that a short-term spike in emissions could impact a short-term NAAQS does not take into account that the short-term spike in emissions would have already been factored into the determination of the emission unit's annual PTE and whether it could utilize the Rule 291 air permit exemptions. This is because there would be no other practically enforceable limit such as would be contained in a permit to restrict the emission unit's PTE.

A PTE or an emissions increase is “significant” if it equals or exceeds any of the emission rates specified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(23)(i) and 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(x)(A) for attainment and nonattainment areas, respectively. See also Michigan R 336.1119(e), R 336.2801(qq) and R 336.2901(hh). Because these values are expressed as a rate of emissions in tons per year, EPA often refers to each value as a “significant emissions rate.” Significant emissions rates are premised on the foundational legal principles for de minimis levels as laid out by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in Alabama Power Co. v. Costle. 81 FR 68120 (October 3, 2016) (citing 636 F.2d 323, D.C. Cir. 1979).

It is worth noting that significant emissions rates for the NSR program are not differentiated by the averaging times of the NAAQS applicable to some of the listed pollutants. Although short-term NAAQS for ozone, SO 2 , carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and nitrogen dioxide have been promulgated for many years, EPA has not promulgated alternate “short-term” significant emissions rates for those standards. In so doing, EPA continues to find the significant emissions rates expressed in tons per year to be adequate for screening for sources or projects that could threaten the NAAQS, regardless of the standard's averaging time. Notably, these significant emissions rates are much greater than the de minimis thresholds listed in Rule 291 suggesting that the Rule 291 thresholds would be more protective of short-term and annual NAAQS than the significant emissions rates.

In support of their comments, the commenters cite a non-binding EPA memorandum that provided guidance to State, local, and tribal governments for the development of SIPs and tribal implementation plans for areas designated as nonattainment for the primary 2010 NAAQS for SO 2 . 4 In that guidance, EPA observed that it may be possible in specific cases for States to develop control strategies for their nonattainment areas that account for variability in l-hour emissions rates through emission limits with averaging times that are longer than 1 hour, using averaging times as long as 30 days, but still provide for attainment of the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS. As explained in the memorandum, the guidance discussed the CAA statutory requirements that air agencies need to address when implementing the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS in areas designated as nonattainment for the 2010 SO 2 standard. Specifically, it provided recommendations for air agencies to consider as they developed plans to satisfy the requirements of sections 172, 175A, 191, and 192 of the CAA to show future attainment and maintenance of the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS. Importantly, this guidance did not pertain to and was not intended for the development of permitting SIPs under section 110 of the Act and 40 CFR 51.160-164 as relevant for this action. We therefore disagree with the commenters' suggestion that this guidance advocates for inclusion of short-term PTE limits in SIPs that are submitted to satisfy the minor NSR programs under 40 CFR 51.160-164.

Comment: The commenters request that Michigan develop more stringent exemption thresholds in nonattainment areas.

EPA Response: EPA's longstanding interpretation of section 110(l) of the Act is that we may approve a SIP revision so long as emissions to the air are not increased, thereby preserving “status quo air quality.” See, for example, 89 FR 82561 (October 11, 2024). In this context, we interpret the word “interfere” as used in section 110(l) to mean that the SIP revision does not hamper, frustrate, hinder, or impede any applicable CAA requirements. As already stated, Michigan has submitted a section 110(l) analysis which sufficiently demonstrates that the proposed exemptions would not interfere with attainment of the NAAQS or reasonable further progress in nonattainment and maintenance areas.

The commenters take issue with Michigan's explanation that implementing an exemption threshold that varies with attainment status would be difficult, “particularly with an installation-based permitting program.” Although a variable, location-based, exemption threshold may be desirable, EPA believes such a variable threshold is unnecessary and would pose significant implementation challenges in the minor NSR program for sources with inconsequential emissions. As the commenters acknowledge, areas routinely come in and out of nonattainment as air quality worsens and improves, respectively, which could lead to unnecessary business uncertainty and confusion for small businesses as different exemption thresholds could apply at various times from project conception to implementation. EPA believes the existing permitting thresholds for nonattainment areas in conjunction with the exemptions that EPA is approving today would adequately protect air quality in nonattainment areas.

We also note that the exemptions Michigan has proposed, and EPA is approving, would generally not change the status quo with respect to emissions and air quality control requirements for the emissions units that would qualify for the exemptions. This action does not alter the permitting thresholds or requirements that EPA has approved into the Michigan SIP for sources and projects located in nonattainment areas. As already discussed, this action would merely free up State resources so that they can be used to focus on those emissions units and projects that would have the greatest potential impact on attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.

This action also does not relieve Michigan of its statutory obligation to ensure sources in its jurisdiction do not cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS or interfere with reasonable further progress in nonattainment and maintenance areas. Additionally, under section 110(k)(5) of the Act, EPA retains authority to order a SIP revision if it subsequently determines that exempt sources in Michigan are interfering with attainment of the NAAQS in an area. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(5).

EPA is approving revisions to the Michigan SIP that EGLE submitted on March 8, 2022. EPA approves into the Michigan SIP at 40 CFR 52.1170 the following regulations: Michigan R 336.1285(2)(oo) “Permit to install exemptions; miscellaneous” and R 336.1291 “Permit to install exemptions; emission units with “de minimis” emissions.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 20, 2026. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

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

Hereafter, “Northern New Jersey” means the New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT maintenance area (for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS), which is comprised of Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Passaic, Somerset, and Union Counties, and “Southern New Jersey” means the New Jersey portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE maintenance area (for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS), which is comprised of Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester Counties. On December 14, 2009, EPA designated the Northern New Jersey and Southern New Jersey areas as nonattainment for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS (74 FR 58688). Subsequently, on September 4, 2013, EPA redesignated the Northern New Jersey and Southern New Jersey areas to attainment for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS (78 FR 54396) and approved the associated maintenance plan into the New Jersey State Implementation Plan (SIP).

On July 31, 2025, EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of New Jersey (90 FR 35996). The NPRM proposed approval of the State's second, 10-year LMP for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 standard for the Northern New Jersey and Southern New Jersey areas. The formal SIP revision was submitted by NJDEP on July 6, 2023, and supplemented on June 6, 2024. EPA is approving the plan because it meets all applicable requirements under CAA sections 110 and 175A. We also find the LMP to be adequate as it pertains to transportation conformity requirements. Other specific requirements of the LMP and the rationale for EPA's action are explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here. One public comment was received on the NPRM.

In response to the EPA's July 31, 2025, proposed rulemaking on the NJDEP SIP revision submittal, the EPA received one comment during the 30-day public comment period. The comment period ended on September 2, 2025. After reviewing the comment, the EPA has determined that the comment is outside the scope of our proposed action or fails to identify any material issue necessitating a response. The comment does not raise issues germane to the EPA's proposed action. Therefore, we are finalizing our action as proposed. The specific comment may be viewed under Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-2024-0288 on the https://www.regulations.gov website.

EPA is approving the New Jersey's LMP for the Northern New Jersey and Southern New Jersey areas for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS as a revision to the New Jersey SIP submitted on July 6, 2023, and supplemented on June 6, 2024. EPA's review of the air quality data for the maintenance area indicates that the State continues to show attainment well below the level of the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS and that NJDEP's LMP meets all the LMP qualifying criteria set forth in the “Guidance on Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate PM 2.5 Nonattainment Areas and PM 2.5 Maintenance Areas.”  1 EPA's approval of this LMP will satisfy the CAA section 175A requirements for the second 10-year period for the Northern New Jersey and Southern New Jersey maintenance areas. EPA also finds the LMP to be adequate as it pertains to transportation conformity requirements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 20, 2026. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review, nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:

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

On May 23, 2025 (90 FR 22033), EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of Vermont. The NPRM proposed approval of the second implementation period regional haze requirements contained in CAA sections 169A and 169B and 40 CFR 51.308. The formal SIP revision was submitted by Vermont on July 1, 2024. EPA is now finalizing its proposed determination that the Vermont regional haze SIP submission for the second implementation period meets the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements and is thus approving Vermont's submission into its SIP. Other specific requirements of the Vermont submittal and the rationale for EPA's proposed action is explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here. Two public comments were received on the NPRM.

EPA received two comments during the comment period. Both comments supported EPA's proposed action to approve Vermont's Regional Haze Plan submission. However, the comment from MANEVU also objected to EPA's recently adopted policy referenced in the NPRM regarding the “Uniform Rate of Progress” (URP). Below, EPA provides a response to that aspect of MANEVU's comment.

Comment: MANEVU states that section 169A(g)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) sets forth the four factors a state must apply in evaluating potential emission reductions from sources within its borders. They then note that the EPA in its new policy “now invokes an extra-statutory fifth factor, the Uniform Rate of Progress (URP)” which “[a]s framed by the EPA, . . . can override a statutory four factor analysis finding that while additional requirements placed on visibility-impairing sources constitute `reasonable progress,' these can be dismissed because the impacted Class I area is below the URP.” The Commenters note that “[b]ecause the URP is a regulatory creation outside the CAA section 169A(g)(1) definition of determining reasonable progress, . . . the URP as a factor to override a statutory four factor analysis is not permissible.” Commenters state that “CAA section 169A(g)(1) explicitly defines how to determine reasonable progress, and the EPA has received no authority from Congress to impose an additional overriding regulatory criterion that goes beyond the statutory factors [ see, e.g., Loper Bright Enterprises, et al. v. Raimondo, et al. 603 U.S. 369 (2024)].”

Response: As MANEVU recognizes, Vermont's Regional Haze submission satisfies Clean Air Act requirements. 1 The EPA disagrees, however, with MANEVU's comment that the URP policy articulated in our proposed approval of Vermont's submission allows states and EPA to override a statutory four-factor analysis to determine how to make reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal in the second planning period. CAA section 169A(b)(2) requires SIPs to “contain such emission limits, schedules of compliance and other measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal” and 169A(g)(1) requires that “in determining reasonable progress there shall be taken into consideration the costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, and the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of any existing source subject to such requirements.” Vermont considered the four statutory factors, as required by the Act, and EPA did not dismiss the state's four factor analysis. Additionally, as EPA noted in the NPRM, the Class I areas affected by emissions from Vermont remain below their respective URPs.

EPA is approving Vermont's July 1, 2024, submittal as a revision to the Vermont SIP, satisfying the regional haze requirements for the second implementation period contained in 40 CFR 51.308(f), (g), and (i).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 20, 2026. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).

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

Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

This action is the latest in a series of regulatory actions regarding the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area. For a complete regulatory history of the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area, see the EPA's proposal, published on January 8, 2025 (90 FR 1600) (Proposal). The following is a summary of the history that is pertinent to this action. In 2009, the EPA designated a portion of the Fairbanks North Star Borough as “nonattainment” (Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area) for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which is set at the level of 35 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m 3 ) (74 FR 58688, November 13, 2009). Effective July 2, 2014, the EPA classified the area as “Moderate” (79 FR 31566, June 2, 2014). Subsequently, Alaska submitted, and the EPA approved, a plan to meet the Moderate nonattainment area requirements (Fairbanks Moderate Plan) (82 FR 42457, September 8, 2017).

On May 10, 2017, the EPA determined that the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area failed to attain the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS by the outermost statutory Moderate area attainment date of December 31, 2015 (82 FR 21711). Consequently, the area was automatically reclassified to Serious. 1 Alaska submitted a plan to address the Serious PM 2.5 nonattainment area requirements on December 13, 2019 (Fairbanks Serious Plan). On September 2, 2020, prior to taking action on the Fairbanks Serious Plan, the EPA determined that the area failed to attain by the Serious area attainment date of December 31, 2019 (85 FR 54509). Alaska submitted a revised plan to meet the requirements of CAA section 189(d) on December 15, 2020 (Fairbanks 189(d) Plan).

On September 24, 2021, the EPA approved the 2013 base year emissions inventory and the PM 2.5 precursor demonstration elements for nitrogen oxides (NO X ) and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions of the Fairbanks Serious Plan as meeting the Serious area planning requirements (86 FR 52997). In the same action, the EPA approved other plan components as SIP strengthening, including: (1) the updated Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan that the State adopted on November 18, 2020, and submitted on December 15, 2020; and (2) various regulatory control measures included in three separate SIP submissions (December 13, 2019, October 25, 2018, and November 28, 2018). The EPA did not determine as part of the September 24, 2021, approval whether these SIP-strengthening components met specific nonattainment plan requirements. In particular, the EPA did not determine whether the Fairbanks Serious Plan or Fairbanks 189(d) Plan met the following requirements for PM 2.5 Serious nonattainment areas: (1) attainment projected emissions inventory, (2) control strategy, (3) attainment demonstration, (4) reasonable further progress, (5) quantitative milestones, or (6) contingency measures.

On December 5, 2023, the EPA finalized its determination of whether the Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan met CAA requirements for PM 2.5 Serious nonattainment areas. Specifically, the EPA approved Alaska's 2019 base year emission inventory included in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. The EPA approved certain discrete measures as meeting best available control measure requirements. The EPA also approved the plans as meeting nonattainment NSR requirements for purposes of CAA section 189(d) on December 5, 2023 (88 FR 84629).

However, the EPA disapproved in part the Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan as not meeting the following requirements for PM 2.5 Serious nonattainment areas: (1) attainment projected emissions inventory, (2) control strategy, in part, as not containing all required control measures, (3) attainment demonstration, (4) reasonable further progress, (5) quantitative milestones, or (6) contingency measures.

On December 4, 2024, Alaska submitted a revision to the Fairbanks Serious and 189(d) Plans (Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan) to rectify the portions the EPA disapproved on December 5, 2023. The Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan includes an updated base year emissions inventory, attainment projected emissions inventory, major stationary source SO 2 precursor demonstration, control strategy, modeled attainment demonstration, reasonable further progress provisions, quantitative milestones, and contingency measures. The EPA proposed to fully approve the plan revision on January 8, 2025 (90 FR 1600). This action finalizes the EPA's proposed approval of the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan as meeting nonattainment plan requirements for the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area.

Table 1 of this preamble provides a summary of the EPA's December 5, 2023, final rule and this final rule approving the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan. Table 1 illustrates how the Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan collectively satisfy CAA requirements for the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area. The EPA's reasons for this action are explained in further detail in the following sections and in the separate Response to Comment document.

The EPA initially provided a 30-day period for the public to comment on the proposed action that ended on February 7, 2025. Based on public interest in the energy efficiency and weatherization measures in the Alaska SIP submission, the EPA re-opened the comment period for an additional 30 days from March 24, 2025, to April 23, 2025. Overall, 375 public comments were submitted in the docket. The following is a summary, organized by CAA requirement, of the Proposal, our final action, and the comments received and the EPA's responses. We have included in the docket a detailed “Response to Comments” document that provides a summary of public comments and the EPA's responses. 21 The full text of all public comments may also be found in the docket for this action.

The EPA proposed to approve the 2020 base year emissions inventory as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.1008. The EPA proposed to determine that Alaska had justified that 2020 is a technically appropriate inventory year consistent with 40 CFR 51.1008(c)(1). The base year emissions inventory included actual emissions of all sources within the nonattainment area. The EPA proposed to determine that a seasonal episode daily average inventory is appropriate for the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area because the area experiences episodic elevated concentrations of PM 2.5 during wintertime cold weather events. The emissions inventory included direct PM 2.5 emissions, separately reported as filterable and condensable emissions, as well as all scientific PM 2.5 precursors (SO 2 , NO X , VOC, and NH 3 ). Alaska reported emissions for point sources according to the point source emissions thresholds of the Air Emissions Reporting Rule in 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. Finally, the EPA proposed to determine that the emissions inventory is consistent with the detail and data elements required by 40 CFR part 51, subpart A.

The EPA proposed to approve the 2027 projected attainment emissions inventory as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.1008. The EPA proposed to determine that 2027 is the most expeditious year for which projected emissions show modeled PM 2.5 concentrations below the level of the NAAQS. As discussed in section II.D of the proposed rule (January 8, 2025 (90 FR 1600)), Alaska included a model output for 2026 that resulted in emissions levels exceeding the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. The attainment projected inventory included the sources in the base year emissions inventory and accounts for growth and contraction from both controls and other causes. Consistent with the base year emissions inventory, the attainment projected emissions inventory is based on episode average daily emissions. The attainment projected emissions inventory included direct PM 2.5 emissions, separately reported as filterable and condensable emissions, as well as all scientific precursors. The attainment projected emissions inventory included the same level of emissions detail for the same point sources and for mobile sources reported in the base year emissions inventory.

The EPA is finalizing approval of the base year emission inventory and the projected attainment year emission inventory.

One commenter stated that the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan was not clear in how it determined the “episode days” for the purposes of the emissions inventories. The EPA disagrees with this comment. All of the data upon which Alaska relied to determine the emissions inventories, including the episode days, is included in the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan. 22 The EPA's technical assessment of Alaska's emission inventories including the State's selection of appropriate episode days is also included in the docket. 23 This latter document summarizes and explains the data underlying Alaska's 74-day modeling episode from 2019-2020 and how the episode days were selected. Please see the EPA's Response to Comments document for a full summary of the comments and the EPA's full responses. 24

The EPA proposed to determine that Alaska's submission meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.1006(a)(2) and is consistent with the EPA guidance concerning the identification of PM 2.5 precursors that the State must regulate in the nonattainment area. 25 Regarding the State's analytical approach, the EPA proposed to find that the State used appropriate methods and data to evaluate PM 2.5 formation from precursor emissions in the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area. Consistent with 40 CFR 51.1006(a)(2), Alaska's submission included a concentration-based contribution analysis. The concentration-based analysis indicates that the SO 2 emissions from existing major stationary sources do not significantly contribute to PM 2.5 formation in the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area. Specifically, Alaska's analysis showed that SO 2 emissions from existing major stationary sources contribute 0.21 μg/m 3 of PM 2.5 at the North Pole Hurst Road air quality monitor—far below the 1.5 μg/m 3 threshold included in the EPA guidance. Therefore, the EPA proposed to approve Alaska's precursor demonstration submitted as part of the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan as demonstrating that the contribution of SO 2 emissions from existing major stationary sources to PM 2.5 levels in the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area is not significant in accordance with 40 CFR 51.1006(a)(2)(i). With final approval, Alaska will not be required to control SO 2 emissions from existing major stationary sources in the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area, pursuant to CAA section 189 and 40 CFR 51.1010. For purposes of the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan, the applicable PM 2.5 plan precursors are NH 3 for all sources and SO 2 for all sources except for existing major stationary sources.

We note that the EPA's approval of Alaska's precursor demonstration does not extend to nonattainment NSR requirements for the area. Alaska previously determined that it was appropriate to regulate NO X , SO 2 , VOCs, and NH 3 as precursors to PM 2.5 with respect to nonattainment NSR and submitted rule changes to that effect on October 25, 2018. The EPA approved the submitted revised program as meeting nonattainment NSR requirements triggered upon reclassification of the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area to Serious (84 FR 45419, August 29, 2019). The EPA approved the Alaska SIP as meeting nonattainment NSR requirements for purposes of CAA section 189(d) on December 5, 2023 (88 FR 84629).

The EPA is finalizing approval of Alaska's SO 2 precursor demonstration for existing major stationary sources. Accordingly, the EPA is concluding that the State is not required to impose additional controls on SO 2 emissions on such sources for purposes of the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS in the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area.

The EPA received adverse comments generally questioning the prudence of the EPA approving the SO 2 precursor demonstration. Overall, the comments do not provide a technical basis that contradicts the EPA's determination that Alaska's existing major stationary source SO 2 precursor demonstration meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.1006. Please see the EPA's Response to Comments document for a full summary of the comments and the EPA's full responses. 26

Alaska revised the dry wood seller measure, adopted as regulation 18 AAC 50.076(k)(3), by setting a frequency at monthly intervals to measure the moisture content. Alaska also revised regulation 18 AAC 50.076(k)(1) by improving the labeling to indicate “dry wood.”

Regarding the EPA's disapproval of coal-fired heating device requirements, Alaska revised 18 AAC 50.079 by lowering the emissions threshold to test out of the mandatory removal requirements in 18 AAC 50.079(d) from 18 grams per hour to 0.10 pounds per million British thermal units (lbs/MMBtu), which is equivalent to the pellet hydronic heater limit in 18 AAC 50.077. Alaska amended 18 AAC 50.079(d) to require a testing protocol be approved by the department prior to any test attempting to exempt a coal device from the mandatory removal requirement. Alaska revised 18 AAC 50.079(e) to limit the duration of the waiver to one calendar year.

The EPA previously approved 18 AAC 50.079(f), which requires the owner of a coal-fired heating device to render it inoperable no later than December 31, 2024. As a consequence of Alaska's revisions to 18 AAC 50.079(f), the latest an individual with a coal-fired heating device could remove that device is December 31, 2025—provided the individual meets the limited extension eligibility requirements in 18 AAC 50.079(e). Alaska stated that 18 AAC 50.079(f) is revised for clarity by adding section (3), which requires coal-fired heating devices to be rendered inoperable after the expiration of a waiver granted under subsection (e) of 18 AAC 50.079. Alaska stated that newly adopted section 18 AAC 50.079(h) requires documentation on the removal and rendering of the device inoperable and submitting an affidavit that the coal stove will not be reinstalled in the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area.

Based on these updates, the EPA proposed to approve the submitted revisions to 18 AAC 50.076 and 18 AAC 50.079 as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A), 172(c)(7), and 189(b) and 40 CFR 51.1010(a). Accordingly, the EPA proposed to determine that the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan rectifies the disapproved portions of the Fairbanks Serious Plan and initial Fairbanks 189(d) Plan for the solid fuel-burning source category.

The EPA did not receive any comments on the BACM requirements for solid fuel burning emission sources included in the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan and is finalizing approval of the Fairbanks revised 189(d) Plan as meeting the BACM requirements for solid fuel burning emission sources.

Alaska revised its regulations for coffee roasters, under 18 AAC 50.078(d). These updated regulations include specific emission limits for coffee roasters and ensures the emission limit is enforceable as a practical matter. The EPA proposed to approve the submitted revisions to 18 AAC 50.078(d) as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2), 172(c)(7), and 189(b) and 40 CFR 51.1010(a) for this source category. Accordingly, the EPA proposed to determine that the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan rectifies the disapproved portions of the Fairbanks Serious Plan and initial Fairbanks 189(d) Plan for coffee roasters.

To address the EPA's disapproval, Alaska adopted an energy efficiency and weatherization measure at 18 AAC 50.081. The measure mandates that a building owner complete an energy rating on the building before listing it for sale. The rule requires that the seller provide the energy rating report to the buyer. The rule also requires the homeowner to register wood-fired heating devices with the State and remove any wood-fired or coal-fired heating devices that do not comply with State emissions standards (codified at 18 AAC 50.077 and 18 AAC 50.079). Finally, Alaska's rule requires that the agent involved in the home sale transaction must inform the seller and/or buyer of these obligation and, during the transaction, ensure the seller and/or buyer has complied with the requirements to render inoperable older solid-fuel heating devices under State rules 18 AAC 50.077(h) and ( l )-(n) and 18 AAC 50.079(b) and (f)-(h).

Alaska also committed to a robust advertising and education program that includes best practices to improve efficiency in an arctic environment and available economic and practical mechanisms that can assist homeowners in improving both efficiency and regulatory compliance.

The EPA proposed to approve the submitted revisions to 18 AAC 50.081 as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2), 172(c)(7), and 189(b) and 40 CFR 51.1010(a) with respect to energy efficiency and weatherization. Accordingly, the EPA proposed to determine that the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan rectifies the disapproved portions of the Fairbanks Serious Plan and initial Fairbanks 189(d) Plan for lack of energy efficiency and weatherization measures.

After reviewing the comments received on the EPA's proposal, Alaska reevaluated the feasibility of the energy rating requirements and determined that they were not technologically or economically feasible. Alaska withdrew 18 AAC 50.081 on September 25, 2025.

Alaska retained its commitments to a robust advertising and education program that includes best practices to improve efficiency in an arctic environment and available economic and practical mechanisms that can assist homeowners in improving both efficiency and regulatory compliance.

The EPA is finalizing approval of the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan as meeting the BACM requirements for energy efficiency and weatherization measures.

The EPA received several comments expressing concern about Alaska's adoption of 18 AAC 50.081. The comments expressed concern about the cost of conducting the energy rating, potential delays to completing home sales, and restrictions on a person's right to sell and buy property. Several commenters also identified ways they asserted that the State could improve the regulations to account for a variety of circumstances, such as selling a dry recreational cabin or a top-rated energy efficient home or re-selling a home that recently received an energy rating. Other commenters were supportive of the energy audit requirement.

These comments, as well as information provided by Alaska, demonstrate that an energy rating requirement as contemplated by 18 AAC 50.081 is technologically and economically infeasible. Notably, there are insufficient energy raters available in the area. Becoming a certified energy rater is a lengthy process. In addition, Alaska is not relying on the energy rating component of 18 AAC 50.081 for any emission reductions. The regulation does not mandate implementation of any of the energy efficiency recommendations from the energy rating. Hence, the emission reduction measures are not enforceable. However, the energy rating could cost as much as $1,373. 27 Thus, the measure is not cost effective. Accordingly, the EPA has determined that the energy rating requirement is not necessary to satisfy the control strategy requirements for serious areas or serious areas that fail to attain, under CAA sections 189(b) and (d) and 40 CFR 51.1010. The remaining portions of 18 AAC 50.081 were not necessary to address the EPA's December 5, 2023, partial disapproval and are derivative of SIP-approved rules at 18 AAC 50.077 and 079. These rules already restrict the sale and transfer of solid fuel burning devices. See the EPA's Response to Comments document for a full summary of these comments and the EPA's detailed responses. 28

The EPA proposed to determine that Alaska has rectified the EPA's December 5, 2023, disapproval of the Fairbanks Serious Plan and initial Fairbanks 189(d) Plan with respect to control strategy requirements for mobile sources. In the December 5, 2023, final rule, the EPA approved Alaska's rejection of several mobile source control measures designed to reduce on-road vehicle emissions as either technologically or economically infeasible ( e.g., high-occupancy vehicle lanes, improved signalization, and van pools).

However, the EPA rejected Alaska's infeasibility determinations for vehicle anti-idling measures as inadequate. In the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan, Alaska improved its infeasibility justifications. Therefore, based on Alaska's determination that any additional vehicle anti-idling restrictions are technologically or economically infeasible for the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area for purposes of the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS, the EPA proposed to approve the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan as meeting the control strategy requirements for mobile sources.

The EPA proposed to determine that the separate, previously adopted anti-idling control measure in the Fairbanks Moderate Area Plan also satisfied the Serious area BACM requirement. Specifically, the Fairbanks Moderate Area Plan includes a requirement that businesses with 275 or more parking spaces provide power to electrical outlets at temperatures of 20 degrees Fahrenheit or lower for engine block heaters. 29 In addition, Alaska continues to install new (vehicle preheating) plug-ins throughout the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area. 30

The EPA is finalizing approval of the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan as meeting the BACM requirements for motor vehicle emissions.

The EPA received comments regarding the perceived role of motor vehicle emissions contributing to total PM 2.5 concentrations in the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area. Importantly, none of the comments provided a detailed explanation of their disagreement with Alaska's infeasibility demonstrations with respect to vehicle idling nor suggested additional mobile source control measures that the State should have evaluated.

While the EPA acknowledges that motor vehicle emissions are identified as a significant emission source category requiring a BACM evaluation of emission controls, we disagree with comments stating generally that emissions from motor vehicles are a primary cause of PM 2.5 pollution in the area. We note that mobile sources account for an estimated 6% of total PM 2.5 levels in the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area, and the State has established adequate PM 2.5 motor vehicle emissions budgets for transportation conformity purposes (see section II.H of this preamble). 31 Please see the EPA's Response to Comments document for a summary of these comments and the EPA's responses. 32

For a description of each of the major stationary sources in the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area, see the EPA's Proposal, section II.C.2.b.

Alaska revised its State Air Quality Control Plan to include its BACT determinations for PM 2.5 and SO 2 emissions for each of the emission units at the Chena Power Plant. 33 Alaska removed its BACT evaluation and determinations for NO X emissions because the EPA approved a comprehensive NO X emissions precursor demonstration. Alaska also submitted conditions from Air Quality Control Minor Permit AQ0315MSS02 Revision 1 for the Aurora Energy, LLC—Chena Power Plant (Aurora Permit). The Aurora Permit conditions include enforceable PM 2.5 BACT emissions limitations for the emission units at the Chena Power Plant comprised of numerical emissions limits and work practice standards and associated monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements. The permits are included in the docket for this action. 34

The EPA previously reviewed Alaska's BACM/BACT evaluation for the Chena Power Plant. 35 Alaska has since clarified that PM 2.5 BACT for the coal-fired boilers is operating and maintaining fabric filters (full steam baghouse) during operation. 36 Thus, the EPA proposed to approve Alaska's PM 2.5 BACT determinations for the Chena Power Plant, the submitted revisions to State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix III.D.7.7, related to direct PM 2.5 emissions, and the submitted Aurora Permit conditions  37 as satisfying CAA section 189(b) and 40 CFR 51.1010.

The EPA did not propose action on Alaska's SO 2 BACT determinations in State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix III.D.7.7. The EPA proposed to approve Alaska's SO 2 precursor demonstration for existing major stationary sources. Upon final approval, Alaska will not be required to identify, adopt, or implement SO 2 BACT for the Chena Power Plant.

The EPA did not receive comments on PM 2.5 BACT for the Chena Power Plant and is finalizing approval of BACT for PM 2.5 emissions at the Chena Power Plant. Based on the EPA's approval of the SO 2 and NO X precursor demonstrations, SO 2 and NO X emission controls are not required for this facility as part of the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan.

As part of the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan, Alaska revised its Air Quality Control Plan sections related to the Doyon-Fort Wainwright Central Heating and Power Plant (CHPP) to reflect new engines powering lift pumps and generators, correct typographical errors, improve clarity, and to include updated SO 2 BACT determinations. 38 With respect to the new engines, all are EPA-certified engines ranging in size from 74 horsepower to 324 horsepower. Alaska updated its PM 2.5 BACT determinations for these new engines. Alaska removed its BACT evaluation and determinations for NO X emissions because the EPA approved a comprehensive NO X precursor demonstration.

Alaska also submitted conditions from two Air Quality Control Minor Permits: AQ0236MSS03 Revision 2 (U.S. Army Garrison—USAG Alaska Fort Wainwright) and AQ1121MSS04 Revision 1 (Doyon Utilities, LLC—Fort Wainwright) (collectively referred to as the Fort Wainwright Permits). The Fort Wainwright Permits include enforceable PM 2.5 BACT emissions limitations for the emission units at Fort Wainwright comprised of numerical emissions limits and work practice standards and associated monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements. The permits are included in the docket for this action. 39

The EPA previously reviewed Alaska's BACM/BACT evaluation for the Doyon-Fort Wainwright Central Heating and Power Plant. 40 Alaska's updated BACT determination clarified the maintenance and testing requirements for the diesel-fired boilers and added enclosed conveying system requirements. 41 The EPA previously approved Alaska's BACT determinations for older pump engines and generator engines. Alaska updated its BACT determinations and associated permit limits to reflect grams per hour emission limits appropriate to the size and model year of the engine. Alaska also imposed limits on the hours of operations of these engines. Thus, the EPA proposed to approve Alaska's updated PM 2.5 BACT determinations for the emissions units at Doyon-Fort Wainwright CHPP, 42 the submitted revisions to State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix III.D.7.7 related to direct PM 2.5 emissions from the Doyon-Fort Wainwright CHPP, 43 and the submitted conditions from the Fort Wainwright Permits  44 as satisfying CAA section 189(b) and 40 CFR 51.1010.

The EPA did not propose action on Alaska's SO 2 BACT determinations in State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix III.D.7.7 for the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraphs regarding the Chena Power Plant.

The EPA did not receive comments on PM 2.5 BACT for Fort Wainwright and is finalizing approval of BACT for PM 2.5 emissions at Fort Wainwright. Based on precursor demonstrations, SO 2 and NO X emission controls are not required for this facility as part of the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan.

In the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan, Alaska updated its Air Quality Control Plan regarding the Fairbanks Campus Power Plant to reflect permanently removed emission units, add new diesel boilers and engines, update the PM 2.5 BACT determinations for small diesel-fired boilers and large and small engines, correct typographical errors, and improve clarity. 45 Alaska also added updated SO 2 BACT determinations for the Fairbanks Campus Power Plant.

With respect to the small diesel-fired boilers (EUs 17 through 22), Alaska updated its BACT determination for PM 2.5 emissions that includes a partial limit on hours of operation, an emission limit of 0.016 lb/MMBtu, 46 compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJJJ, and work practice standards. Alaska evaluated whether installation of a scrubber was feasible for these boilers and determined that it was economically infeasible. 47 Alaska noted that taking into consideration the enforceable limit on operation, the combined potential to emit PM 2.5 emissions from the six boilers is two tons per year.

With respect to large diesel fired engines (EUs 8 and 35) and small diesel fired engines (EUs 24, 26, 27, 29, and 34), 48 Alaska reevaluated the feasibility of add-on PM 2.5 controls, namely a diesel particulate filter (DPF). 49 EUs 24, 29, and 34 are limited to 100 hours per year of non-emergency operation, so additional BACT controls were not evaluated for these units. Alaska determined that a DPF is not technologically feasible for EU 8 due to an unacceptable increase in back pressure. Alaska determined that DPFs were technologically feasible for the other engines, but Alaska determined that the high cost per unit of emissions reductions rendered them economically infeasible. Updating the cost-effectiveness analysis to reflect comments from the EPA's Technical Support Document, 50 Alaska determined that the cost-effectiveness ranged from over $17,000 at EU 26 to over $20,000 per ton of PM 2.5 reduced at EU 27. Alaska stated that EU 35 has potential PM 2.5 emissions of 0.03 tons per year, which is an order of magnitude lower than the two other diesel engines, EUs 26 and 27. Therefore, Alaska did not perform a cost analysis for installing and operating a DPF on EU 35 as it would have an even higher cost per ton estimate than EUs 26 and 27. Furthermore, Alaska noted that EU 35 is limited to 100 hours per calendar year of non-emergency operation and required to combust ULSD under the existing Federal NSPS Subpart IIII requirements. 51

Alaska removed its BACT evaluation and determinations for NO X emissions because the EPA approved a comprehensive NO X precursor demonstration. 52

Alaska also submitted conditions from Air Quality Control Minor Permit AQ0316MSS08 Revision 1 (University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF)—University of Alaska Fairbanks Campus) (UAF Permit). The UAF Permit conditions include enforceable PM 2.5 BACT emissions limitations comprised of numerical emissions limits and work practice standards with associated monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. The permits are included in the docket for this action. 53

The EPA previously reviewed Alaska's BACT evaluation for the Fairbanks Campus Power Plant. 54 The EPA proposed to approve Alaska's updated PM 2.5 BACT determinations for the small diesel-fired boilers (EUs 17 through 22), large diesel-fired engines (EUs 8 and 35), and small diesel-fired engines (EUs 24, 26, 27, 29, and 34) at the Fairbanks Campus Power Plant. The EPA previously approved Alaska's PM 2.5 BACT determinations for EUs 8, 17-19, 24, and 29. Alaska's updates are consistent with these past approvals. With respect to EUs 26, 27, and 35, the EPA proposed to approve Alaska's economic infeasibility demonstrations for DPFs. The EPA proposed to approve Alaska's PM 2.5 BACT emissions limits for small diesel-fired boilers (EUs 17 through 22), large diesel-fired engines (EUs 8 and 35), and small diesel-fired engines (EUs 24, 26, 27, 29, and 34) at the Fairbanks Campus Power Plant, which consist of numerical emissions limits, limits on operation, fuel requirements, and work practice standards.

Therefore, the EPA proposed to approve the submitted revisions to State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix III.D.7.7 related to direct PM 2.5 emissions and NO X emissions  55 from the Fairbanks Campus Power Plant and the submitted conditions from the UAF Permit  56 as satisfying CAA section 189(b) and 40 CFR 51.1010.

The EPA did not propose action on Alaska's SO 2 BACT determinations in State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix III.D.7.7 for the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraphs regarding the Chena Power Plant.

The EPA did not receive comments on PM 2.5 BACT for the University of Alaska Campus Power Plant and is finalizing approval of BACT for PM 2.5 emissions at the University of Alaska Campus Power Plant. Based on precursor demonstrations, SO 2 and NO X emission controls are not required for this facility as part of the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan.

In the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan, Alaska revised its Air Quality Control Plan for the Zehnder Facility to correct errors and improve clarity. 57 Alaska also submitted conditions from Air Quality Control Minor Permit AQ0109MSS01 Revision 1 (Golden Valley Electric Association—Zehnder Facility) (Zehnder Permit). The Zehnder Permit contains enforceable PM 2.5 BACT emissions limitations for the emission units at the Zehnder Facility comprised of numerical emissions limits and work practice standards with associated monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. The permits are included in the docket for this action. 58

Similar to the small diesel-fired boilers (EUs 17 through 22) at the Fairbanks Campus Power Plant discussed in the preceding paragraphs of section II.C of this preamble, Alaska imposed, in the Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, an erroneous emissions limit on the small diesel fired boilers at the Zehnder Facility. The revised Air Quality Control Plan and associated conditions in the Zehnder Permit reflect the corrected limit. 59

The EPA previously reviewed Alaska's BACT evaluation for the Zehnder Facility. 60 In EPA's prior analysis, the EPA agreed with Alaska's BACT determinations for PM 2.5 . For the turbines, no technologically feasible add-on control options exist to reduce PM 2.5 emissions. For the emergency generators, the EPA agreed that the limits on annual hours of operation of 100 hours per year or less will result in add-on control equipment such as a DPF being cost prohibitive. Further, the EPA stated that similar to the turbines, no technologically feasible add-on control options exist to reduce PM 2.5 emissions from the small diesel and propane fired boilers. 61

Thus, the EPA proposed to approve the submitted revisions to State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix III.D.7.7 related to direct PM 2.5 emissions and NO X   62 emissions from Zehnder and the submitted Zehnder Permit conditions as satisfying CAA section 189(b) and 40 CFR 51.1010.

The EPA did not propose action on Alaska's SO 2 BACT determinations in State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix III.D.7.7 for the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraphs regarding the Chena Power Plant.

The EPA did not receive comments on PM 2.5 BACT for the Zehnder facility Campus Power Plant and is finalizing approval of BACT for PM 2.5 emissions at the Zehnder facility. Based on precursor demonstrations, SO 2 and NO X emission controls are not required for this facility as part of the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan.

In the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan, Alaska revised its Air Quality Control Plan for the North Pole Power Plant to correct errors and improve clarity. 63 Alaska also submitted conditions from Air Quality Control Minor Permit AQ0110MSS01 Revision 1 (Golden Valley Electric Association—North Pole Power Plant) (NPPP Permit). The NPPP Permit conditions include enforceable PM 2.5 BACT emissions limitations for the emission units at the North Pole Power Plant comprised of numerical emissions limits and work practice standards with associated monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. The permits are included in the docket for this action. 64

The EPA previously reviewed Alaska's BACT evaluation for the North Pole Power Plant. 65 The EPA agreed with Alaska that no additional PM 2.5 BACT controls are feasible for emission units at the North Pole Power Plant. 66 Thus, the EPA proposed to approve the submitted revisions to State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix III.D.7.7 related to direct PM 2.5 emissions and NO X   67 emissions from the North Pole Power Plant and the submitted NPPP Permit conditions  68 as satisfying CAA section 189(b) and 40 CFR 51.1010.

The EPA did not propose action on Alaska's SO 2 BACT determinations in State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix III.D.7.7 for the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraphs regarding the Chena Power Plant.

The EPA did not receive comments on PM 2.5 BACT for the North Pole Power Plant and is finalizing approval of BACT for PM 2.5 and NH 3 emissions at the North Pole Power Plant. Based on precursor demonstrations, SO 2 and NO X emission controls are not required for this facility.

The EPA proposed to approve the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan as meeting the requirements of CAA section 189(d) for Serious areas for the PM 2.5 NAAQS that fail to attain by the Serious area attainment date. In the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan the State retained the identification of all sources of direct PM 2.5 emissions and PM 2.5 plan precursors, identification of all potential controls to reduce direct PM 2.5 emissions and PM 2.5 plan precursors, and reevaluation of previously rejected control measures included in the initial Fairbanks 189(d) Plan.

As part of its reevaluation of control measures, Alaska provided additional information for many of the control measures the State considered in the BACM analysis. The Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan includes additional explanation of the State's consideration of potential measures such as banning installation of solid-fuel devices in new construction, limiting heating oil to ultra-low sulfur diesel, dry wood requirements, emissions controls for small area sources, mobile sources, and MSMs. 69

Alaska identified a burn-down period as part of other jurisdictions' solid fuel-fired heating device curtailment program. Accordingly, Alaska adopted a burn down period of three hours for solid-fuel heating devices that begins upon the effective date and time of a curtailment announcement. In addition, Alaska added specific requirements to document economic hardship as part of a No Other Adequate Source of Heat (NOASH) curtailment program waiver for solid-fuel devices.

Regarding the requirement of CAA section 189(d) for the plan revision to achieve at least five percent annual reductions of PM 2.5 or PM 2.5 plan precursor emissions each year until attainment, Alaska included in the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan a control strategy analysis that projects annual reductions of direct PM 2.5 emissions that are greater than five percent per year through 2027, Alaska's projected attainment year. 70 Alaska noted that the State can demonstrate either five percent annual reductions in emissions of direct PM 2.5 or a five percent annual reductions in emissions of a PM 2.5 plan precursor. Alaska elected to demonstrate five percent annual reductions in direct PM 2.5 emissions. Thus, the EPA proposed to approve the control strategy included in the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan as meeting the requirements of CAA section 189(d) and 40 CFR 51.1010(c).

The EPA did not receive comments on this requirement and is finalizing the approval as proposed.

The EPA proposed to approve the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan as meeting the attainment demonstration and modeling requirements of CAA section 189 and 40 CFR 51.1011. The State included an updated attainment demonstration in the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan. 71 In the plan, Alaska asserted that calendar year 2027 reflects attainment “as expeditiously as practicable,” based on air quality improvements from the base year to attainment year, as measured by the quantified emissions reductions associated with the implementation of control measures. 72

The EPA proposed to approve Alaska's attainment demonstration as meeting the requirements under 40 CFR 51.1011(b). Alaska demonstrated that the 2027 projected attainment date for the Serious nonattainment area is as expeditious as practicable. The EPA proposed to determine that the attainment demonstration met the requirements of Appendix W and included inventory data, modeling results, and emissions reduction analyses on which the State has based its projected attainment date. As discussed in section II.A of the Proposal, the base year for the emissions inventories for Alaska was 2020, which the EPA proposed to determine is the technically appropriate inventory year. The EPA proposed to determine that the control strategies in Alaska's SIP as rectified by the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 51.1010. Therefore, the control strategies modeled as part of the attainment demonstration are consistent with the control strategies required pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1003 and 51.1010. With respect to the required timeframe for obtaining emissions reductions, all control measures needed for attainment will be implemented as expeditiously as practicable and implemented to attain the PM 2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2027.

Pursuant to CAA section 172(a)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1004(a)(3), the EPA proposed to extend the attainment date for the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area to December 31, 2027. As shown in Table 5 of the Proposal, the 2020 base year design value at the Hurst Road monitoring station is 64.9 µg/m 3 . This design value is well above the PM 2.5 24-hour NAAQS of 35 µg/m 3 , indicating the air quality problem in the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area remains severe. However, Alaska has demonstrated that attainment earlier than 2027 is not feasible. Moreover, the EPA has reviewed Alaska's evaluations (and re-evaluations) of available control measures and proposes to determine that Alaska's control strategy meets the requirements of CAA section 189(b) and 189(d) and 40 CFR 51.1010. By extension, the EPA proposed to determine that there are no other feasible measures that Alaska could implement that would advance attainment to a date earlier than December 31, 2027.

As discussed in section II.E of the Proposal regarding Reasonable Further Progress, the primary drivers of emissions reductions will be continued implementation of the wood stove change out program, the Solid Fuel-Burning Appliance Curtailment Program, and the switch from diesel no. 2 fuel oil to diesel no. 1 fuel oil. The rate of wood stove change-outs in a single season is constrained based on the availability of certified installers and residential demand. Similarly, higher sulfur fuel cannot feasibly be eliminated from the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area until 2026  73 due to the time necessary to expend all residual diesel no. 2 fuel oil and for diesel no. 1 to fully flush out any remaining higher sulfur residue. Finally, Alaska conducted a recent assessment of compliance with the Solid Fuel-Burning Appliance Curtailment Program that indicated a compliance rate of 38 percent. 74 Given the variability of compliance with this program in past, Alaska did not project a near-term improvement in the compliance rate. Therefore, the EPA considered the severity of nonattainment and the availability and feasibility of control measures as required under CAA section 172(a)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1004(a)(3).

The EPA is finalizing approval of the attainment demonstration and modeling as proposed. Pursuant to CAA sections 172(a)(2)(A) and 179(d)(3) and 40 CFR 51.1004(a)(3), the Serious area attainment date for the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area is December 31, 2027. In its December 5, 2023, final action, the EPA disapproved Alaska's attainment demonstration projecting attainment by December 31, 2024. Finalizing approval of Alaska's revised attainment demonstration submitted as part of the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan, rectifies this prior disapproval.

The EPA received comments on the EPA's proposed approval of Alaska's attainment demonstration. In general, the comments questioned whether the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area can reach attainment and the appropriateness of tolling the sanctions clocks and initiating steps to lift the transportation conformity freeze at this time. The EPA disagrees with these comments. The commenters primarily focused on the current air quality and on Alaska's historic challenges projecting emissions reductions. The commenters argued that these were sufficient bases for retaining the transportation conformity freeze and sanctions clocks. However, under the CAA, once a State makes a SIP submission intended to rectify the deficiencies that form the basis for a prior disapproval of a SIP submission, and the EPA takes final action to approve that SIP submission, sanctions clocks started due to the deficiencies are eliminated. 75 In this action, the EPA is determining that Alaska has rectified the deficiencies in the initial Fairbanks 189(d) Plan that formed the basis for the EPA's 2023 disapproval.

Similarly, in a separate action, the EPA found the budgets submitted by the State as part of the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan adequate and is also approving those budgets as part of this action. Therefore, the area's metropolitan planning organization, the Fairbanks Area Surface Transportation (FAST) Planning, may determine conformity of its transportation plan and transportation improvement program (TIP) to the adequate budgets. 76 Once FAST Planning and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) makes a transportation conformity determination for its transportation plan and TIP, the freeze will end. Please see the EPA's Response to Comments document in the docket for this action for a summary of those comments and the EPA's detailed responses. 77

The EPA proposed to approve the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan as meeting the RFP requirements in CAA section 172(c)(2) and 40 CFR 51.1012. The Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan included updated RFP provisions at State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.10. 78 Consistent with the attainment demonstration provisions discussed in the preceding paragraphs, these updated RFP provisions reflect the attainment year of 2027. 79 The updated RFP analysis included a schedule that includes 2020 as the base year, 2027 as the attainment year, and the following years as RFP and quantitative milestone analysis years: 2023, 2026, and 2029. 80

The RFP provisions in the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan met each of the requirements in 40 CFR 51.1012(a)(1) through (4). First, the RFP provisions included a schedule describing the implementation of control measures during each year of the applicable attainment plan. 81 Second, the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan included RFP projected emissions for direct PM 2.5 and all PM 2.5 plan precursors for each applicable milestone year based on the phase-in schedule. 82 Third, the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan included an analysis that presents the schedule of control measures and estimated emissions changes to be achieved by each milestone year: 2023, 2026, and 2029. 83 This analysis relies on information from the base year inventory and attainment projected inventories in State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.8, as well as the RFP projected emissions. The analysis demonstrated that the control strategy will achieve reasonable progress toward attainment between the applicable base year and the attainment year. 84

Finally, the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan included an analysis that demonstrates that by the end of the calendar year for each milestone date, pollutant emissions will be at levels that reflect either linear progress or stepwise progress in reducing emissions on an annual basis between the base year and attainment year. In its December 5, 2023, final action, the EPA disapproved the reasonable further progress provisions included in the initial Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. Finalizing approval of Alaska's revised reasonable further progress provisions included in the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan, rectifies this prior disapproval.

The EPA did not receive comments on the Reasonable Further Progress requirement and is finalizing the approval as proposed.

The EPA proposed to approve the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan as meeting the quantitative milestone requirements of CAA section 189(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1013. First, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.1013(a)(3)(ii) and (a)(4), the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan included quantitative milestones for the years 2023, 2026, and 2029. Second, the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan included phase-in metrics for each measure in the control strategy, including measures necessary to meet the BACM and BACT requirements in CAA section 189(b) and 40 CFR 51.1010(a) and the requirements of CAA section 189(d) and 40 CFR 51.1010(c). Finally, the EPA proposed to find that the quantitative milestones selected by the State allowed for objective evaluation of whether the State is meeting the RFP requirements of the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan.

The EPA did not receive comments on the Reasonable Further Progress requirement and is finalizing the approval as proposed.

In the Proposal, the EPA reviewed the three measures that the State included in the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan to meet the contingency measures requirement for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. The EPA proposed to approve one of the State's submitted measures as a contingency measure, reducing the solid fuel-burning device curtailment thresholds. This contingency measure would achieve approximately 0.086 tons per day PM 2.5 emissions reductions with an increase of 0.047 tons per day SO 2 emissions. The EPA proposed to approve the other two measures as SIP-strengthening, enforceable commitments to enhance enforcement of the Solid Fuel-Burning Appliance Curtailment Program and removal of wood stoves. These SIP-strengthening measures would achieve surplus emissions reductions by increasing the compliance rate with the curtailment program from 38 percent to 65 percent and the wood stove removal measure from 30 percent to 45 percent.

The EPA proposed to find that the State provided an adequate reasoned justification that no other contingency measures are feasible for the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area for purposes of the 2006 24-hour NAAQS. The EPA proposed to approve the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan as meeting the contingency measure requirements in CAA section 179(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014(a). See the Proposal, section II.G.4, for the EPA's detailed evaluation of Alaska's contingency measures.

The EPA did not receive comments on the Contingency Measure requirement and is finalizing the approval as proposed.

The Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan included budgets for direct PM 2.5 for each of the upcoming RFP years (2023, 2026, and 2029) and the 2027 attainment year identified by Alaska. Alaska did not include budgets for NO X emissions because Alaska previously demonstrated that NO X emissions do not significantly contribute to PM 2.5 formation in the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area, and the EPA finalized approval of that precursor demonstration on December 5, 2023. 85 For VOC, SO 2 and NH 3 emissions, in accordance with 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(v), transportation-related emissions of these precursors have not been found to be significant and thus the State included no budgets for them. 86 Therefore, in the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area, transportation conformity applies only with respect to direct emissions of PM 2.5 .

The EPA evaluated the motor vehicle emissions budgets developed by Alaska against the adequacy criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) as part of our review of this SIP submission. Because the budgets met the criteria in the transportation conformity regulation at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), the EPA proposed to approve them as part of this SIP submission that addresses attainment and RFP.

In addition to proposing approval of the budgets, the EPA initiated the adequacy review process for the budgets in the Proposal, as described by 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2). When reviewing SIP submissions containing conformity budgets, the EPA reviews the budgets using the adequacy criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). Once the EPA affirmatively finds the submitted budgets are adequate for transportation conformity purposes, those budgets must be used by FAST Planning and the U.S. Department of Transportation when determining whether proposed transportation activities conform to the SIP as required by section 176(c) of the CAA. See 40 CFR 93.109(c)(1) and 93.118(e)(1); see also 93.118(a) through (d). 87 The EPA issued its finding of adequacy for the budgets via letter on April 4, 2025, 88 and published an accompanying Notice of Adequacy on May 8, 2025 (88 FR 19423) in the Federal Register .

The EPA is finalizing approval of the Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for Transportation Conformity.

The EPA received adverse comments on the EPA's proposed approval of Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for Transportation Conformity. Specifically, commenters expressed concern regarding increased diesel particulate emissions from ore truck hauling through the nonattainment area. The EPA acknowledges the concerns regarding diesel particulate emissions. Alaska accounted for increased diesel particulate emissions from ore truck hauling in the emissions analysis used to develop the budgets. Alaska used conservative assumptions regarding the frequency of truck trips and truck size when estimating ore truck emissions. Thus, the EPA's position remains that the motor vehicle emissions budgets meet the adequacy criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). The EPA provides a more detailed response to these comments in the Response to Comments document in the docket for this action. 89

1. In this action, the EPA is finalizing approval of the submitted revisions to the Alaska SIP as meeting the following Serious Plan and CAA section 189(d)  90 required elements for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS Fairbanks Nonattainment Area:

a. Base year emissions inventory requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3)  91 and 40 CFR 51.1008(c)(1) for areas subject to CAA section 189(d)).

b. Attainment projected emissions inventory requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1)  92 and 40 CFR 51.1008(c)(2)).

c. BACM and BACT requirements (CAA section 189(b)(1)(B)  93 and 40 CFR 51.1010(a)) for the following emission source categories:

i. Requirements for wood sellers

ii. Coal-fired heating devices

iii. Coffee roasters

iv. Energy efficiency and weatherization measures

v. Mobile source emissions

vi. Control strategy BACT requirements for direct PM 2.5 emissions meeting the requirements of CAA section 189(b)(1)(B)  94 and 40 CFR 51.1010(a) for the following emissions sources:  95

• Chena Power Plant

• Fort Wainwright

• University of Alaska Fairbanks

• Zehnder Facility

• North Pole Power Plant

d. Additional measures (beyond those already adopted in previous nonattainment plan SIP submissions for the area as RACM/RACT and BACM/BACT) under CAA section 189(d) and 40 CFR 51.1010(c).

e. Attainment demonstration and modeling requirements of CAA sections 172(a)(2), 189(b)(1)(A), and 189(d) and 40 CFR 51.1003(c) and 51.1011.

f. Reasonable further progress (RFP) requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2)  96 and 40 CFR 51.1012.

g. Quantitative milestones requirements of CAA section 189(c)  97 and 40 CFR 51.1013.

h. Contingency measures requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9)  98 and 40 CFR 51.1014 applicable to Serious areas subject to CAA sections 189(b) and 189(d).

i. Motor vehicle emission budgets requirements under 40 CFR 51.1003(d) and 93.118.

2. The EPA is finalizing approval of the submitted chapters of the Alaska Air Quality Control Plan for the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area, State effective December 14, 2024:

a. Volume II, section III.D.7.06 and Volume III, Appendix III.D.7.06 Emissions Inventory for purposes of the 2020 baseline emissions inventory and 2027 attainment year emissions inventory.

b. Volume II, section III.D.7.07 and Volume III, Appendix III.D.7.07 Control Strategies for purposes of the wood seller requirements, coal-fired heating devices, coffee roasters, energy efficiency and weatherization, light-duty vehicle anti-idling, and PM 2.5 BACT determinations for the Chena Power Plant, Fort Wainwright Power Plant, University of Alaska Fairbanks Campus Power Plant, Zehnder Power Plant, and the North Pole Power Plant.

c. Volume II, section III.D.7.08 Modeling and Volume III, Appendix III.D.7.08 Modeling.

d. Volume II, section II.D.7.09 Attainment Demonstration and Volume III, Appendix II.D.7.09 Attainment Demonstration.

e. Volume II, section II.D.7.10 Reasonable Further Progress and Quantitative Milestones and Volume III, Appendix II.D.7.10 Reasonable Further Progress and Quantitative Milestones.

f. Volume II, section II.D.7.11 Contingency Measures. 99

g. Volume II, section II.D.7.12 Emergency Episode Plan.

h. Volume II, section II.D.7.14 Conformity and Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets and Volume III, Appendix II.D.7.14 Conformity and Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets.

3. The EPA is also finalizing approval and incorporating by reference submitted regulatory provisions into the Alaska SIP at 40 CFR 52.70(c), State effective December 8, 2024:

a. 18 AAC 50.055 (industrial processes and fuel-burning equipment requirements), except (d)(2)(B).

b. 18 AAC 50.076 (solid fuel-fired heating device fuel requirements; registration of commercial wood sellers), except (g)(11).

c. 18 AAC 50.077 (standards for wood fired heating devices), except (g).

d. 18 AAC 50.078 (additional control measures for a serious PM 2.5 nonattainment area), except (c).

e. 18 AAC 50.079 (provisions for coal-fired heating devices).

4. The EPA is also approving and incorporating by reference submitted source-specific provisions into the Alaska SIP at 40 CFR 52.70(d), State effective December 14, 2024:

a. Minor Permit AQ1121MSS04 Rev. 1, Title Page, Table of Contents, List of Abbreviations and Acronyms, Section 1, Section 3, Section 4, and Section 6, only, (Doyon Utilities, LLC—Fort Wainwright (Privatized Emission Units)).

b. Minor Permit AQ0236MSS03 Rev. 2, Title Page, Table of Contents, List of Abbreviations and Acronyms, Section 1, Section 3, Section 4, and Section 6, only (U.S. Army Garrison Fort Wainwright).

c. Minor Permit AQ0110MSS01 Rev. 1, Title Page, Table of Contents, List of Abbreviations and Acronyms, Section 1, Section 3, Section 4, and Section 6, only, (Golden Valley Electric Association, North Pole Power Plant).

d. Minor Permit AQ0109MSS01 Rev. 2, Title Page, Table of Contents, List of Abbreviations and Acronyms, Section 1, Section 3, Section 4, and Section 6, only, (Golden Valley Electric Association, Zehnder Facility).

e. Minor Permit AQ0315MSS02 Revision 1, Title Page, Table of Contents, List of Abbreviations and Acronyms, Section 1, Section 3, Section 4, and Section 6, only, (Aurora Energy LLC, Chena Power Plant).

f. Minor Permit AQ0316MSS08 Revision 1, Title Page, Table of Contents, List of Abbreviations and Acronyms, Section 1, Section 3, Section 4, and Section 6, only, (University of Alaska Fairbanks, University of Alaska Fairbanks Campus).

Additionally, the EPA is affirmatively determining that the State has made a SIP submission correcting each of the deficiencies identified in the EPA's December 5, 2023, partial approval partial disapproval action (88 FR 84626). In accordance with CAA section 179(a) and 40 CFR 52.31(d)(5), the sanctions clocks triggered by the EPA's partial disapprovals in the prior action are now permanently stopped and eliminated.

The EPA issued the Notice of Adequacy for the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in a separate action on May 8, 2025 (88 FR 19423). The adequacy finding for the budgets, which the EPA are also approving through this action, allows FAST Planning, and subsequently the U.S. DOT, to make conformity determinations for the transportation plan and TIP that would end the transportation conformity freeze, see 40 CFR 93.120(a)(2). Lastly, in accordance with CAA section 110(c), this final approval eliminates the EPA's obligation to promulgate a Federal implementation plan (FIP) for the disapproved portions of Alaska's SIP submission in the EPA's December 5, 2023, final rule (88 FR 84626). 100

In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is incorporating by reference regulatory provisions as described in section III of this document. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 10 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for more information).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 20, 2026. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:

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

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposed approval of SIP revisions submitted by the State of Connecticut that relate to the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The SIP revisions included the 2014 and 2017 periodic emissions inventories for the Greater Connecticut and the Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT ozone nonattainment areas. We proposed to find that the emissions inventories were prepared in accordance with the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(3)(A). The EPA is now finalizing the proposed approval of Connecticut's 2014 and 2017 periodic emissions inventories for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS.

EPA received one comment during the comment period, which is available in the docket of this rulemaking action. This comment recognizes that the proposal was “limited to evaluating emissions inventory submissions for ozone precursors,” but urges EPA to “recognize the broader importance of integrating carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions” in future periodic emissions inventories.

The comment does not assert that the CAA requires EPA to disapprove a periodic emissions inventory submittal that does not include CO 2 or GHGs. Rather, the comment recognizes that CO 2 and GHGs are “not directly regulated under the 2008 ozone standard” but urges EPA nonetheless to “encourage states to incorporate GHG awareness into future inventory work and SIP development frameworks.”

EPA reviews a State's submittal for compliance with CAA requirements, and EPA is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with those requirements. CAA § 110(k)(3); 40 CFR 52.02(a). As noted, this EPA action concerns emissions inventories for the 2008 ozone NAAQS submitted in accordance with CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(3)(A). Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires a state to include “the relevant pollutant or pollutants” in emissions inventories for SIPs. EPA's 2008 ozone implementation rule indicates the relevant pollutants to be included in periodic emission inventories for the 2008 ozone NAAQS are ozone season day emissions of the ozone precursors volatile organic compounds and (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NO X ). 1 Therefore, CT DEEP's submittal of 2014 and 2017 periodic emissions inventories without reference to CO 2 or GHGs meets the applicable pollutant and ozone precursor reporting requirements for periodic emission inventories of the CAA and EPA's 2008 ozone implementation rule. 2 Furthermore, EPA regulations require a base year inventory to establish a reference point to track VOC and NO X emissions, 3 Thus, subsequent periodic emissions inventories also center on VOC and NO X in order to track progress toward meeting the ozone NAAQS by comparing current VOC and NO X emissions data to the base year inventory. Accordingly, EPA is finalizing the action as proposed.

For the reasons described in our July 7, 2025, notice of proposed rulemaking, 4 EPA is taking final action to approve Connecticut's 2014 and 2017 periodic emissions inventories for the 2008 ozone NAAQS as a revision to the Connecticut SIP.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 20, 2026. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

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

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

On November 5, 2024, under CAA section 110(k)(3), the EPA proposed to approve the Yuma Maintenance Plan submitted by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) on December 27, 2023, as a revision to the Arizona SIP. 1 In so doing, we proposed to find that the Yuma Maintenance Plan adequately demonstrates that the Yuma area will maintain the 2015 ozone NAAQS for ten years beyond redesignation and includes sufficient contingency provisions to promptly correct any violation of the 2015 ozone NAAQS that may occur, and otherwise meets the requirements for maintenance plans under CAA section 175A. We also proposed to find the motor vehicle emissions budgets (“budgets”) for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NO X ) for 2020, 2030, and 2037 adequate and approve the budgets for transportation conformity purposes.

In our proposed rulemaking, we also proposed to grant ADEQ's request to redesignate the Yuma area from nonattainment to attainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS pursuant to CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). We proposed to do so based on our conclusion that the Yuma area has attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS based on the following: the most recent three-year period (2020-2022) of quality-assured, certified, and complete ozone data;  2 the relevant portions of the Arizona SIP are, or will be as part of this action, fully approved; the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable emissions reductions; Arizona has met all requirements applicable to the Yuma area with respect to section 110 and part D of the CAA; and based on our proposed approval as described above, the Yuma Maintenance Plan meets the requirements for maintenance plans under section 175A of the CAA. Therefore, Arizona has met the criteria for redesignation under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) for the Yuma area with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

Our proposed rulemaking has a detailed discussion of the background for this action, our procedural and substantive review of the Yuma Maintenance Plan and associated budgets, and our rationale for our proposed approval of the Yuma Maintenance Plan and for granting ADEQ's request for redesignation of the Yuma area to attainment.

Our November 5, 2024 (89 FR 87828) proposed rulemaking provided a 30-day public comment period that closed on December 5, 2024. During this comment period we received one comment, which stated that the cannabis industry is responsible for significant greenhouse gas and VOC emissions in Arizona. We acknowledge the comment; however, it fails to assert or explain how the EPA's approval of Arizona's redesignation request for the Yuma area and the Yuma Maintenance Plan is erroneous or otherwise inconsistent with the CAA, applicable regulations, or other authorities. As such, the comment does not require further response in order to finalize the action as proposed.

Under CAA section 110(k)(3), and for reasons set forth in our November 5, 2024 (89 FR 87828) proposed rulemaking, the EPA is taking final action to approve the Yuma Maintenance Plan submittal as a revision to the Arizona SIP. The EPA finds that the maintenance demonstration showing the area will continue to maintain the 2015 ozone NAAQS for 10 years beyond redesignation, the contingency provisions describing the actions that ADEQ will take in the event of a future monitored violation, and the other elements of the Yuma Maintenance Plan meet all applicable requirements for maintenance plans and related contingency provisions in CAA section 175A. The EPA is also approving the budgets for VOC and NO X for 2020, 2030, and 2037 because they are derived from an approvable maintenance demonstration, are adequate, and meet the applicable transportation conformity requirements under 40 CFR 93.118(e).

Under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D), we are also taking final action to grant ADEQ's request to redesignate the Yuma area to attainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, which accompanied the submittal of the Yuma Maintenance Plan. We are doing so based on our conclusion that the area has met the five criteria for redesignation under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). Our conclusion in this regard is based on our determination of the following: the area has attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS; relevant portions of the Arizona SIP are, or will be as part of this action, fully approved; the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions; Arizona has met all requirements applicable to the Yuma area with respect to section 110 and part D of the CAA; and our approval (as part of this action) of the Yuma Maintenance Plan.

Under the Clean Air Act, redesignation of a nonattainment area to attainment and the accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those imposed by the SIP and applicable Federal rules. Redesignation to attainment does not in and of itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the applicability of less stringent requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, 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 Clean Air Act. Accordingly, these actions merely approve a SIP revision and redesignation request as meeting Federal requirements and do not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For these reasons, these actions:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The EPA has identified Tribal areas within the Yuma area covered by this rule that would be potentially affected by this final action. Specifically, the Cocopah Tribe of Arizona and the Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation are located within the boundaries of the Yuma area.

The EPA has concluded that this rule may have Tribal implications for these Tribes for the purposes of transportation conformity, as this document sets motor vehicle emissions budgets for ozone precursors for the Yuma area, which includes some Tribal roads. The EPA has communicated with the potentially affected Tribes located within the boundaries of the Yuma area. 3

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 20, 2026. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR parts 52 and 81 as follows:

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

The EPA is granting final approval of the request submitted by the State of Kansas to redesignate the Saline County, Salina, Kansas nonattainment area to attainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS. On March 20, 2025 the State submitted a request for redesignation that demonstrates NAAQS attainment and an associated maintenance plan to ensure that the area continues to attain the standard. On August 7, 2025 the EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) which proposed to approve the redesignation request and associated maintenance plan (90 FR 38095).

As part of this action, the EPA is approving a revision to the Kansas SIP to incorporate Construction Permit #1690035, which was issued on December 27, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the December 2018 permit) for the Stryten Salina, LLC facility (formerly known as Exide Technologies, hereinafter referred to as Stryten) which contains an updated control strategy to control lead emissions. The December 2018 permit was submitted by the State for incorporation into the SIP in 40 CFR 52.870(d). The December 2018 permit incorporates three permit modifications to the facility's construction permit that was originally issued August 18, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the August 2014 Permit).

The basis for the EPA's final approval is that the area met the requirements of the CAA for approval as discussed below and in the NPRM.

As described in the NPRM published on August 7, 2025, the EPA has determined that the area has met the criteria for section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA and that the State's maintenance plan will ensure that the area continues to attain the standard.

As discussed in the NPRM the Stryten lead acid battery manufacturing plant located in Salina, KS was the main source of lead emissions impacting the violating monitor. Stryten implemented contingency measures and additional control strategies made enforceable through modifications to the August 2014 permit, the most recent of which is the December 2018 permit. 1 The additional emission reduction measures in the December 2018 permit included better control device filtration efficiency and monitoring, expansion of negative pressure ventilation of all lead-emitting process areas, additional paving of plant property, and dust suppression on plant grounds and roadways using a water truck and vacuum street sweeper. See the State's maintenance plan and the December 2018 permit for more information on the updated control strategy.

Following implementation of the additional emission reduction measures starting in 2017, ambient lead concentrations decreased in the area. Air quality monitoring data from 2017-2019, 2018-2020, and 2019-2021 show attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS.

The public comment period on the EPA's proposed rule opened August 7, 2025, the date of its publication in the Federal Register , and closed on September 8, 2025. During this period, the EPA received comments from the State in an email from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) that is included in the docket of this action. Comments are addressed in section III.

Comment 1: KDHE requests that the EPA clarify that the State submitted its attainment plan for the Salina nonattainment area on February 3, 2015 as specified in 40 CFR 52.870(e)(43).

Response 1: The EPA agrees with this comment and clarifies that the attainment plan for the Salina nonattainment area was received by the EPA on February 25, 2015, as stated in 81 FR 47034 (July 20, 2016).

Comment 2: KDHE requests that the EPA reference KDHE's SIP-approved minor NSR regulatory program in its analysis of whether the area has met all redesignation requirements, specifically whether it has met all applicable requirements under CAA section 110 and part D.

Response 2: The EPA notes that the State's redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Salina nonattainment area included a discussion of the State's minor NSR regulatory program, codified at K.A.R. 28-19-300 through K.A.R. 28-19-304. The EPA further notes that for purposes of determining whether the State has met the applicable requirements of sections 107(d)(3)(E)(v), 110, and 172(c)(5) of the CAA, the EPA is not required to analyze whether the State has a SIP-approved minor NSR regulatory program. Therefore, no changes have been made in response to this comment.

Comment 3: KDHE stated that the source name was incorrect in the proposed amendment to 40 CFR part 52, subpart R, § 52.870(d)(6) table “EPA-APPROVED KANSAS SOURCE-SPECIFIC PERMITS”.

Response 3: The EPA agrees that the source name in the NPRM table was incorrect and has corrected the name of the source to “Stryten Salina LLC (formerly known as Exide)” in this final action.

Comment 4: KDHE requests that the EPA replace a sentence in the background section of the TSD that does not accurately describe the facility emission source.

Response 4: The EPA agrees that the TSD accompanying the NPRM incorrectly stated that “lead emissions result from breaking open used batteries, re-melting the lead, and reformulating new batteries.” Accordingly, the EPA updated the background section of the revised TSD to describe the lead emissions from the facility associated with battery production.

Comment 5: KDHE requests that the EPA correct a typographical error in a table that erroneously listed lead as SO 2 .

Response 5: The EPA corrected the typographical error in section VI., table 4 of the revised TSD to indicate the “Background Lead Concentration” used in Stryten and KDHE's modeling.

Comment 6: KDHE is requesting that the EPA include the volume source emission rates used in Stryten's October 2021 modeling in table 8 of the TSD.

Response 6: The EPA added language that includes and clarifies the different sets of volume source emission rates used in Stryten's October 2021 modeling and KDHE's supplemental modeling in section VI.D. and tables 4 and 8 of the revised TSD.

Comment 7: KDHE requests that EPA replace the UTM Easting value for the Schilling Elementary School in table 10b of the TSD.

Response 7: The EPA agrees and included the correct UTM Easting value for the Schilling Elementary School in section VI., table 10b of the revised TSD.

The NPRM provides a detailed discussion of the requirements of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) which identifies the five criteria that must be met before a nonattainment area may be redesignated to attainment and the EPA's analysis of how each requirement was met. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for redesignation provided the following criteria are met: (1) The Administrator determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k); (3) the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section 175A; and (5) the State containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of title I of the CAA. The EPA finds that the Salina area has met these criteria, and that the State's maintenance plan will ensure the Salina area continues to attain the standard.

The State's redesignation submission meets the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfies the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The State provided public notice on this SIP revision from January 23, 2025, to February 24, 2025, and received no comments. In addition, as explained in this proposed action and in more detail in the TSD, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

The EPA is taking final action to approve the maintenance plan for the Salina nonattainment area into the Kansas SIP (as compliant with CAA section 175A). The maintenance plan demonstrates that the area will continue to maintain the 2008 lead NAAQS and includes contingency provisions to remedy any future violations of the 2008 lead NAAQS and procedures for evaluation of potential violations.

Additionally, the EPA is taking final action to determine that the Salina nonattainment area has met the criteria under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) for redesignation from nonattainment to attainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS. On this basis, the EPA is approving the State's redesignation request for the area and changing the legal designation of the portion of Saline County designated nonattainment at 40 CFR part 81 to attainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS.

The EPA is also approving and incorporating by reference 40 CFR 52.870(d) EPA-Approved Kansas Source-Specific Permits the following source-specific permit:

• Stryten Salina LLC #1690035, state effective date December 27, 2018.

In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Kansas permit #1690035 issued December 27, 2018 discussed in sections I., II. and V. of this preamble and as set forth below in the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 52. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 7 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation. 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 20, 2026. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR parts 52 and 81 as set forth below:

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

The EPA is taking final action to approve a SIP revision and redesignation request submitted on November 17, 2021, by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). The EPA is taking the following three separate but related actions: (1) to add new or revised permits for Muscatine area sources into the Iowa SIP and remove certain air construction permits from the SIP; (2) to approve Iowa's maintenance plan for the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS in the Muscatine area and incorporate it into the SIP; and (3) to redesignate the Muscatine area to attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS.

The EPA finds that the State's submittal meets the requirements for redesignation under the CAA and the revisions do not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress. The full State submission is included in the docket for this action.

On June 2, 2010 (75 FR 35520), the EPA signed the revised the primary SO 2 NAAQS, establishing a new 1-hour standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb). Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is required by CAA section 107(d) to designate areas throughout the nation as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS, or as unclassifiable. On August 5, 2013, the EPA designated a portion of Muscatine County, Iowa, as nonattainment for the 2010 primary 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS (78 FR 47191), effective October 4, 2013.

Iowa submitted an attainment plan for the Muscatine area on May 26, 2016. Iowa's approved 2016 attainment plan provided a modeled attainment demonstration and the required nonattainment planning requirements for the Muscatine NAA. The attainment plan included permit conditions to reduce SO 2 emissions at three facilities in the NAA: Grain Processing Corporation (GPC), Muscatine Power and Water (MPW), and Monsanto Company—Muscatine (Monsanto), now Bayer CropScience LP. 1 The conditions are contained in air construction permits issued by IDNR and were approved into the SIP as part of the attainment plan approval. 2 The EPA issued a final approval of Iowa's attainment plan on November 17, 2020 (85 FR 73218).

On November 17, 2021, Iowa submitted a redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Muscatine nonattainment area for the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS. The submission also included modifications to SIP-approved permits for GPC, MPW, and Monsanto. The submitted permit revisions replace some specific conditions that the EPA had previously approved into the SIP for the purpose of demonstrating attainment of the SO 2 standard pursuant to the nonattainment requirements of sections 172, 191, and 192 of the CAA.

On January 26, 2022, the EPA proposed to determine that the Muscatine NAA attained the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of October 4, 2018 (87 FR 3958). The EPA issued a final determination of attainment by the attainment date for the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS on April 7, 2022 (87 FR 20329).

On August 21, 2025 (90 FR 40797), the EPA proposed to approve Iowa's 2021 redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Muscatine area for the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS. An explanation of the CAA requirements, a detailed analysis of the revisions, and EPA's reasons for proposing approval were provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and will not be restated here.

The EPA also proposed to approve revisions to SIP-approved permits. The submitted revisions remove outdated permits, add new permits, and modify SIP-approved permits. The air construction permits include reasonably available control technology (RACT) limits for the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS, compliance monitoring, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements at GPC, MPW, and Monsanto. The emission limits establish the maximum permitted allowable emission rate for each emission point, and Iowa provided updated dispersion modeling in its 2021 SIP submission based on these conditions. The new and modified permits are contained in Attachments 1 through 3 of the State submittal in the docket for this action.

The requested permit revisions are as follows:

• Remove twelve GPC permits relied upon in the 2016 attainment plan for emission points (stacks) no longer in service. The GPC permit numbers are 15-A-078, 79-A-194-S2, 74-A-014-S1, 74-A-015-S2, 79-A-195-S2, 71-A-067-S4, 15-A-202, 15-A-209, 11-A-338-S1, 15-A-354, 05-A-926-S4, 75-A-087-S1.

• Remove eight permits from the SIP due to the revocation of the 24-hour and annual primary SO 2 NAAQS. The numbers are GPC permits 74-A-015-S, 79-A-194-S, 79-A-195-S, and 95-A-374; MPW permits 74-A-175-S and 95-A-373; and Monsanto permits 76-A-161S3 and 76-A-265S3.

• Add five new GPC permits into the SIP containing SO 2 RACT limits for the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS. The new permits are for four new stacks and one newly identified SO 2 emission source. The GPC permit numbers are 17-A-298, 17-A-299, 17-A-112, 19-A-515-S1, and 18-A-136.

• Replace twenty GPC permits, two MPW permits, and one Monsanto permit in the Iowa SIP that were relied upon in the 2016 attainment plan. Several revisions to GPC permits establish a Collection of Air Permits (CAP) which is a type of air construction permit issued by IDNR that combines the requirements and conditions for multiple emission points (and thus multiple permit numbers) into one document. Other revisions included changes to SO 2 RACT limits or updates unrelated to SO 2 . The modified GPC permit numbers are CAP: 80-A-149-S6, CAP: 80-A-150-S6, CAP: 85-A-031-S5, CAP: 85-A-032-S5, 91-A-068-S3, 92-A-383-S3, 92-A-385-S2, CAP: 94-A-055-S3, CAP: 94-A-061-S3, 02-A-781-S3, 02-A-782-S3, 10-A-563-S2, 15-A-200-S1, 15-A-201-S1, 15-A-213-S2, 15-A-486-S1, 15-A-326-S1, 03-A-471-S3, 06-A-1261-S2, and 15-A-199-S1. The modified MPW permits are 95-A-373-P4 and 80-A-191-P4, and the Monsanto permit is 82-A-092-P12.

The EPA's NPRM and supporting information contained in the docket were made available for public comment from August 21, 2025, to September 22, 2025. EPA received no comments on the proposal. Therefore, we are finalizing our action as proposed.

The State's submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The State provided public notice on this SIP submission from August 20, 2021, to September 20, 2021, and held a public hearing on September 20, 2021. IDNR received and responded to written comments from two sources, and included the comments and responses in its submission. In addition, as explained above and in more detail in the technical support document (TSD) which is part of this document, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

The EPA is taking final action to approve the redesignation of the Muscatine area from nonattainment to attainment in accordance with Iowa's November 17, 2021 request. The criteria under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) as specific to the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS have been met. On this basis, the EPA is approving Iowa's redesignation request for the area and changing the legal designation of the portion of Muscatine County designated nonattainment at 40 CFR part 81 to attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS.

Additionally, the EPA is approving the Muscatine, Iowa 2010 SO 2 1-hour NAAQS maintenance plan into the Iowa SIP under CAA section 175A. The maintenance plan demonstrates that the area will continue to maintain the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS for at least 10 years following redesignation and includes contingency provisions to remedy any future violations of the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS.

Finally, the EPA is taking final action to add new or revised permits for Muscatine area sources into the Iowa SIP and remove certain air construction permits from the SIP.

In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Iowa permits #17-A-298, #17-A-299, #19-A-515-S1, #18-A-136, #17-A-112, #80-A-149-S6, #80-A-150-S6, #85-A-031-S5, #85-A-032-S5, #91-A-068-S3, #92-A-383-S3, #92-A-385-S2, #94-A-055-S3, #94-A-061-S3, #02-A-781-S3, #02-A-782-S3, #10-A-563-S2, #15-A-200-S1, #15-A-201-S1, #15-A-213-S2, #15-A-486-S1, #15-A-326-S1, #03-A-471-S3, #06-A-1261-S2, #15-A-199-S1, #95-A-373-P4, #80-A-191-P4, and #82-A-092-P12 discussed in section II. of this preamble and as set forth below in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 7 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the State Implementation Plan, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation. 3

Also, in this document, as described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below, the EPA is removing provisions of the EPA-approved permits from the Iowa SIP, which is incorporated by reference in accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR part 51. The EPA is removing Iowa permits #74-A-015-S, #79-A-194-S, #79-A-195-S, #95-A-374, #74-A-175-S, #95-A-373, #76-A-161S3, #76-A-265S3, #15-A-078, #79-A-194-S2, #71-A-067-S4, #75-A-087-S1, #74-A-014-S1, #74-A-015-S2, #79-A-195-S2, #80-A-149-S5, #80-A-150-S5, #85-A-031-S2, #85-A-032-S2, #91-A-068-S2, #92-A-383-S2, #92-A-385-S1, #94-A-055-S1, #94-A-061-S1, #02-A-781-S2, #02-A-782-S2, #10-A-563-S1, #15-A-200, #15-A-201, #15-A-202, #15-A-209, #15-A-213, #15-A-486, #15-A-326, #03-A-471-S1, #05-A-926-S4, #06-A-1261-S1, #11-A-338-S1, #15-A-354, #15-A-199, #95-A-373-P3, #80-A-191-P3, and #82-A-092-P11.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 20, 2026. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR parts 52 and 81 as set forth below:

On July 24, 2025 (90 FR 34815), the EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In the NPRM, the EPA proposed to redesignate the Beaver County, Pennsylvania area from nonattainment to attainment for the 2010 1-hour primary SO 2 NAAQS. The EPA also proposed approval of a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP which included Beaver County's maintenance plan for the 2010 1-hour primary SO 2 NAAQS, the approval of which is required for redesignation under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). The formal SIP revision was submitted by Pennsylvania on August 12, 2024. The public comment period for the proposed rulemaking ended on August 25, 2025 and the EPA received no comments during the public comment period.

The July 24, 2025 proposal (90 FR 34815) provides a detailed discussion of the requirements of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)—which identifies the five criteria that must be met before a nonattainment area may be redesignated to attainment—and the EPA's analysis of how each requirement was met. To summarize this discussion: (1) the EPA determined that the Beaver County Area attained the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS based on air quality monitoring data in compliance with the standard and on emissions data that is below modeled emissions limits identified in Pennsylvania's 2017 attainment plan; (2) the EPA determined that Pennsylvania has a fully approved SIP for the Beaver County Area under section 110(k) of the CAA for all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation; (3) the EPA determined that the improvement in the Beaver County Area's air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions, including the closures of multiple facilities and permitted SO 2 emissions limits at various sources throughout the Beaver County Area; (4) the EPA determined that Pennsylvania's maintenance plan was fully approvable and ensures that the Beaver County Area will continue to attain the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS for at least 10 years following redesignation and further includes contingency measures to correct for any potential future 2010 SO 2 NAAQS violations;  1 and (5) the EPA determined that Pennsylvania has met all applicable requirements for the Beaver County Area under CAA section 110 and part D. Additional rationale for the EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPRM, and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPRM.

The EPA is approving the redesignation of the Beaver County Area from nonattainment to attainment in accordance with Pennsylvania's August 12, 2024, request. The criteria under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) as specific to the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS have been met. The EPA is determining that the Beaver County Area is attaining the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS, the state has a fully approved applicable state implementation plan under CAA section 110(k), the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable SO 2 emissions reductions in the Beaver County Area, the state now has a fully approved maintenance plan for the area (as noted below), and the state has met all requirements applicable to the area under CAA section 110 and part D of title I of the CAA. On this basis, the EPA is approving the redesignation request from Pennsylvania for the Beaver County Area and changing the legal designation of the Beaver County Area at 40 CFR part 81 to attainment for the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS.

The EPA is also approving the Beaver County 2010 SO 2 NAAQS maintenance plan as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP. The maintenance plan demonstrates that the area will continue to maintain the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS for at least 10 years following redesignation and includes a process to implement contingency measures to remedy any future violations of the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 20, 2026. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR parts 52 and 81 as follows:

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

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

EPA is issuing this rulemaking under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . .”

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. If you fail to file an objection to the final rule within the time period specified in the final rule, you will have waived the right to raise any issues resolved in the final rule. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify the docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2024-0176 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before January 20, 2026.

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

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

In the Federal Register of July 1, 2024 (89 FR 54,398, 54,401) (FRL-11682-05-OCSPP), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 3E9060) by the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, 1400 Independence Ave. Washington, DC 20250. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180 be amended by establishing an import tolerance for residues of the fungicide fluopyram, N-[2-[3-chloro-5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinyl]ethyl]-2-(trifluoromethyl)benzamide, in or on mango at 1 parts per million (ppm). That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified therein, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for fluopyram including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with fluopyram follows.

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

EPA has previously published tolerance rulemakings for fluopyram, most recently in the Federal Register of February 1, 2023 (88 FR 6636) (FRL-10566-01), in which EPA concluded, based on the available information, that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm would result from aggregate exposure to fluopyram and established tolerances for residues of that pesticide chemical. EPA is incorporating previously published sections from the February 1, 2023 rulemaking as described further in this rulemaking, as they remain unchanged.

For a discussion of the Toxicological Profile of fluopyram, see Unit III.A. of the February 1, 2023 rulemaking.

A summary of the toxicological endpoints for fluopyram used for the human health risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the February 1, 2023 rulemaking.

1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to fluopyram, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing fluopyram tolerances in 40 CFR 180.661. EPA assessed dietary exposures from fluopyram in food as follows:

i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. Such effects were identified for fluopyram.

In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software using the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID) Version 4.02, which uses the 2005-2010 food consumption data from the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, the acute dietary exposure assessment used tolerance-level values for mango and for commodities with established tolerances with the exception of cereal grains, canola commodities, and coffee, for which the Highest Average Field Trial (HAFT) values were used. One hundred percent crop treated (PCT) was assumed.

ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment, EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA's 2005-2010 NHANES/WWEIA and DEEM-FCID; version 4.02. As to residue levels in food, the chronic dietary exposure assumed tolerance-level residues for mango and used mean field trial data for all other commodities. The chronic dietary assessment used a combination of average PCT for some commodities and 100 PCT for other commodities.

iii. Cancer. Based on the toxicological profile in Unit III.A of the February 1, 2023 rulemaking, EPA has concluded that fluopyram does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.

iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information. EPA's estimated PCTs for existing uses are unchanged from the February 1, 2023 rulemaking and can be found in section Unit III.C.1.iv.

2. Drinking water, non-occupational, and cumulative exposures. For more discussion of the estimated drinking water concentrations, non-occupational (residential), and cumulative exposures for fluopyram, see Unit III.C.2., Unit III.C.3. and Unit III.C.4. of the February 1, 2023 rulemaking.

EPA continues to conclude that there is reliable data to support the reduction of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) safety factor to 1X. See Unit III.D. of the February 1, 2023 rulemaking for a discussion of the Agency's rationale for that determination.

Acute, chronic, short-, and intermediate-term aggregate risk, as well as aggregate cancer risk estimates remain unchanged from the previous rulemaking. Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, fluopyram is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans. For discussion of these exposure estimates, see Unit III.E. of the February 1, 2023 rulemaking.

Consequently, based on these risk assessments and information described in the February 1, 2023 rulemaking, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to fluopyram residues. More detailed information can be found at https://www.regulations.gov in the document titled “Fluopyram. Human Health Risk Assessment for the Proposed Section 3 Tolerance Request without U.S. Registration for Mango.” in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2024-0176.

For a discussion of the available analytical enforcement method, see Unit IV.A. of the February 1, 2023 rulemaking.

In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.

The Codex has established MRLs for fluopyram in or on mango at 1 ppm. These MRLs are the same as the tolerances established for fluopyram in the United States.

Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of fluopyram, N-[2-[3-chloro-5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinyl]ethyl]-2-(trifluoromethyl)benzamide, in or on mango at 1 ppm.

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

This action is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), because it establishes or modifies a pesticide tolerance or a tolerance exemption under FFDCA section 408 in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866.

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

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

Since tolerance actions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., do not apply to this action.

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

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

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

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because tolerance actions like this one are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. However, EPA's 2021 Policy on Children's Health applies to this action.

This rule finalizes tolerance actions under the FFDCA, which requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . .” (FFDCA 408(b)(2)(C)). The Agency's consideration is documented in the pesticide-specific registration review documents, located in each chemical docket at https://www.regulations.gov.

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

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

This action is subject to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Therefore, EPA is amending 40 CFR chapter I as follows:

Codification is the process of placing a State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste management program into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Section 3006(b) of RCRA, as amended, allows the EPA to authorize State hazardous waste management programs to operate in lieu of the Federal hazardous waste management regulatory program. The EPA codifies its authorization of State programs in 40 CFR part 272 and incorporates by reference State statutes and regulations that the EPA will enforce under sections 3007 and 3008 of RCRA and any other applicable statutory provisions.

The incorporation by reference of State authorized programs in the CFR should substantially enhance the public's ability to discern the current status of the authorized State program and State requirements that can be Federally enforced. This effort provides clear notice to the public of the scope of the authorized program in each State.

The EPA is publishing this rule to codify Arkansas' authorized hazardous waste management program without a prior proposal because we believe this action is not controversial. The reason being that, in accordance with section 3006(b) of RCRA, EPA has already evaluated the State's regulatory and statutory requirements and has determined that the State's program meets the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. The EPA previously provided notices and opportunity for comments on the Agency's decisions to authorize the Arkansas program. The EPA is not now reopening the decisions, nor requesting new comments, on the Arkansas authorizations as previously published in the Federal Register documents specified in section I.C of this preamble. The previous authorizations form the basis for the codification addressed in this final rule.

The State of Arkansas initially received final authorization on January 11, 1985, effective January 25, 1985 (50 FR 1513), to implement its Base Hazardous Waste Management Program. We granted authorization for changes to their program on August 23, 1985, via EPA letter, effective August 23, 1985; March 27, 1990 (55 FR 11192), effective May 29, 1990; September 18, 1991 (56 FR 47153), effective November 18, 1991; October 5, 1992 (57 FR 45721), effective December 4, 1992; October 12, 1993 (58 FR 52674), effective December 13, 1993; October 7, 1994 (59 FR 51115), effective December 21, 1994; June 20, 1995 (60 FR 32112), effective August 21, 1995; April 24, 2002 (67 FR 20038), effective June 24, 2002, as amended June 28, 2010 (75 FR 36538); August 15, 2007 (72 FR 45663), effective October 15, 2007, as amended June 28, 2010 (75 FR 36538); June 28, 2010 (75 FR 36538), effective August 27, 2010; August 10, 2012 (77 FR 47779), effective October 9, 2012; October 2, 2014 (79 FR 59438), effective December 1, 2014; October 31, 2014 (79 FR 64678), effective December 30, 2014; January 29, 2016 (81 FR 4961), effective March 29, 2016; August 11, 2016. (81 FR 53025), effective October 11, 2016; September 14, 2017 (82 FR 43185), effective November 13, 2017; and November 23, 2021 (86 FR 66460); effective November 23, 2021.

The EPA incorporated by reference Arkansas' then authorized hazardous waste program effective December 13, 1993 (58 FR 52674), August 21, 1995 (60 FR 32112), August 27, 2010 (75 FR 36538), December 1, 2014 (79 FR 59438), March 29, 2016 (81 FR 4961) and November 13, 2017 (82 FR 43185). In this document, the EPA is revising 40 CFR part 272, subpart E to include the authorization revision actions effective November 23, 2021 (86 FR 66460).

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of “EPA-Approved Arkansas Statutory and Regulatory Requirements Applicable to the Hazardous Waste Management Program,” dated November 2021, which includes authorized revisions to the hazardous waste management program of the State of Arkansas, effective as of November 23, 2021, and set forth below in the amendments to 40 CFR 272.201. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, this document available electronically through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

The purpose of this Federal Register document is to codify the EPA's authorization of Arkansas' base hazardous waste management program and the State's revisions to that program. The document incorporates by reference “EPA-Approved Arkansas Statutory and Regulatory Requirements Applicable to the Hazardous Waste Management Program,” dated November 2021, and clarifies which of these provisions are included in the authorized and Federally enforceable program. By codifying Arkansas' authorized program and by amending the CFR, the public will be more easily able to discern the status of Federally-approved requirements of the Arkansas hazardous waste management program.

The EPA is incorporating by reference the Arkansas authorized hazardous waste program in 40 CFR part 272, subpart E. Section 272.201(c)(1) incorporates by reference “EPA-Approved Arkansas Statutory and Regulatory Requirements Applicable to the Hazardous Waste Management Program,” dated November 2021. Section 272.201 also references material which is not being incorporated by reference, but which the EPA considered in determining the adequacy of Arkansas' program. Section 272.201(c)(2) references sections of the Arkansas statutes and regulations which provide the legal basis for the State's implementation of the hazardous waste management program. In addition, 40 CFR 272.201(c)(4) through (6) reference the Memorandum of Agreement, the Attorney General's Statements, and the Program Description, respectively. These documents are evaluated as part of the approval process of the hazardous waste management program in accordance with subtitle C of RCRA but are not part of the material to be incorporated by reference.

State provisions that are “broader in scope” than the Federal program are not incorporated by reference in 40 CFR part 272. For reference and clarity, the EPA lists in 40 CFR 272.201(c)(3) the Arkansas statutory and regulatory provisions that are “broader in scope” than the Federal program, and which are not part of the authorized program being incorporated by reference. While “broader in scope” provisions are not part of the authorized program and cannot be enforced by the EPA, the State may enforce such provisions under State law.

The EPA retains its authority under statutory provisions, including but not limited to, RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, and other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions to undertake inspections and enforcement actions and to issue orders in authorized States. With respect to these actions, the EPA will rely on Federal sanctions, Federal inspection authorities, and Federal procedures rather than any authorized State analogs to these provisions. Therefore, the EPA is not incorporating by reference such particular, approved Arkansas procedural and enforcement authorities. Section 272.201(c)(2) lists the statutory and regulatory provisions which provide the legal basis for the State's implementation of the hazardous waste management program, as well as those procedural and enforcement authorities that are part of the State's approved program, but these are not incorporated by reference.

The public needs to be aware that some provisions of Arkansas' hazardous waste management program are not part of the Federally authorized State program. These non-authorized provisions include:

(1) Provisions that are not part of the RCRA subtitle C program because they are “broader in scope” than RCRA subtitle C (see 40 CFR 271.1(i));

(2) Federal rules or provisions for which Arkansas is not authorized because they are not delegable to States; and

(3) Unauthorized State requirements.

State provisions that are “broader in scope” than the Federal program are not part of the RCRA authorized program, and the EPA will not enforce them. Therefore, they are not incorporated by reference in 40 CFR part 272. For reference and clarity, 40 CFR 272.201(c)(3) lists the Arkansas regulatory provisions which are “broader in scope” than the Federal program and which are not part of the authorized program being incorporated by reference. “Broader in scope” provisions cannot be enforced by the EPA; the State, however, may enforce such provisions under State law.

Additionally, Arkansas' hazardous waste regulations include provisions that contain purely Federal functions for which States cannot receive authorization from EPA. The non-delegable Federal program areas include import/export requirements reserved as part of the Federal foreign relations function, certain land disposal restriction considerations that require examination of national concerns, and manifest registry and electronic manifest functions administered solely by the EPA. Arkansas has appropriately adopted these provisions by leaving the authority with the EPA for implementation and enforcement.

State regulations that are not incorporated by reference in this rule at 40 CFR 272.201(c)(1), or that are not listed in 40 CFR 272.201(c)(2) (“legal basis for the State's implementation of the hazardous waste management program”) or 40 CFR 272.201(c)(3) (“broader in scope”), are considered unauthorized State requirements. These requirements are not Federally enforceable.

With respect to any requirement pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) for which the State has not yet been authorized, the EPA will continue to enforce the Federal HSWA standards until the State is authorized for these provisions.

The EPA is not amending 40 CFR part 272 to include HSWA requirements and prohibitions that are implemented by the EPA. Section 3006(g) of RCRA provides that any HSWA requirement or prohibition (including implementing regulations) takes effect in authorized and not authorized States at the same time. A HSWA requirement or prohibition supersedes any less stringent or inconsistent State provision which may have been previously authorized by the EPA (50 FR 28702, July 15, 1985). The EPA has the authority to implement HSWA requirements in all States, including authorized States, until the States become authorized for such requirement or prohibition. Authorized States are required to revise their programs to adopt the HSWA requirements and prohibitions, and then to seek authorization for those revisions pursuant to 40 CFR part 271.

Instead of amending the 40 CFR part 272 every time a new HSWA provision takes effect under the authority of RCRA section 3006(g), the EPA will wait until the State receives authorization for its analog to the new HSWA provision before amending the State's 40 CFR part 272 incorporation by reference. Until then, persons wanting to know whether a HSWA requirement or prohibition is in effect should refer to 40 CFR 271.1(j), as amended, which lists each such provision.

Some existing State requirements may be similar to the HSWA requirement implemented by the EPA. However, until the EPA authorizes those State requirements, the EPA can only enforce the HSWA requirements and not the State analogs. The EPA will not codify those State requirements until the State receives authorization for those requirements.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action from the requirements of Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). This action incorporates by reference Arkansas' authorized hazardous waste management regulations and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Therefore, this action is not subject to review by OMB. This action is not an Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) regulatory action because actions such as this codification of Arkansas' revised hazardous waste program under RCRA are exempted under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). Because this action incorporates by reference pre-existing requirements under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538). For the same reason, this action also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

This action will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely incorporates by reference existing State requirements as part of the State RCRA hazardous waste management program without altering the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established by RCRA.

This action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant, and it does not make decisions based on environmental health or safety risks. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

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

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801-808, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this document and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, under the authority at 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and 6974(b), the EPA is amending 40 CFR part 272 as follows:

NMFS published final 2025 specifications for the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan on December 18, 2024 (89 FR 103695), establishing the 2025 annual catch limit (ACL) and area sub-ACLs. Table 1 shows the current herring specifications for 2025, and the specifications as revised by this action for the remainder of the calendar year.

The NMFS Regional Administrator tracks herring landings in the New Brunswick weir fishery each year. The regulations at 50 CFR 648.201(h) require that if the New Brunswick weir fishery landings through October 1 are determined to be less than 2,722 mt, then NMFS subtracts 1,000 mt from the management uncertainty buffer and reallocates that amount to the ACL and Area 1A sub-ACL. When such a determination is made, NMFS is required to notify the New England Fishery Management Council and publish the ACL and Area 1A sub-ACL adjustment in the Federal Register .

Information from Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans indicates that the New Brunswick weir fishery landed 1,223 mt of herring through October 1, 2025. Therefore, the Regional Administrator determined that, effective November 17, 2025, 1,000 mt will be reallocated from the management uncertainty buffer to the Area 1A sub-ACL and the ACL. This 1,000 mt reallocation increases the Area 1A sub-ACL from 783 mt to 1,783 mt and the ACL from 2,710 mt to 3,710 mt for the remainder of 2025.

Additionally, NMFS will use the adjusted allocations when it projects whether catch from Area 1A will reach 92 percent of the Area 1A sub-ACL, or whether overall herring catch will reach 95 percent of the ACL. When Area 1A catch is projected to reach 92 percent of the Area 1A sub-ACL, catch from this area is reduced to 2,000 pounds (lb; 907.2 kilograms (kg)) of herring per trip, per calendar day. When overall catch is projected to reach 95 percent of the ACL, then catch in or from all herring management areas is limited to 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of herring per trip, per calendar day.

The New England Fishery Management Council recommended, and NMFS proposed new 2025-2027 Atlantic herring specifications (FR 90 26955, June 25, 2025). If NMFS implements the new specifications, NMFS will reevaluate the 2025 ACL and Area 1A sub-ACL through the final action for the specifications.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 648, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment on this inseason adjustment because it would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. This action allocates a portion of the management uncertainty buffer to the ACL and Area 1A sub-ACL for the remainder of the calendar year pursuant to a previously published regulation that provides no discretionary decision-making. This reallocation process was the subject of prior notice and comment rulemaking. The adjustment is routine and formulaic, required by regulation, and is expected by industry. The potential to reallocate the management uncertainty buffer was also outlined in the 2023-2025 herring specifications that were published March 23, 2023 (88 FR 17397). Further, this reallocation provides additional economic opportunity for the herring fleet. If implementation of this action is delayed to solicit public comment, the objective of the fishery management plan to achieve optimum yield in the fishery could be compromised. Deteriorating weather conditions during the latter part of the year may reduce fishing effort and could also prevent the ACL from being fully harvested. This would result in a negative economic impact on vessels permitted to fish in this fishery. Based on these considerations, NMFS further finds, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness period for the reasons stated above.