Response to Comments Document

Amendment to Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries

Docket: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-SFUND-2014-0474-0001

Total Comments: 5 

On June 17, 2014, EPA published a proposed rule (79 FR 34480) to amend the All Appropriate Inquiries 

Rule to remove the reference to ASTM E1527-05 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Standard. EPA 

received five comments in response to the proposed rule. This document includes the comments 

received and EPA’s responses to the comments. The original public comments can be viewed at the URL 

address provided above and searching using the associated tracking number provided below. The 

docket number for the June 17, 2014 proposed rule and the subsequent final rule is EPA-HQ-SFUND2014-0474.

Comment 1

Tracking No. 1jy-8d5d-hdk9

Author: Steve Anderson

Sirs: 

I am opposed to the proposed amendment to remove ASTM E1527-05 from the “All Appropriate 

Inquiries Rule.”

As is well known to those in the environmental consulting industry, apart from some changes to the 

nomenclature (themselves of arguable practicality), the principal feature of the new E1527-013 standard 

is the introduction of the consideration of potential vapor intrusion conditions. 

The fundamental question we must ask ourselves with regard to the proposed amendment is, do the 

new adjustments to the ASTM standard for site assessments serve the original mission purpose of site 

assessments, i.e., do they help identify hazardous waste sites for clean-up under CERCLA and/or do they 

provide the necessary level of inquiry for an individual to avoid liability under the innocent landowner 

defense? I would submit that, surprisingly, they do not provide any additional level of necessary inquiry 

for either of those goals, beyond what ASTM E1527-05 already provided.

The changes of the -013 standard fail to serve the needs that prompted the creation of AAI because, in 

general, the city, county, and state regulatory agencies that provide oversight to hazardous waste cleanup sites do not require the clean-up of vapors alone. (Yes, one can cite instances involving the need to 

reduce methane, radon or carbon monoxide levels at the behest of some authority, but these types of 

vapors are not, to my knowledge, targeted as a CERCLA liability issue and, also to my knowledge, have 

never been required for consideration by ASTM under any prior E1527 standard). 

In the eyes of a regulatory agency, soil vapors are best remediated by addressing the on-site source of 

the vapors, i.e., the soil or groundwater contamination itself. If the source of intruding vapors is entirely 

from off-site sources, then, as with the contamination itself, once demonstrated, that becomes the basis 

for an argument by a landowner that they should not be held as a potentially responsible party. And 

since no regulatory agency at present compels the clean-up of vapors if the source contamination itself 

is not present, the investigation for vapor intrusion is irrelevant to the issue of establishing the innocent 

landowner defense.

While the intrusion of the vapors of various chemicals-of-concern may of interest to a building owner 

who wishes to avoid the so-called “sick building syndrome” or avoid complaints or potential health-
based lawsuits from tenants, it has nothing to do with assigning or avoiding CERCLA liability. In short, 

‘more’ inquiry does not necessarily translate into ‘more appropriate’ inquiry.

Finally, we presume that, earlier, the EPA considered carefully what really did constitute “all 

appropriate” inquiry and that ASTM-05 met that need. It is more fitting that the ASTM organization 

tailor its standard to what the EPA deems an appropriate level of inquiry rather than the reverse, where 

the EPA would find itself continually chasing ASTM as it continues to tweak its standard every few years. 

So, since nothing essential was removed from the earlier standard to create ASTM-013, it is agreeable 

that the EPA issue, if they so choose, a statement that the -013 standard meets AAI, but since the new 

standard also adds nothing of consequence regarding CERCLA issues, I would counter propose and urge 

that the EPA continue to allow the -05 standard also to meet AAI requirements—and to say so in so 

many words. This will allow some level of consumer choice between those who desire the added level of 

inquiry included in the -013 standard, and those who desire a somewhat simpler (and likely less 

expensive) report, while still, for each, maintaining AAI compliance. 

EPA Response:

EPA disagrees with the commenter and points out that the scope of the AAI Rule and the ASTM 

E1527-05 standard always included the requirement to identify conditions indicative of releases 

or threatened releases of hazardous substances, or -- in the case of the ASTM standard --

“recognized environmental conditions (RECs),” including indications of vapor migration or vapor 

releases. With the updates included in the 2013 version of the ASTM E1527 standard, ASTM 

clarified this in a the definition of migrate/migration to specifically include vapor migration and 

therefore remove any confusion regarding the need to identify all RECs, or all conditions 

indicative of releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, when conducting an AAI 

investigation. The commenter’s discussion of whether a regulatory agency may require a 

cleanup at a property for vapors alone is not relevant. The purpose of conducting an AAI 

investigation is to identify conditions indicative of releases or threatened releases of hazardous 

substances. This includes identifying conditions indicative of releases stemming from vapor 

migration as well as identifying indications of releases to or from groundwater soils, air, and 

indications of releases of hazardous substances of any other nature. 

EPA disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that “the new standard also adds nothing of 

consequence regarding CERCLA issues... .” EPA and other commenters view the modifications 

made to the ASTM E1527 Phase I Environmental Assessment Standard as improvements, and in 

some cases, substantial clarifications that may have consequences regarding CERCLA issues. 

For example the updated definition of “historical recognized condition (HREC)” and the added 

definition of “controlled recognized environmental conditions (CREC)” adds further clarification

with regard to the nature of past releases at a property, how they were addressed, and 

whether waste was left in place at the property. This information could be essential for a 

prospective property owner in assessing his or her potential CERCLA liability with regard to any 

past contamination, as well as informing potential future uses of the property.
Comment 2

Tracking No. 1jy-8d9r-3uhk

Author: Larry Schnapf

I support the removal of the reference to E1527-05 ("05"). The existence of two ASTM standards has 

caused confusion in the marketplace and undermines the necessary improvements that were included 

in E1527-13. AAI is supposed to reflect evolving concepts of good customary practice and 05 no longer 

represents good practice. 

It would be helpful, though, for EPA to include language in the final preamble that the removal of the 

reference to 05 should not be construed and does not in any way mean that parties who relied on phase 

1 reports compliant with 05 that were prepared prior to the effective date of the rule removing "05" 

from AAI did not comply with AAI at the time of the report.

EPA Response:

EPA thanks the commenter for the stated support of the proposed rule. In the preamble to the 

final rule, EPA includes a statement indicating that this final rule amending the AAI rule to remove the 

reference to ASTM E1527-05 standard does not impact parties who acquired properties between 

November 1, 2005 and the effective date of the final rule and used the 2005 version of the ASTM E1527 

standard to comply with the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule, as it was in effect at the time the property 

was acquired. 

Comment 3 (See attachment for original comment)

Tracking No. 1jy-8d9s-d39o

Author: Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG)

The Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (“USWAG”) submits these comments to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA” or the “Agency”) in support of the Agency’s proposal to amend 

the standards and practices for the All Appropriate Inquiries (“AAI”) Rule set forth at 40 C.F.R. Part 312. 

See 79 Fed. Reg. 34480 (June 17, 2014). 

USWAG is an association of over one hundred and ten energy industry operating companies and 

associations, including the Edison Electric Institute (“EEI”), the American Gas Association (“AGA”), the 

American Public Power Association (“APPA”), and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association 

(“NRECA”)1. USWAG member companies own and operate hundreds of facilities throughout the country, 

some of which are or may in the future be the subject of remedial action to address environmental 

contamination. The landowner liability protections offered under CERCLA are therefore of great 

importance to USWAG members, as are the standards used to demonstrate eligibility for those

protections.

 

1

EEI is the principal national association of investor-owned electric power and light companies. AGA is the 

principal national association of investor-owned natural gas utilities. APPA is a national trade association that 

represents publicly-owned electric utilities. NRECA is the national association of rural electric cooperatives. 

Together, USWAG members represent more than 73% of the total electric generating capacity

of the United States, and service more than 95% of the nation’s consumers of electricity and 92% of the

nation’s consumers of natural gas. Throughout these comments, we refer to our industry as the “utility” or

“electric utility” industry. This term is intended to include those portions of the industry and those USWAG

members that generate electricity but do not directly provide electricity to the public and are technically not

“utilities.”
Last September, USWAG submitted comments expressing support for the addition to EPA’s AAI Rule of a 

reference to ASTM International’s E1527-13 “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: 

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process” (“E1527-13”), the update of the ASTM E1527-05 

standard bearing the same name (referred to herein as “E1527-05”). See Sept. 16, 2013 comments of 

USWAG to EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0513; see also 78 Fed. Reg. 49690 (Aug. 15, 2013). 

USWAG agreed with EPA’s assessment that E1527-13 is compliant with the requirements of the AAI 

Rule, and represents a clarification of the previous standard. Since promulgation of the final rule 

providing that persons conducting AAI may use ASTM E1527-13 to comply with the AAI Rule (78 Fed. 

Reg. 79319 (Dec. 30, 2013)), this updated standard has proven valuable to persons conducting AAI 

because E1527-13 – while similar in spirit and substance to E1527-05 – offers guidance on certain 

requirements that were left vague or ambiguous in the older version of the standard.

With today’s comments, USWAG supports the Agency’s proposal to further amend the AAI Rule by 

withdrawing from 40 C.F.R. § 312.11(c) the reference to ASTM International’s E1527-05 “Standard 

Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process” (“E1527-

05”). While USWAG did not object to the retention of the E1527-05 reference in the AAI Rule during the 

comment period on the addition of a reference to E1527-13 (an issue which was not, in fact, open for 

comment at that time), USWAG agrees that amending the AAI Rule to reference only the most current 

of the ASTM E1527 standards will reduce any lingering confusion regarding the requirements of the AAI 

Rule. USWAG further agrees with EPA that removing the reference to E1527-05 from the AAI Rule will 

“promote the use of the standard currently recognized by ASTM International as the consensus-based, 

good customary business standard” (i.e., E1527-13).

USWAG believes that it is important to reiterate the fact that, if promulgated as a final rule, the 

proposed action will in no way require any party to use the ASTM E1527-13 standard to comply with the 

AAI Rule; the standard will be merely one option available to parties wishing to demonstrate that they 

have satisfied the AAI Rule and are eligible for CERCLA landowner liability protection. As EPA pointed out 

in the preamble to its August 2013 Direct Final Rule to add to the AAI Rule a reference to E1527-13,

“[a]ny party conducting all appropriate inquiries to comply with the CERCLA’s bona fide prospective 

purchaser, contiguous property owner, and innocent landowner liability protections may continue to 

follow the provisions of the All Appropriate Inquiries Final Rule at 40 C.F.R. Part 312 ....” 78 Fed. Reg. at 

49692.

USWAG appreciates the opportunity to comment on this rulemaking. If you have questions regarding 

these comments, please contact Allison Foley at Venable LLP (202-344-4416).

EPA Response:

EPA thanks the commenter for the stated support of the proposed rule.

Comment 4

Tracking No. 1jy-8d9s-d39o

Author: David H. Quigley, Akin Gump

To Whom It May Concern: 

I am an attorney and a member of the ASTM E50 Committee on Environmental Assessment, Risk 

Management, and Corrective Action, E1527 Task Group, that developed the E1527-13 Standard Practice 
for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. I submit these 

comments of support for EPA’s amendment of the standards and practices for conducting all 

appropriate inquiries (“AAI”) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and 

Liability Act (“CERCLA”) to remove the reference to ASTM International’s E1527-05 standard practice. 

Removal of the Reference Avoids Confusion 

EPA already “recommends that parties use the newer version of the standard”2and the removal of the 

reference to the older standard will avoid confusion3. From the perspective of a member of the ASTM 

Task Group there is one E1527 standard – the 2013 iteration – that the committee agreed upon through 

its consensus development process.

The intent of many serving on the E1527 Task Group was that E1527-13 would supersede E1527-05 as 

the operating industry standard and that the EPA would reflect this by amending the rule to “retire” the 

older standard. Otherwise, the risk remains that prior standards receive the same prominence as the 

current one, leaving environmental professionals to “pick and choose” and, as a result, be subject to 

second-guessing as to the validity of their choice. Beyond the potential for an unleveled playing field, 

the potential failure to implement universally the new iteration of the standard risks losing the benefits 

of that standard with very little reward. Even with the removal of the old standard, EPA is proposing to 

allow for a one-year implementation period from the final rule’s publication date. This implementation 

period should more than address any concerns regarding in-process assessments and consultants 

needing time to bring their business up to speed. In fact, due to market demand, many consultants have 

already begun conducting assessments and preparing reports under the updated E1527-13 standard. 

There is no valid argument to delay the removal of the E1527-05 standard any longer, and a phase-in 

period of 6 months or less would be more appropriate and more reflective of the state of the industry. 

Benefits of the New Iteration Justify Removal of Reference to the Old 

I agree with EPA that the new standard “improves upon the previous version and reflects the evolving 

best practices and level of rigor....” 

[T]he new ASTM E1527-13 standard enhances the previous standard with regard to the 

delineation of historical releases or recognized environmental conditions at a property and 

makes important revisions to the standard practice to clarify that all appropriate inquiries and 

phase I environmental site assessments must include, within the scope of the investigation, an 

assessment of the real or potential occurrence of vapor migration and vapor releases on, at, in 

or to the subject property.4

Specifically, the new standard corrects inconsistencies in the industry that members of the committee 

experienced over the years. 

First, the new version clarifies the definition of “migrate/migration” to specifically include vapor 

migration. Releases of contaminants that migrate via vapor pathways in the subsurface or in soils are 

confirmed to be recognized environmental conditions. This clarification was necessary to reduce 

inconsistencies in how consultants assessed vapor concerns in the past and to provide more consistent 

 

2

EPA’s Response to Comments on Proposed Amendment to the Standards and Practices for All Appropriate 

Inquiries, Section 2.3, December 2013

3

See EPA’s Response to Comments on Proposed Amendment to the Standards and Practices for All Appropriate 

Inquiries, Section 2.2, December 2013 (referencing the concerns of various commenters that “parties will be 

confused about the level of due diligence required” if EPA continued to reference the E1527-05 standard).

4

EPA’s Response to Comments on Proposed Amendment to the Standards and Practices for All Appropriate 

Inquiries, Section 2.1, December 2013.
assessments for users. The inclusion of vapor migration in the assessment process ensures that users 

have the added assurance of identifying this potential source of environmental impact to a property. 

Second, the new version provides a standardized framework for “file reviews” to verify agency 

information obtained from key databases. The standard provides environmental consultants the 

flexibility to determine whether to obtain regulatory agency file records, and simply requires that, if 

they do not, they document why this review was not conducted. Note that this particular revision was 

included after the Task Group confirmed that many consulting firms nationwide were already following 

the substantive procedure. There may be good reason why a file review is unnecessary, and the revised 

standard merely requires that the consultant include that rationale in the report. Concerns have been 

raised regarding the timing and potential costs associated with the file reviews, but these constraints 

existed prior to the most recent revision. Phase I firms looking to offer the “lowest bids,” led to the past 

inconsistencies in thoroughness, etc. and this revision aims to reduce the discrepancies and somewhat

“level the playing field” for the firms that were already complying with the file review requirements in 

order to fulfill the AAI requirements. 

In the end, the new standard offers incremental improvements over the old, with sufficient time to 

implement them and with no significant drawbacks, such that it no longer makes sense to continue to 

reference the old standard. As EPA concluded, E1527-13 and E1527-05 are “essentially congruent,” with 

the new version offering “clarifications and additional guidance.”5The new standard provides better, 

more consistent, information for its users, while maintaining the old standard offers only confusion. I

strongly support EPA’s amendment of the standards and practices for conducting AAI to remove the 

reference to the E1527-05 standard practice.

If EPA desires any additional information or has any questions, please contact me at 

dquigley@akingump.com or (202) 887-4339. 

EPA Response:

EPA thanks the commenter for the stated support of the proposed rule. Although EPA agrees with the 

commenters’ statements that most environmental professionals are likely already using the updated 

E1527-13 standard, the Agency believes it is prudent to provide for the one year delay in the effective 

date. The All Appropriate Inquiries Rule requires that AAI investigations be conducted within one year 

prior to the date of acquisition of the subject property (see 40 CFR 312.20(a)). In addition, the AAI Rule 

requires that certain aspects of the AAI investigation be conducted or updated within 180 days prior to 

the date of acquisition of the subject property (40 CFR 312.20(b)). Given these requirements, EPA 

determined that delaying the effective date for the final rule by only six months may be burdensome for 

some parties. Therefore, EPA is delaying the effective date for final rule, until one year after the rule is 

published in the Federal Register. This will allow sufficient time for AAI investigations initiated or ongoing at the time of publication of the final rule to be completed or updated prior to the effective date.

Comment 5

Tracking No. 1jy-8d9v-4pyl

Author: William R. Weissman 

 

5

See EPA’s Summary of Updates and Revisions to ASTM E1527 Standard Practice for Environmental Site 

Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process, How E1527-13 Differs from E1527-05.
I am a member of the ASTM task group that developed the ASTM E1527-13 and E1527-05 standards and 

am submitting these comments in my individual capacity in support of EPA’s proposal to remove the 

reference to the 2005 standard in 40 C.F.R. §312.11. 79 Fed. Reg. 34480 (June 17, 2014). I have to 

acknowledge that I was initially skeptical about the need or value of deleting the reference to the 2005 

standard because in my view there is very little difference between the two versions of the E1527 

standard. In my view, compliance with both standards is compliant with EPA’s All Appropriate Inquiries 

(“AAI”) rule. 40 C.F.R. Part 312. However, after reading EPA’s well-crafted preamble to the pending 

proposed rule, I have concluded that the public will benefit from the clarifications EPA has provided and 

therefore I am supporting promulgation of the rule as proposed. 

The reason that final adoption of the proposed rule is welcome is that a small minority of environmental 

professionals who conduct Phase I environmental site assessments using the E1527-05 standard have 

misread that standard to justify some unintended shortcuts to the site assessment process. Since 

publication of the E1527-13 standard, there have been a number of misstatements in the public media 

as well as in comments submitted to EPA about what some believe to be significant changes in the 

E1527 due diligence process resulting from adoption of the 2013 standard. One such misstatement 

claims that the 2013 standard adds a new requirement for assessment of potential vapor intrusion 

conditions. I am advised that EPA has received at least one comment that makes this claim. Those who 

express this view are mistaken. Vapor intrusion assessment has not been part of E1527-05 and is not 

part of E1527-13 assessment. 

The persons who express this mistaken view may have conflated the terms “vapor intrusion” and “vapor 

migration.” These are quite different concepts, and only the latter has any relevance to E1527 site 

assessments. The term “vapor” appears in the 2013 standard as an example in the definition of migrate 

and migration – i.e., “‘migrate’ and ‘migration’ refers to the movement of hazardous substances or 

petroleum products in any form, including, for example, solid and liquid at the surface or subsurface, 

and vapor in the subsurface.” ASTM E1527-13 §3.2.56. “Vapor intrusion,” however, is a term specifically 

associated with “the migration of chemical vapors from contaminated soil and groundwater into 

buildings.” EPA, Brownfields Technology Primer: Vapor Intrusion Considerations for Redevelopment, p.1, 

EPA 542-R-08-001 (2008) (emphasis added). The E1527-13 standard, like the E1527-05 standard, does 

not call for evaluation of the likelihood that vapors have migrated into buildings. 

Users of the E1527-13 standard need to keep in mind that the purpose of a Phase I site assessment is to 

determine whether there exists a “recognized environmental condition” on a parcel of property – that 

is, determining “the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, 

on, or at a property: (1) due to release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release 

to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the 

environment.” ASTM E1527-13 §3.2.78. This determination is comparable to the objective of EPA’s AAI 

rule. See 40 C.F.R. §312.20(e) (“The standards and practices set forth in this part for All Appropriate 

Inquiries are intended to result in the identification of conditions indicative of releases and threatened 

releases of hazardous substances on, at, in, or to the subject property.”). The Phase I site assessment 

focuses on whether there is a condition in, on or at the subject property stemming from a release of 

hazardous substances or petroleum products that would indicate a possible CERCLA liability condition 

regardless of the exposure pathway of the release. Subsurface vapor migration stemming from a release 

of hazardous substances is no different from the standpoint of a Phase I assessment than migration of 

groundwater contamination. As EPA previously stated: “Neither the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule nor 

the ASTM E 1527–05 standard excludes the identification of vapor releases as a possible type of 

release.” 78 Fed. Reg. 79319, 79322 (Dec. 30, 2013). The express clarification of the definition of 

“release” in the 2013 standard to include vapor migration was not a new requirement but a response to 

inconsistent interpretations of the 2005 standard among environmental professionals. 
The aim of the 2013 revisions was to clarify ambiguous language in the 2005 standard that may have 

confused some users into believing that a vapor pathway by itself could never constitute a recognized 

environmental condition. There were other ambiguities in the 2005 standard that led some users of the

standard into believing that certain data gathering shortcuts were acceptable. Once the ASTM task 

group responsible for developing the E1527 standard learned of these misunderstandings, the task 

group commenced the ASTM consensus development process to gather industry feedback regarding 

“good commercial and customary practice” (i.e., what were most consultants actually doing) to update 

the 2005 standard to clarify these unintended ambiguities. 

EPA’s final rule referencing the 2013 standard clearly recognized that the 2013 standard does not add 

significant new obligations to the environmental site assessment process but merely clarifies and 

explains what was intended in the 2005 standard. See 78 Fed. Reg. at 79321-22; EPA, Summary of 

Updates and Revisions to ASTM E1527 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I 

Environmental Site Assessment Process – How E1527-13 Differs from E1527-05 (Docket EPA–HQ–

SFUND–2013–0513). Now that ASTM has clarified in the 2013 standard what was intended in the 2005 

standard, users who persist in viewing the 2005 standard as a pathway to a low cost incomplete site 

assessment face the risk that a post-2013 assessment based on the ambiguities in the 2005 standard 

may find themselves disqualified from CERCLA liability protection in any future CERCLA litigation. EPA’s 

December 30, 2013 rule referencing E1527-13, together with the current proposal to remove the 

reference to the 2005 standard, constitute fair notice that going forward the clarifications in the 2013 

standard represent “good commercial and customary practice” for any future environmental site 

assessment intended to be compliant with the AAI rule. 

Finally, EPA has invited public comment on a delayed effective date of one year for implementation of 

the withdrawal of the reference to the 2005 standard. Since EPA announced its intention to propose the 

pending amendment more than seven months ago (see 78 Fed. Reg. at 79322), a six month lag time 

should be sufficient. The ASTM task group’s experience is that most users of the E1527 standard have 

already transitioned to the 2013 standard. Except if preexisting contractual obligations require use of 

the 2005 standard, the only reason anyone would want more time to continue using the 2005 standard 

is to perpetuate as long as possible the site assessment short-cuts that were never intended in 2005 and 

would not likely be compliant with the AAI rule. If an environmental professional is under a binding 

contract executed prior to June 17, 2014 (the date of the proposed rule) for performing a site 

assessment using the 2005 standard, they should be given the opportunity to request a waiver of the 

effective date of the final rule from EPA to allow performance in accordance with the terms of the 

contract and consistent with the clarifications in the 2013 standard. I believe EPA will see few if any such 

waiver requests. 

Thank you for your consideration of these comments. 

EPA Response:

EPA thanks the commenter for the stated support of the proposed rule. Although EPA agrees with the 

commenters’ statements that most environmental professionals are likely already using the updated 

E1527-13 standard, the Agency believes it is prudent to provide for the one year delay in the effective 

date. The All Appropriate Inquiries Rule requires that AAI investigations be conducted within one year 

prior to the date of acquisition of the subject property (see 40 CFR 312.20(a)). In addition, the AAI Rule 

requires that certain aspects of the AAI investigation be conducted or updated within 180 days prior to 

the date of acquisition of the subject property (40 CFR 312.20(b)). Given these requirements, EPA 

determined that delaying the effective date for the final rule by only six months may be burdensome for 

some parties. Therefore, EPA is delaying the effective date for the final rule, until one year after the rule 
is published in the Federal Register. This will allow sufficient time for AAI investigations initiated or ongoing at the time of publication of the final rule to be completed or updated prior to the effective date.