Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 3695 

otherwise has federalism implications. 

This final rule will not have a 

substantial effect on State and local 

governments. 

Executive Order 13175, ‘‘Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribe 

Governments’’ 

It has been determined that this rule 

will not have a substantial effect on 

Indian Tribal governments. This rule 

does not impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on one or more Indian 

Tribes, preempt tribal law, or effect the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian Tribes. 

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 269 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Penalties. 

Accordingly, 32 CFR part 269 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 269—CIVIL MONETARY 

PENALTY INFLATION ADJUSTMENT 

■ 1. The authority citation for 32 CFR 

part 269 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 28 U.S.C. 2461 note. 

■ 2. In § 269.4, revise paragraph (d) to 

read as follows: 

§ 269.4 Cost of living adjustments of civil 

monetary penalties. 

* * * * * 

(d) Inflation adjustment. Maximum 

civil monetary penalties within the 

jurisdiction of the Department are 

adjusted for inflation as follows: 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (d) 

United States Code Civil monetary penalty description 

Maximum penalty 

amount as of 

01/12/24 

New adjusted 

maximum penalty 

amount 

National Defense Authorization Act for 

FY 2005, 10 U.S.C. 113, note.

Unauthorized Activities Directed at or Possession of Sunken Military Craft.161,168 165,355 

10 U.S.C. 1094(c)(1) ............................. Unlawful Provision of Health Care ...................................... 14,152 14,519 

10 U.S.C. 1102(k) ................................. Wrongful Disclosure—Medical Records: 

First Offense ................................................................. 8,368 8,586 

Subsequent Offense ..................................................... 55,788 57,237 

10 U.S.C. 2674(c)(2) ............................. Violation of the Pentagon Reservation Operation and 

Parking of Motor Vehicles Rules and Regulations.

2,306 2,366 

31 U.S.C. 3802(a)(1) ............................. Violation Involving False Claim ........................................... 13,946 14,308 

31 U.S.C. 3802(a)(2) ............................. Violation Involving False Statement .................................... 13,946 14,308 

42 U.S.C. 1320a–7a(a); 32 CFR 

200.210(a)(1).

False claims ......................................................................... 24,946 25,594 

42 U.S.C. 1320a–7a(a); 32 CFR 

200.210(a)(1).

Claims submitted with a false certification of physician license.24,946 25,594 

42 U.S.C. 1320a–7a(a); 32 CFR 

200.210(a)(2).

Claims presented by excluded party ................................... 24,946 25,594 

42 U.S.C. 1320a–7a(a); 32 CFR 

200.210(a)(2); (b)(2) (ii).

Employing or contracting with an excluded individual ........ 24,946 25,594 

42 U.S.C. 1320a–7a(a); 32 CFR 

200.210(a)(1).

Patterns of claims for medically unnecessary services/supplies.24,946 25,594 

42 U.S.C. 1320a–7a(a); 32 CFR 

200.210(a)(2).

Ordering or prescribing while excluded ............................... 24,946 25,594 

42 U.S.C. 1320a–7a(a); 32 CFR 

200.210(a)(5).

Known retention of an overpayment ................................... 24,946 25,594 

42 U.S.C. 1320a–7a(a); 32 CFR 

200.210(a)(4).

Making or using a false record or statement that is material to a false or fraudulent claim.124,731 127,972 

42 U.S.C. 1320a–7a(a); 32 CFR 

200.210(a)(6).

Failure to grant timely access to OIG for audits, investigations, evaluations, or other statutory functions of OIG.37,420 38,392 

42 U.S.C. 1320a–7a(a); 32 CFR 

200.210(a)(3).

Making false statements, omissions, misrepresentations in 

an enrollment application.

124,731 127,972 

42 U.S.C. 1320a–7a(a); 32 CFR 

200.310(a).

Unlawfully offering, paying, soliciting, or receiving remuneration to induce or in return for the referral of business in violation of 1128B(b) of the Social Security Act.124,731 127,972 

Dated: January 8, 2025. 

Aaron T. Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2025–00715 Filed 1–14–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6001–FR–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Part 685 

[Docket ID ED–2024–OPE–0135] 

RIN 1840–AD97 

Income-Contingent Repayment Plan 

Options 

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary 

Education, Department of Education. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Education 

(Department) adopts as final, without 

changes, the interim final rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

November 15, 2024. This final rule 

amends the regulations governing 

income-contingent repayment plans 

available to Federal student loan 

borrowers to satisfy the Department’s 

statutory obligation under the Higher 

Education Act of 1965, as amended, 

(HEA) to offer borrowers access to an 

income-contingent repayment plan. The 

scope of this rule is narrow. It revises 

the last date for most borrowers to enroll 

in the Income-Contingent Repayment or 

Pay As You Earn plans from July 1, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
3696 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

1HEA section 455(d)(1)(D) (20 U.S.C. 

1087e(d)(1)(D)). 

2 89 FR 90221 (November 15, 2024). 

3Specifically, in the Missouri case, the U.S. 

District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri 

entered a preliminary injunction on June 24, 2024, 

enjoining the shortened time to forgiveness that had 

been offered by the SAVE Plan. Missouri v. Biden, 

No. 4:24–CV–00520–JAR, 2024 WL 3104514, at *1 

(E.D. Mo. June 24, 2024) (preliminary injunction). 

The challengers appealed and on July 18, 2024, the 

Eighth Circuit stayed the entire rule pending 

appeal, Missouri v. Biden, No. 24–2332, 2024 WL 

3462265, at *1 (8th Cir. July 18, 2024), and then on 

August 9, 2024, the Eighth Circuit entered an 

injunction pending appeal that replaced the 

previously entered stay, Missouri v. Biden, 112 

F.4th 531 (8th Cir. 2024) (per curiam) (injunction 

pending appeal). In the Alaska case, the U.S. 

District Court for the District of Kansas entered a 

preliminary injunction on June 24, 2024. See 

Alaska v. Cardona, No. 24–1057–DDC–ADM, 2024 

WL 3104578, at *1 (D. Kan. June 24, 2024). 

Thereafter, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals 

stayed the preliminary injunction pending appeal. 

See Alaska v. Cardona, No. 20–3089, Order Staying 

Prelim. Inj. (10th Cir. June 30, 2024). That Tenth 

Circuit appeal has been held in abeyance pending 

the outcome of the Eighth Circuit proceedings. 

2024, to July 1, 2027. Changing the 

eligibility restrictions that went into 

effect on July 1, 2024, to July 1, 2027, 

allows the Department to meet its 

statutory obligations while it undertakes 

the necessary administrative changes to 

make its repayment plans compliant 

with the terms of an injunction pending 

appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Eighth Circuit (Eighth Circuit). 

DATES: 

Effective date: These regulations are 

effective on July 1, 2026. 

Implementation date: For the 

implementation date of these regulatory 

changes, see the Implementation Date of 

These Regulations section of this 

document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information contact Tamy 

Abernathy, U.S. Department of 

Education, Office of Postsecondary 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 

5th Floor, Washington, DC 20202. 

Telephone: (202) 245–4595. Email: 

tamy.abernathy@ed.gov. 

If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or 

have a speech disability and wish to 

access telecommunications relay 

services, please dial 7–1–1. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In this 

final rule, the Department uses the term 

‘‘income-contingent repayment plans’’ 

to include the original IncomeContingent Repayment (ICR) plan 

established by the Department in 1994 

as well as the Pay As You Earn (PAYE), 

Revised Pay As You Earn (REPAYE), 

and the Saving on a Valuable Education 

(SAVE) plans. 

Implementation Date of These 

Regulations: These regulations are 

effective on July 1, 2026. Section 482(c) 

of the HEA requires that regulations 

affecting programs under title IV of the 

HEA be published in final form by 

November 1, prior to the start of the 

award year (July 1) to which they apply. 

However, that section also permits the 

Secretary to designate any regulation as 

one that an entity subject to the 

regulations may choose to implement 

earlier, as well as the conditions for 

early implementation. 

As described in the interim final rule 

(IFR) (89 FR 90221), the Secretary 

exercised the authority under section 

482(c) of the HEA to designate the 

regulatory changes to 34 CFR part 685 

included in the IFR (and reaffirmed in 

this document) for early implementation 

on December 16, 2024, for the reasons 

set forth in the IFR and Background and 

Need for Regulatory Action sections of 

this document. 

Executive Summary 

Purpose of This Regulatory Action 

The regulations in the November 15, 

2024, interim final rule enact a timelimited fix to make certain the 

Department meets its obligations under 

section 455(d)(1) of the HEA. That 

section requires the Secretary of 

Education (Secretary) to offer Federal 

Direct Loan borrowers a variety of 

student loan repayment plans, including 

an ‘‘income-contingent repayment 

plan,’’ under which a borrower makes 

payments ‘‘based on the borrower’s 

income’’ for ‘‘an extended period of 

time prescribed by the Secretary, not to 

exceed 25 years.’’ 1 On November 15, 

2024, the Department published an IFR 

to satisfy the Department’s statutory 

obligation under the HEA to offer 

borrowers an income-contingent 

repayment plan.2 This final rule and the 

IFR that preceded it allow the 

Department to comply with this 

requirement. The rule titled ‘‘Improving 

Income Driven Repayment for the 

William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan 

Program and the Federal Family 

Education Loan (FFEL) Program’’ that 

took effect on July 1, 2024 (incomedriven repayment [IDR] final rule), 

limited new enrollments in the PAYE 

and ICR plans for student borrowers so 

that they would have one clear option 

under this authority—the Saving on a 

Valuable Education (SAVE) plan (88 FR 

43820). However, legal challenges to the 

SAVE plan resulted in an injunction 

pending appeal from the Eighth Circuit 

that prevents the Department from 

implementing significant aspects of the 

SAVE plan.3 The Department cannot 

immediately execute the operational 

work needed to conform the SAVE plan 

to the court’s Eighth Circuit’s injunction 

pending appeal, so we have placed 

borrowers who had enrolled in the 

SAVE plan in a forbearance to avoid 

violating that injunction. With SAVE 

not available and other ICR plans closed 

to new enrollments, the Department was 

therefore not in compliance with the 

statutory requirement to offer an 

income-contingent repayment plan to 

borrowers. 

The IFR announced the reopening of 

the PAYE and ICR plans to new 

enrollments until July 1, 2027. This 

reopening allows the Department to 

offer borrowers an income-contingent 

repayment option as required under the 

HEA. 

Summary of the Major Provisions of 

This Regulatory Action 

This final rule adopts without change 

the provisions in the IFR, which— 

• Adjust the date after which 

borrowers cannot begin to repay a loan 

under the PAYE plan unless they are 

already enrolled in the plan as provided 

in § 685.209(c)(4)(iv) from July 1, 2024, 

to July 1, 2027. 

• Revise the date after which 

borrowers cannot begin to repay a loan 

under the ICR plan unless they are 

already enrolled in that plan or have a 

consolidation loan that repaid a Parent 

PLUS loan as provided in 

§ 685.209(c)(5)(i)(B) from July 1, 2024, to 

July 1, 2027. 

Costs and Benefits 

As further detailed in the Regulatory 

Impact Analysis (RIA), this final rule 

does not create significant budgetary 

costs for the Department. For existing 

borrowers, the Department already 

assumes in our budget baseline that 

borrowers who would receive more 

benefit from being enrolled in PAYE or 

ICR rather than SAVE over the long term 

are already in those plans. The budget 

baseline also assumes that borrowers 

seeking Public Service Loan Forgiveness 

(PSLF) would continue to make 

payments. So, a borrower who leaves 

SAVE to join PAYE or ICR so they can 

qualify for forgiveness under PSLF does 

not generate additional costs. The final 

rule provides some non-monetary 

benefits to the Department by allowing 

it to comply with requirements in the 

HEA. For borrowers, the final rule 

provides benefits to those who now 

enroll in PAYE or ICR and make 

payments that allow them to reach 

forgiveness sooner than they would by 

staying in forbearance. The Department 

anticipates these benefits would be most 

likely to occur for borrowers seeking 

PSLF due to the shorter number of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 3697 

4 59 FR 61664 (December 1, 1994). 

5 77 FR 66088 (November 1, 2012); 80 FR 67204 

(October 30, 2015). 

6 88 FR 43820 (July 10, 2023). 

7 Missouri, 112 F.4th at 538. 

required payments before receiving 

forgiveness. 

Background 

Section 455(d)(1) of the HEA directs 

the Secretary to offer borrowers a range 

of loan repayment plans, including an 

income-contingent repayment plan. The 

Secretary first met this requirement by 

issuing final regulations for the original 

ICR plan in 1994,4 and then expanded 

the options available to borrowers under 

this authority with the creation of PAYE 

and REPAYE as income-contingent 

repayment plans in 2012 and 2015, 

respectively.5 On July 10, 2023, the 

Department published the IDR final rule 

amending the terms of REPAYE and 

renaming it the SAVE plan.6 Among 

other changes, that rule prevented 

student borrowers from enrolling in the 

PAYE or ICR plans after July 1, 2024, if 

they were not already enrolled in those 

plans or if they were a parent PLUS 

borrower with a consolidation loan 

looking to enroll in the ICR plan. The 

Department explained this change on 

the grounds that the SAVE plan was the 

best option for most borrowers. Because 

the SAVE plan would be available to all 

student borrowers, the Department 

would fulfill its obligations under Sec. 

455(d)(1) of the HEA to offer an incomecontingent repayment plan. 

The changes made in the IDR final 

rule were challenged in Federal court 

following publication. On August 9, 

2024, the Eighth Circuit issued an 

injunction pending appeal that, among 

other things, enjoins changes in loan 

repayment terms that would: increase 

the amount of income protected from 

payments; decrease the share of income 

borrowers pay on undergraduate loans; 

and cease charging monthly interest that 

is not covered by a borrower’s 

payment.7

The Department is undertaking efforts 

to implement a version of the SAVE 

plan compliant with the Eighth Circuit 

injunction. However, until that work is 

complete, the regulatory limitations 

affecting access to older plans meant 

that the Department was not complying 

with the HEA requirement to offer 

borrowers an income-contingent 

repayment plan. 

The IFR and this final rule address 

this problem through a time-limited 

reopening of the PAYE and ICR plans to 

new enrollments. Under the IFR and 

this final rule, borrowers may select 

these plans until July 1, 2027. As 

explained in the IFR, we chose this date 

to also allow time for the Department to 

offer an income-contingent repayment 

plan that is compliant with the Eighth 

Circuit’s injunction pending appeal and 

to issue any new regulations that may be 

needed. 

Public Comment 

In response to our invitation in the 

IFR, 107 parties submitted comments on 

the IFR. In this preamble, we respond to 

those comments, which we have 

grouped by subject. Generally, we do 

not address technical or other minor 

changes. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes: 

An analysis of the public comments and 

of changes since publication of the IFR 

follows. 

General Support 

Comments: Several commenters 

appreciated that the Department reopened the PAYE and ICR plans to 

borrowers. One commenter, a borrower 

who is currently affected by the 

litigation putting the SAVE plan on 

hold, expressed the view that 

reinstitution of PAYE is a critically 

necessary and sensible step. This 

commenter noted borrowers have made 

innumerable financial and other 

decisions that were dependent on the 

continued availability of PAYE and 

PSLF. There are specific terms to the 

PAYE and SAVE programs that make 

the availability of at least one of them 

crucial for households like the 

commenter’s. The commenter also urged 

the Department to proceed 

expeditiously with processing 

applications for the PAYE and ICR plans 

as the current state of uncertainty 

around student loan repayment imposes 

a substantial burden on borrowers. 

Another commenter expressed the hope 

that the Department would process ICR 

and PAYE applications within three 

months of receiving the application. 

Another commenter stated that 

reopening more income-contingent 

repayment plans would not only make 

for a better repayment system for most 

borrowers, but it would improve the 

fairness and accuracy of loan 

repayments. This commenter stated that 

the current repayment option has 

proved inaccurate when considering 

those who are primarily affected by 

student loan debt. By implementing this 

new rule, they said many will be able 

to pay off their debt by affordable 

means. Implementation of the rule 

would also result in a fairer 

consideration of income, global issues 

like inflation, and overall financial 

stability when determining monthly 

payment amounts. Similarly, one 

commenter suggested that by 

implementing this new rule the incomecontingent repayment options will help 

borrowers pay off their debts, as well as 

help improve the fairness and accuracy 

of loan repayments. 

One association agreed that the 

Department should offer borrowers an 

income-contingent repayment option 

during these uncertain times. This 

association urged the Department to be 

transparent and clear about all future 

action on IDR plans. This association 

also stated that many borrowers would 

benefit more from the provisions of the 

2015 REPAYE plan until the courts 

issue a final decision on the SAVE plan. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenters’ support. The Department 

does not regulate the processing time for 

repayment plan applications but will 

work through pending applications as 

quickly as possible. The Department is 

working to build a version of the SAVE 

plan that complies with the Eighth 

Circuit’s injunction. That plan would 

generally have the same terms as the 

2015 REPAYE rule with respect to the 

monthly payment amounts for 

borrowers. At this time, the Department 

anticipates that such work will not be 

completed until at least the early fall of 

2025. 

Changes: None. 

General Opposition 

Comments: Several commenters noted 

that they did not find the reopening of 

PAYE and ICR to be sufficient to 

address borrower challenges with loan 

repayment. Many noted that they were 

enrolled in the REPAYE plan before it 

converted to SAVE and had no issues 

with payments under REPAYE. They 

asked for a restoration of the REPAYE 

terms or asked to be placed on an 

alternative payment plan with the same 

payments that they had previously. 

Many stated that being placed in 

forbearance when they had not 

requested forbearance was unfair. 

Discussion: The Department is 

working to create a version of the SAVE 

plan that complies with the terms of the 

Eighth Circuit injunction. This plan will 

be largely similar to the terms of the 

REPAYE plan, with the exception that 

the injunction prevents the Department 

from providing the interest benefits that 

were also provided under the REPAYE 

plan. Both the 2015 REPAYE plan and 

the SAVE plan provided that a borrower 

with a subsidized loan would not be 

charged any unpaid interest for the first 

three years while enrolled in the plan 

and that all borrowers with subsidized 

or unsubsidized loans would only be 

charged 50 percent of unpaid interest 

after the first three years enrolled in the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
3698 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

8 77 FR 66088 (November 1, 2012). 

plan. Until that revised plan is 

available, the Department will keep 

borrowers who remain enrolled in the 

SAVE plan in forbearance and interest 

will not accrue. 

Changes: None. 

Comments: One commenter believed 

that the regulations in the IFR 

represented an inadequate solution to a 

problem that ultimately was created 

from another inadequate solution: the 

Department moved people who were 

enrolled in the REPAYE plan into the 

SAVE plan and ultimately forced those 

borrowers into forbearance. This 

commenter recommended that the 

Department simply roll back the SAVE 

regulations and bring back REPAYE. 

This commenter asserted that by forcing 

people into SAVE, millions of borrowers 

will be left with no option but to default 

shortly otherwise. 

Commenters also suggested that 

REPAYE be reinstated and that 

borrowers who were previously enrolled 

in the REPAYE plan automatically be reenrolled in that plan. 

Discussion: We disagree with 

commenters regarding their proposed 

changes to IDR plans. As we explained 

in the 2023 IDR final rule, the changes 

to the REPAYE plan that resulted in 

renaming it the SAVE plan made it the 

best choice for the vast majority of 

borrowers. And, for borrowers with a 

non-zero payment enrolled in REPAYE, 

the new SAVE plan would provide them 

with more affordable monthly 

payments. Automatically providing 

those benefits to borrowers without 

requiring the borrower to switch plans 

was simpler and more efficient. 

Regarding the requests to restore 

REPAYE, the Department is working to 

update the SAVE plan to make it 

compliant with the Eighth Circuit’s 

injunction. That would result in 

monthly payment amounts that are 

similar to those that were available to 

borrowers enrolled in REPAYE. 

Changes: None. 

Comments: Several commenters noted 

the reopening of PAYE would not 

benefit them because they did not 

qualify for that plan because their loans 

were older. Many noted that being 

ineligible for PAYE meant that the IDR 

options available to them would result 

in much higher payments than what 

they had owed while enrolled in 

REPAYE. Some commenters called for 

the Department to expand eligibility for 

PAYE to older loans that are not 

currently eligible for that plan or to 

make Direct Consolidation Loans made 

after 2007 eligible. Others said that if 

the Department did not make REPAYE 

available then it should expand the 

eligibility for PAYE. 

Discussion: In pursuing changes 

through the IFR the Department 

considered narrow and time-limited 

solutions that address the current 

situation, and the IFR therefore restored 

the eligibility for other repayment plans 

to what was in effect prior to the 

issuance of the IDR final rule. The 

reopening of PAYE and ICR to 

borrowers not previously enrolled in 

those plans fulfills the Department’s 

obligations because a borrower who is 

ineligible for PAYE could still choose 

ICR. We recognize that the ICR plan may 

not result in the lowest payment for 

many borrowers. However, as explained 

in the IFR, we are making a time-limited 

and narrow change to address the 

Department’s compliance with the HEA. 

Any other changes to PAYE would need 

to be considered through the full 

regulatory process. 

Changes: None. 

Comments: One commenter argued 

that if the Department cannot provide 

equivalent repayment options regardless 

of loan origination date, then the 

Department should write off those older 

loans. 

Discussion: The commenter did not 

identify a legal basis for writing off the 

loans they addressed. The eligibility 

dates for PAYE were established 

through a separate rulemaking process 

conducted in 2012 and a similar process 

would be needed to adjust the eligibility 

dates for PAYE.8

Changes: None. 

Comments: Several commenters 

raised concerns about the inability of 

borrowers to make progress on PSLF 

while enrolled in the SAVE forbearance. 

They called for the Department to make 

that forbearance eligible for PSLF. 

Discussion: As the Department has 

indicated, we do not have the ability to 

award credit toward forgiveness on 

PSLF during the SAVE-related 

forbearance. The reopening of the PAYE 

and ICR plans provides a path for some 

additional PSLF borrowers to make 

payments that will count toward 

forgiveness. 

Changes: None. 

Comments: One group strongly 

opposed the Department’s rule to 

exclude the ‘‘double consolidation 

loophole’’ for consolidation loans that 

repaid a parent PLUS loan from 

repayment plans and argued that it was 

contrary to the HEA. They called for the 

Department to at least extend the 

deadline after which double 

consolidated parent PLUS loans could 

not access repayment plans besides ICR 

from July 1, 2025. 

Discussion: The Department declines 

to adopt any changes to the treatment of 

parent PLUS borrowers in this final 

rule. As noted in the IFR, the 

Department is focused on a narrow 

change to make sure that we are meeting 

our obligation to offer borrowers an 

income-contingent repayment plan 

under section 455(d)(1) of the HEA. The 

Department already met this obligation 

with respect to Parent PLUS borrowers 

with a consolidation loan because there 

was no deadline for them to access the 

ICR plan. The Eighth Circuit’s 

injunction does not affect the ability of 

borrowers to consolidate their loans as 

processing of those applications 

continues. As such, we see no grounds 

for extending that deadline. 

The Department also declines to 

change the overall eligibility for 

consolidated Parent PLUS borrowers. 

This issue was carefully considered 

during negotiated rulemaking and the 

notice and comment process that 

produced the IDR final rule. 

Changes: None. 

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 

14094 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive Order and subject to 

review by OMB. Section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, as amended by 

Executive Order 14094, defines a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as an 

action likely to result in a rule that 

may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $200 million or more 

(adjusted every 3 years by the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) at OMB for changes in gross 

domestic product), or adversely affect in 

a material way the economy, a sector of 

the economy, productivity, competition, 

jobs, the environment, public health or 

safety, or State, local, territorial, or 

Tribal governments or communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlements, grants, user 

fees, or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise legal or policy issues for 

which centralized review would 

meaningfully further the President’s 

priorities, or the principles stated in the 

Executive Order, as specifically 

authorized in a timely manner by the 

Administrator of OIRA in each case. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 3699 

9 88 FR 43820 (July 10, 2023). 

This proposed regulatory action is a 

significant regulatory action subject to 

review by OMB under section 3(f)(4) of 

Executive Order 12866, as amended by 

Executive Order 14094. However, the 

proposed annual net budget effect is not 

larger than $200 million, and as a result 

this regulatory action is not significant 

under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 

12866, as amended by Executive Order 

14094. We have assessed the potential 

costs and benefits, both quantitative and 

qualitative, of this regulatory action and 

have determined that the benefits will 

justify the costs. 

We have also reviewed these 

regulations under Executive Order 

13563, which supplements and 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, 

structures, and definitions governing 

regulatory review established in 

Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

on a reasoned determination that their 

benefits justify their costs (recognizing 

that some benefits and costs are difficult 

to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

considering—among other things and to 

the extent practicable—the costs of 

cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ OIRA has 

emphasized that these techniques may 

include ‘‘identifying changing future 

compliance costs that might result from 

technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes.’’ 

We are issuing these final regulations 

only on a reasoned determination that 

their benefits would justify their costs. 

In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, we selected 

those approaches that in the 

Department’s estimation best balance 

the size of the estimated transfer and 

qualitative benefits and costs. Based on 

the analysis that follows, the 

Department believes that these final 

regulations are consistent with the 

principles in Executive Order 13563. 

We have also determined that this 

regulatory action will not unduly 

interfere with State, local, territorial, 

and Tribal governments in the exercise 

of their governmental functions. 

Consistent with Circular A–4, we 

compare the final regulations to the 

current regulations. In this regulatory 

impact analysis, we discuss the need for 

regulatory action and summarize key 

provisions, potential costs and benefits, 

net budget impacts, and the regulatory 

alternatives we considered. 

Elsewhere in this section under 

Paperwork Reduction Act, we identify 

and explain burdens specifically 

associated with information collection 

requirements. 

1. Congressional Review Act 

Pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), OIRA has 

found that this rule does not meet the 

criteria in 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

2. Need for Regulatory Action 

As discussed earlier in this document, 

these regulations allow the Department 

to offer at least one repayment option 

under the income-contingent repayment 

authority to borrowers on a time-limited 

basis while the Department actively 

works to carry out the operational steps 

necessary to offer an injunctioncompliant version of the SAVE plan. 

3. Summary of Comments and Changes 

From the Interim Final Rule 

None of the submitted comments 

addressed the RIA, and there are no 

changes from the interim final rule to 

the final rule. 

4. Discussion of Costs, Benefits and 

Transfers 

This rule finalizes an adjustment to 

the eligibility requirements that allow 

borrowers to enroll in the ICR and PAYE 

plans until July 1, 2027, an extension 

from the prior date of July 1, 2024. 

As described further in the Net Budget 

Impact section of this RIA, the 

Department does not estimate a 

significant budgetary impact from this 

regulation. For existing borrowers, the 

Department already assumes in our 

budget baseline that borrowers who 

would benefit from PAYE or ICR over 

SAVE in the long term are already 

enrolled in those plans. As noted in the 

IDR Final Rule that established the 

SAVE plan,9 the Department’s budget 

modeling assigns IDR borrowers to 

specific plans based on a comparison of 

the net present value of the payments 

the borrower makes under the various 

plans for which they are eligible. For 

future borrowers, we anticipate 

continued availability of the SAVE plan 

and do not evaluate borrowers having 

the choice of ICR or PAYE against 

income-based repayment (IBR) in the 

absence of SAVE. Moreover, the timelimited nature of these changes means 

that only a future borrower who enters 

repayment by July 1, 2027, would be 

able to select the ICR or PAYE plans. 

The primary benefit of these changes 

for the Department is that they allow us 

to meet our statutory obligation under 

the HEA to offer payments under the 

income-contingent repayment authority. 

There may also be secondary benefits to 

the Department. One is the possibility 

that borrowers will choose to enroll in 

PAYE or ICR instead of becoming 

delinquent or going into default. 

Another is a possible reduction in 

questions or concerns from borrowers, 

such as those seeking PSLF forgiveness, 

who are trying to determine how to 

make qualifying monthly payments. 

Borrowers who elect to enroll in the 

PAYE or ICR plans during this timelimited period may also see benefits, 

which could include additional 

certainty about their payment amounts 

in the face of litigation as well as the 

ability to make progress toward certain 

types of forgiveness during the time 

until the pending cases are resolved. For 

instance, there are approximately 

200,000 borrowers enrolled in the SAVE 

plan who have certified at least some 

employment toward PSLF, and who are 

eligible for the PAYE plan, but who are 

not eligible for the terms of the IBR plan 

offered to borrowers who first took out 

a loan on or after July 1, 2014. If these 

individuals choose to sign up for PAYE, 

they would be able to continue making 

progress toward PSLF by making 

payments equal to 10 percent of their 

discretionary income. By contrast, if 

these borrowers did not have access to 

PAYE, they would have to choose a 

version of the IBR plan that sets their 

payments at 15 percent of discretionary 

income. For instance, a single borrower 

who makes $60,000 a year would pay 

$318 a month when enrolled in PAYE 

instead of $477 if enrolled in the older 

IBR plan, a savings of $159. It is 

possible that there may be other 

borrowers enrolled in SAVE who would 

consider a switch on a temporary basis, 

such as a borrower who would have a 

$0 payment when enrolled in either 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
3700 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

10We exclude borrowers with a Parent PLUS loan 

because those who consolidate would have access 

to the ICR plan regardless of this final rule. This 

number also excludes borrowers in deferments. 

11 88 FR 43886 (July 10, 2023). 12Forgiveness on income-contingent repayment 

plans that is based on the income-contingent 

repayment authority is currently enjoined, but the 

modeling discussed here took place prior to that 

injunction. 

PAYE or ICR. There were also just over 

800,000 borrowers who switched from 

either of these plans into SAVE after its 

creation. 

Beyond borrowers currently enrolled 

in SAVE, there are approximately 13.9 

million borrowers who are in repayment 

and who do not have Parent PLUS loans 

who are not currently enrolled in an 

income-contingent repayment plan.10

While the Department cannot speculate 

on how many of these borrowers may 

want to sign up for either ICR or PAYE, 

depending on their eligibility, the 

Department is not currently meeting its 

obligations under the HEA to provide 

these borrowers with an incomecontingent repayment option. 

The monthly payment savings 

described above would be similar for 

any borrower with older loans that are 

not eligible for the version of IBR for 

newer borrowers but who is eligible for 

PAYE. This could include borrowers 

who have recently returned to 

repayment through the Department’s 

Fresh Start Initiative, which allowed 

borrowers to take certain steps to get 

their loans out of default. It also could 

include borrowers with older loans who 

are now considering IDR plans. 

The IFR anticipated administrative 

costs of $400,000 to reflect the costs of 

updating systems to allow borrowers to 

access PAYE and ICR. Those costs have 

already been incurred and paid as we 

implemented the IFR. There are no 

additional administrative costs from this 

final rule. 

The ability to select PAYE or ICR 

could also create costs in the form of 

transfers if borrowers are able to select 

plans that produce lower payments over 

the borrower’s time in repayment. The 

nature and extent of these costs depends 

on baseline policy, namely what other 

plans are available and the terms of 

those plans. We do not anticipate these 

costs will be significant, as we discuss 

in the Net Budget Impact section. 

There may be additional costs related 

to the potential that borrowers may have 

a harder time choosing among 

repayment plans. However, we think 

several factors mitigate this concern. 

One is that, until a version of the SAVE 

plan that is compliant with the court 

injunction is available, the number of 

options for borrowers to make payments 

while enrolled in an income-contingent 

repayment plan will not be appreciably 

larger. For some borrowers, the ICR plan 

may be their only option, while the 

choice for borrowers who are eligible for 

PAYE and ICR should be simple, 

because the former generally produces 

lower payments for most borrowers. 

Over the long run, the time-limited 

nature of these changes means that 

eventually borrowers will go back to 

choosing the SAVE plan, or the ICR plan 

if they have a consolidation loan that 

repaid a Parent PLUS loan. The 

Department will also continue working 

to improve and update tools available to 

help borrowers choose their repayment 

plan. 

5. Net Budget Impact 

As the Department expects the SAVE 

plan to be available and advantageous to 

most borrowers in the long run, we do 

not estimate a significant budget impact 

from making PAYE and ICR available 

again to eligible borrowers, including 

those who had chosen SAVE. As was 

noted in the IDR final rule that created 

the SAVE plan (88 FR 43820), the 

Department’s budget modeling assigns 

IDR borrowers to specific plans based 

on a comparison of the net present value 

of the payments the borrower makes 

under the various plans for which they 

are eligible.11 That means the borrowers 

we estimate would be better off enrolled 

in PAYE or ICR are already in that plan 

in the President’s Budget for FY 2025 

(PB2025) baseline. These borrowers are 

generally going to be those who have 

graduate school related debt and those 

with incomes that are expected to rise 

to the point where their calculated 

payment would eventually be equal to 

or greater than what they would owe 

while enrolled in the 10-year standard 

repayment plan. These borrowers might 

be better off enrolled in PAYE because 

the terms of PAYE, absent the current 

injunction, provide for forgiveness after 

20 years of payments instead of the 25 

years when enrolled in IBR if the loan 

was borrowed before July 1, 2014, or the 

25 years for graduate borrowers enrolled 

in SAVE.12 In addition, PAYE caps 

payments at the amount determined 

under the 10-year standard plan for 

borrowers so long as their payments 

were below that level when they first 

enrolled. By contrast, there is no 

payment cap in SAVE. With this 

assumption that borrowers know their 

income and family profile trajectories 

over the life of their loans and choose 

the plan that offers the lowest lifetime, 

present-discounted payments, the 

regulation provides borrowers with an 

option to enroll in a non-SAVE incomecontingent repayment plan that does not 

have a significant scoreable budgetary 

impact. 

However, there is considerable 

uncertainty regarding when borrowers 

who enroll in SAVE may see their 

payments resume due to ongoing 

litigation. A lengthy forbearance for 

borrowers enrolled in the SAVE plan 

could lead some borrowers to decide to 

enroll in a different income-contingent 

repayment plan if that would result in 

a lower net present value of payments. 

To evaluate this, the Department has 

done a sensitivity analysis that includes 

a nine-month forbearance in FY 2025 

that does not count toward IDR 

forgiveness with the PB2025 baseline 

SAVE borrowers and compared that to 

a run with the SAVE or PAYE/ICR 

choice redone to include that 

forbearance in the choice decision. As is 

the case for the baseline choice 

decision, the plan choice for the 

sensitivity is based on the net present 

value (NPV) at a 30 percent discount 

rate between the cashflow streams for 

each plan generated for the borrower 

sample. This is the approach the 

Department has used for modeling IDR 

plan choice decisions and considers 

changes across the entire payment 

stream. This approach assumes 

borrowers know their income and 

family profile trajectories over the life of 

their loans and choose the plan that 

offers the lowest lifetime, presentdiscounted payments. The Department 

recognizes that borrowers may use 

different logic when choosing a 

repayment plan, such as comparing 

near-term monthly payments, and will 

not have information about their future 

incomes and family patterns to match 

this type of analysis, but we believe any 

decision logic would result in a 

relatively small percentage of borrowers 

choosing to revert to PAYE or ICR longterm. The sensitivity run resulted in a 

cost of $70.5 million, which represents 

the effect of the change in payments on 

the estimated net present value of all 

future non-administrative Federal costs 

associated with cohorts of loans. 

6. Accounting Statement 

Consistent with OMB Circular A–4, 

we have prepared an accounting 

statement showing the classification of 

the expenditures associated with the 

provisions of these regulations. These 

effects occur over the lifetime of the first 

ten loan cohorts following 

implementation of this rule. The 

cashflows are discounted to the year of 

the origination cohort in the modeling 

process and then those amounts are 

discounted at two percent to the present 

year in this Accounting Statement. This 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 3701 

13 5 U.S.C. 601(3), (4), (5), and (6) defines small 

business, small organization, small governmental 

jurisdiction, and small entity, respectively. 

table provides our best estimate of the 

changes in annualized monetized 

transfers that result from these final 

regulations. Expenditures are classified 

as transfers from the Federal 

government to affected student loan 

borrowers. 

TABLE 6.1—ACCOUNTING STATEMENT: CLASSIFICATION OF ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES

[In millions] 

Category Benefits 

Complying with statutory requirements to offer an income-contingent repayment plan ............................................................ Not quantified. 

Category Costs 

2% 

One-time administrative costs to Federal government to update systems and contracts to implement the final regulations .. $0.4. 

Category Transfers 

2% 

Reduced transfers from borrowers based on borrowers now accessing PAYE or ICR ............................................................ Not quantified. 

7. Alternatives Considered 

The Department considered one 

alternative in issuing this final rule. We 

considered further adjusting the 

eligibility dates of PAYE to allow 

borrowers with older loans to access 

this plan. Doing so would have been 

responsive to commenters who noted 

that they are not currently eligible for 

PAYE and that their options while 

enrolled in IBR would result in 

significant payment increases, and that 

the entire situation was created by 

reasons outside of their control. 

However, we determined such a change 

would need to be made by following a 

full rulemaking process. 

8. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Secretary certifies, under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.), that this final regulatory action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of 

‘‘small entities.’’ 13

These regulations will not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities because they 

are focused on arrangements between 

individual borrowers and the 

Department. There are no small entities 

that are impacted by this rule. This rule 

does not affect institutions of higher 

education in any way, and those entities 

are typically the focus of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act analysis for the 

Department of Education. 

9. Paperwork Reduction Act 

We have determined that there are no 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

implications specifically associated 

with regulations in this final rule. 

Borrowers who wish to sign up for 

PAYE or ICR repayment plans under 

this Final Rule will be completing the 

form that already exists for enrollment 

in other IDR plans, OMB Control 

Number 1845–0102. To accommodate 

the changes made to the programs in the 

IDR final rule and the court challenges, 

we are separately updating the current 

IDR form and will be providing a public 

comment period. We do not estimate 

any new burden to 1845–0102 from this 

final rule. 

10. Intergovernmental Review 

This program is subject to Executive 

Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 

CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive Order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened Federalism. The Executive 

Order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

11. Assessment of Educational Impact 

In the IFR we requested comments on 

whether the proposed regulations would 

require transmission of information that 

any other agency or authority of the 

United States gathers or makes 

available. Based on the response to the 

IFR and on our review, we have 

determined that these final regulations 

do not require transmission of 

information that any other agency or 

authority of the United States gathers or 

makes available. 

12. Federalism 

Executive Order 13132 requires us to 

provide meaningful and timely input by 

State and local elected officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have Federalism implications. 

‘‘Federalism implications’’ means 

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. The regulations 

do not have Federalism implications. 

Accessible Format: On request to the 

program contact person(s) listed under 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, 

individuals with disabilities can obtain 

this document in an accessible format. 

The Department will provide the 

requestor with an accessible format that 

may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or 

text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 

file, Braille, large print, audiotape, or 

compact disc, or another accessible 

format. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. You may access the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the 

Code of Federal Regulations at 

www.govinfo.gov. You can view this 

document, as well as all other 

Department documents published in the 

Federal Register, in text or Adobe 

Portable Document Format (PDF) at this 

site. To use PDF, you must have Adobe 

Acrobat Reader, which is available free 

at the site. 

You may also access Department 

documents published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 685 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Colleges and universities, 

Education, Loan programs-education, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
3702 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

1One petitioner (Mountain State Energy 

Holdings, LLC) cited both the APA and CAA as 

bases for reconsideration and rulemaking; the 

second petitioner (Edison Electric Institute) did not 

cite any specific authority for its request for 

reconsideration. 

requirements, Student aid, Vocational 

education. 

Miguel Cardona, 

Secretary of Education. 

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

the Department adopts the interim rule 

published on November 15, 2024, at 89 

FR 90221, as final without change. 

[FR Doc. 2025–00724 Filed 1–13–25; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2023–0072; FRL–12547–01– 

OAR] 

New Source Performance Standards 

for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From 

New, Modified, and Reconstructed 

Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating 

Units; Emission Guidelines for 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions From 

Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric 

Generating Units; and Repeal of the 

Affordable Clean Energy Rule; Final 

Action 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of final action denying or 

partially denying petitions for 

reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) is providing 

notice that it has responded to two 

petitions for reconsideration of the final 

action titled, ‘‘New Source Performance 

Standards for Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions From New, Modified, and 

Reconstructed Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric 

Generating Units; Emission Guidelines 

for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From 

Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric 

Generating Units; and Repeal of the 

Affordable Clean Energy Rule’’, 

published in the Federal Register on 

May 9, 2024. The Administrator has 

denied or partially denied the requests 

for reconsideration in separate letters to 

the petitioners. The basis for the EPA’s 

action is set out fully in the 

accompanying decision document, 

available in the rulemaking docket. At 

this time, the EPA is not addressing 

other grounds for reconsideration that 

have been raised by these or other 

petitioners. 

DATES: Effective January 15, 2025. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa 

Thompson (she/her), Sector Policies and 

Programs Division (D243–02), Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

109 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 

12055, Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina 27711; telephone number: 

(919) 541–5158; and email address: 

thompson.lisa@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

A copy of this Federal Register 

notice, the petitions for reconsideration, 

the letters denying the petitions and the 

accompanying decision document 

describing the full basis for the partial 

denial of these petitions are available in 

the docket the EPA established under 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2023– 

0072. In addition, an electronic copy of 

this final action will be available on the 

internet at https://www.epa.gov/ 

stationary-sources-air-pollution/ 

greenhouse-gas-standards-andguidelines-fossil-fuel-fired-power. 

II. Judicial Review 

This final action may be challenged in 

the United States Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit. 

Pursuant to CAA section 307(b)(1), 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in that court within 

60 days after the date notice of this final 

action is published in the Federal 

Register. 

Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) governs judicial review of final 

actions by the EPA. This section 

provides, in part, that ‘‘a petition for 

review of action of the Administrator in 

promulgating . . . any standard of 

performance or requirement under 

section [111] of [the CAA],’’ or ‘‘any 

other nationally applicable regulations 

promulgated, or final action taken, by 

the Administrator under [the CAA] may 

be filed only in the United States Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia.’’ 

This final action is ‘‘nationally 

applicable’’ within the meaning of CAA 

section 307(b)(1) because it denies or 

partially denies petitions to reconsider 

the ‘‘New Source Performance 

Standards for Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions From New, Modified, and 

Reconstructed Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric 

Generating Units; Emission Guidelines 

for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From 

Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric 

Generating Units; and Repeal of the 

Affordable Clean Energy Rule,’’ which is 

a nationally applicable final action 

promulgating standards of performance 

and requirements under section 111 of 

the CAA. 89 FR 39798 (May 9, 2024) 

(‘‘Carbon Pollution Standards’’). This 

final action is nationally applicable 

because the result of this denial or 

partial denial of the petitions identified 

herein is that the Carbon Pollution 

Standards remain in place and 

undisturbed, and because any judicial 

order disturbing the EPA’s reasoning 

herein would affect regulated entities 

throughout the nation. 

Thus, any petitions for review of this 

final action denying or partially denying 

petitioners’ requests for reconsideration 

must be filed in the United States Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit by March 17, 2025. 

III. Description of Action 

On May 9, 2024, pursuant to CAA 

section 111 of the CAA, the EPA 

published a final action titled ‘‘New 

Source Performance Standards for 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New, 

Modified, and Reconstructed Fossil 

Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units; 

Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions From Existing Fossil 

Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units; 

and Repeal of the Affordable Clean 

Energy Rule.’’ 89 FR 39798 (May 9, 

2024). Following publication of this 

final action, the Administrator received 

petitions for reconsideration of certain 

aspects of the Carbon Pollution 

Standards pursuant to the 

Administrative Procedure Act and Clean 

Air Act.1

The EPA carefully reviewed and 

evaluated each of these issues raised in 

the petitions for reconsideration based 

on the CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) criteria 

for reconsideration, as well as under 

section 553(e) of the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA). For the reasons 

explained below, the EPA is denying, in 

part or whole, two petitions for 

reconsideration; specifically, the 

objections raised regarding EPA’s 

treatment of grid reliability, financing 

assertions related to new baseload 

natural gas-fired electric generation 

units (EGUs), and the inclusion of an 

enforceable backstop emissions rate in 

conjunction with mass-based 

compliance flexibilities for existing 

coal-fired steam-generating EGUs. 

We discuss each of the petitions we 

are denying or partially denying and the 

basis for those denials in the 

accompanying decision document titled 

‘‘The EPA’s Basis for Denying, in Part or 

Whole, Petitions for Reconsideration of 

the New Source Performance Standards 

for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From 

New, Modified, and Reconstructed 

Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating 

Units; Emission Guidelines for 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1