This action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, amends regulations issued to carry out a marketing order as defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This final rule is issued under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674) (the Act), amending Marketing Agreement and Order No. 956 (7 CFR part 956; the Order), regulating the handling of sweet onions grown in the Walla Walla Valley of Southeast Washington and Northeast Oregon. The Committee locally administers the Order and is comprised of producers and handlers of Walla Walla sweet onions operating within the area of production, as well as a public member.

This action is exempt from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review process required by Executive Order 12866. This rule amends existing Marketing Order No. 956, as amended (7 CFR part 956), Sweet Onions Grown in the Walla Walla Valley of Southeast Washington and Northeast Oregon, and is necessary for the continued operation of Marketing Order No. 956. Additionally, this action is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” pursuant to section 5(c).

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13175—Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, which requires federal agencies to consider whether their rulemaking actions would have tribal implications. The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has determined that this final rule is unlikely to have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes.

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice Reform. Under the Order now in effect, Walla Walla sweet onion handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the Order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate will be applicable to all assessable Walla Walla sweet onions for the 2025 fiscal period, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608(c)(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

This final rule decreases the assessment rate for Walla Walla sweet onions handled under the Order from $0.20 to $0.17 per 50-pound bag or equivalent for the 2025 fiscal period and subsequent fiscal periods.

Sections 956.41 and 956.42 of the Order authorize the Committee, with AMS approval, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the Committee are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs of goods and services in their local area and are able to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting, and all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.

For the 2023 fiscal period and subsequent fiscal periods, the Committee recommended, and AMS approved, an assessment rate of $0.20 per 50-pound bag or equivalent of Walla Walla sweet onions. That rate continues in effect from fiscal period to fiscal period until modified, suspended or terminated by AMS upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other information available to AMS.

The Committee met on December 4, 2024, and unanimously recommended, with a vote of six in favor and none opposed, 2025 fiscal period expenditures of $58,374 and an assessment rate of $0.17 per 50-pound bag or equivalent of Walla Walla sweet onions handled for the 2025 fiscal period and subsequent fiscal periods. In comparison, the 2024 fiscal period budgeted expenditures were $56,330. The $0.17 per 50-pound bag or equivalent assessment rate is $0.03 lower than the rate currently in effect. The Committee recommended decreasing the assessment rate to reduce its reserve funds to within a level authorized under the Order. The Committee estimates 222,950 50-pound bags or equivalent of assessable Walla Walla sweet onions for the 2025 fiscal period, which is 20,800 50-pound bags or equivalent fewer than was projected for the 2024 fiscal period.

The Committee derived the recommended assessment rate by considering anticipated expenses, an estimated 222,950 50-pound bags or equivalent of assessable Walla Walla sweet onions, and the amount of funds available in the authorized reserve. The estimated 222,950 50-pound bags or equivalent of Walla Walla sweet onions from the 2025 crop is expected to generate $37,902 in assessment revenue at the new assessment rate (222,950 50-pound bags or equivalent multiplied by $0.17 assessment rate). The income generated from handler assessments, along with $20,472 in reserve funds, should be sufficient to meet the Committee's estimated program expenditures of $58,374 for the 2025 fiscal period. Funds available in the financial reserve (currently about $91,694) will be kept within the maximum permitted by the Order (not to exceed two fiscal period's budgeted expenses, as authorized in § 956.44).

The assessment rate will continue in effect indefinitely until modified, suspended, or terminated by AMS upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information. Although this assessment rate will be in effect for an indefinite period, the Committee will continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or AMS. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. AMS will evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking would be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2025 fiscal period budget, and those for subsequent fiscal periods, will be reviewed and as appropriate, approved by AMS.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS has considered the economic impact of this final rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.

There are approximately 12 producers of Walla Walla sweet onions in the production area and eight handlers subject to regulation under the Order. At the time this analysis was prepared, the Small Business Administration (SBA) defined small agricultural producers of Walla Walla sweet onions as those having annual receipts equal to or less than $3,750,000 (North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 111219, Other Vegetable (except Potato) and Melon Farming) and small agricultural service firms as those having annual receipts equal to or less than $34,000,000 (NAICS code 115114, Postharvest Crop Activities) (13 CFR 121.201).

The USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) reported an average 2020-2023 Washington dry onion annual producer price of $9.13 to $26.20 per hundredweight. The average over those years was approximately $17.98 per hundredweight, or $8.99 per 50-pound bag or equivalent. Total production of Walla Walla sweet onions for the 2024 season was reported by the Committee to be 283,136 50-pound bags or equivalent. Using the average price from 2020-2023, the most recent years for which there is NASS data, the total 2024 crop value of Walla Walla sweet onions could therefore be estimated to be $2,545,393 (283,136 50-pound bags or equivalent multiplied by $8.99 per 50-pound equivalent). Dividing the estimated crop value by the estimated number of producers yields an estimated average receipt per producer of $212,116 ($2,545,393 divided by 12 producers), which is well below the SBA small agricultural producer threshold of $3,750,000 in annual receipts.

According to AMS Market News data, the terminal market price for Walla Walla sweet onions in 2021 (the most recent season for which data is available) was $34.96 per 40-pound carton. Multiplying this figure by 1.25 to adjust for a 50-pound bag or equivalent yields an average 2021 terminal market price of $43.70 per 50-pound bag or equivalent. Multiplying the 2024 Walla Walla sweet onion production of 283,136 50-pound bags or equivalent by the estimated average price per 50-pound bag or equivalent of $43.70 equals $12,373,043 ($34.96 times 1.25 times 283,136). Dividing this figure by the eight regulated handlers yields estimated average annual handler receipts of $1,546,630 ($12,373,043 divided by 8 handlers), which is below the SBA threshold for small agricultural service firms of $34,000,000 in annual receipts. Therefore, using the above data, all of the producers and handlers of Walla Walla sweet onions would be classified as small entities according to the SBA definition.

This final rule decreases the assessment rate collected from handlers for the 2025 fiscal period and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.20 to $0.17 per 50-pound bag or equivalent of Walla Walla sweet onions. The Committee unanimously recommended 2025 fiscal period expenditures of $58,374 and an assessment rate of $0.17 per 50-pound bag or equivalent of Walla Walla sweet onions. The new assessment rate of $0.17 is $.03 lower than the current rate. The Committee estimates the industry will handle 222,950 50-pound bags or equivalent of Walla Walla sweet onions during the 2025 fiscal period. Thus, the $0.17 per 50-pound bag or equivalent rate should provide $37,902 in assessment income (222,950 50-pound bags or equivalent multiplied by $0.17). The Committee also expects to use $20,472 from its financial reserve to cover remaining expenses. Income derived from handler assessments, along with reserve funds, should be adequate to meet budgeted expenditures for the 2025 fiscal period.

In recent years, the Committee has added to its reserve funds by collecting assessment revenue in excess of budgeted expenditures. The Committee recommended decreasing the assessment rate to refrain from holding excessive funds in its reserve. The Committee will adequately fund 2025 budgeted expenses from assessment revenue and funds from its reserve. This final rule is expected to lower and maintain the Committee's reserve balance at a level that the Committee believes is appropriate and is compliant with the Order's provisions.

Prior to arriving at this budget and the assessment rate recommendation, the Committee discussed various alternatives, including maintaining the current assessment rate of $0.20 per 50-pound bag or equivalent as well as decreasing the assessment rate by different amounts. Ultimately, the Committee determined that the recommended assessment rate will be able to fund most of its 2025 fiscal period budgeted expenses, with the remaining balance coming from its financial reserve, which will be kept at a balance authorized by the Order. The assessment rate of $0.17 per 50-pound bag or equivalent of Walla Walla sweet onions was derived by considering anticipated expenses, the projected volume of assessable Walla Walla sweet onions, the projected monetary balance held in reserve, and additional pertinent factors.

A review of NASS information indicates that the average producer price for the 2020-2023 crop years was $8.99 per 50-pound bag or equivalent. Further, the Committee reported the quantity of assessable Walla Walla sweet onions harvested in the 2024 fiscal period was 283,136 50-pound bags or equivalent, which yields estimated total producer revenue for the 2024 fiscal period of approximately $2,545,393 ($8.99 per 50-pound bag or equivalent multiplied by 283,136). Therefore, utilizing the assessment rate of $0.17 per 50-pound bag or equivalent, assessment revenue for the 2024 fiscal period, as a percentage of total producer revenue, would be approximately 1.89 percent ($0.17 multiplied by 283,136 per 50-pound bags or equivalent divided by $2,545,393 and multiplied by 100).

This final rule decreases the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers, and some of the costs may be passed on to producers. However, these costs are expected to be offset by the benefits derived by the operation of the Order.

Committee meetings are widely publicized throughout the production area. The Walla Walla sweet onion industry and all interested persons are invited to attend the meetings and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the December 4, 2024, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons were invited to submit comments on this rule, including the regulatory and information collection impacts of this action on small businesses.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178, Vegetable and Specialty Crops. No changes in those requirements are necessary as a result of this final rule. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This final rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Walla Walla sweet onion handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

AMS has not identified any relevant federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this final rule.

A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the Federal Register on October 1, 2025 (90 FR 47245). Copies of the proposed rule were provided to all Walla Walla sweet onion handlers. In addition, the proposal was made available through the internet by AMS and the Office of the Federal Register via https://www.regulations.gov. A 30-day comment period ending October 31, 2025, was provided for interested persons to respond to the proposal. AMS received three comments during the comment period. Two comments supported the proposal, while one comment challenged the procedural sufficiency of the rulemaking, asserting that AMS did not adhere to the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. After review of the comment, AMS determined that all the statutory and procedural requirements for rulemaking have been met regarding this action. Accordingly, AMS made no changes to the rule as proposed.

After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendations submitted by the Committee and other available information, AMS has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with and effectuates the purposes of the Act.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 956 is amended as follows:

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2026-0562 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2026-0562. Address questions about NRC dockets to Helen Chang, telephone: 301-415-3228, email: Helen.Chang@nrc.gov. For technical questions contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “Begin ADAMS Public Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, at 301-415-4737, or by email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov. For the convenience of the reader, instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are provided in the “Availability of Documents” section.

• NRC's PDR: The PDR, where you may examine and order copies of publicly available documents, is open by appointment. To make an appointment to visit the PDR, please send an email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov or call 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. eastern time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website ( https://www.regulations.gov ). Please include Docket ID NRC-2026-0562 in your comment submission.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

This rule is limited to the changes contained in Amendment No. 5 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1040 and does not include other aspects of the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Cask System design. The NRC is using the “direct final rule procedure” to issue this amendment because it represents a limited and routine change to an existing certificate of compliance that is expected to be non-controversial. Adequate protection of public health and safety continues to be reasonably assured. The amendment to the rule will become effective on June 16, 2026. However, if the NRC receives any significant adverse comment on this direct final rule by May 4, 2026, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws this action and will subsequently address the comments received in a final rule as a response to the companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register or as otherwise appropriate. In general, absent significant modifications to the proposed revisions requiring republication, the NRC will not initiate a second comment period on this action.

A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:

(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:

(a) The comment causes the NRC to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;

(b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or

(c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC.

(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.

(3) The comment causes the NRC to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule, certificate of compliance, or technical specifications.

Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, requires that “[t]he Secretary [of the Department of Energy] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.” Section 133 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act states, in part, that “[t]he Commission shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under Section 219(a) [sic: 218(a)] for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.”

To implement this mandate, the Commission approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule that added a new subpart K in part 72 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) entitled “General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites” (55 FR 29181; July 18, 1990). This rule also established a new subpart L in 10 CFR part 72 entitled “Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Casks,” which contains procedures and criteria for obtaining NRC approval of spent fuel storage cask designs. The NRC subsequently issued a final rule on March 6, 2015 (80 FR 12073), as corrected (80 FR 15679; March 25, 2015), that approved the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System design and added it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in § 72.214 as Certificate of Compliance No. 1040.

On December 14, 2023 (ML23348A302), Holtec International submitted a request to the NRC to amend Certificate of Compliance No. 1040. Holtec International supplemented its request on the following dates: April 18, 2024 (ML24136A189), September 19, 2024 (ML24263A280), January 31, 2025 (ML25031A419), August 4, 2025 (ML25216A284), and October 6, 2025 (ML25279A207). Amendment No. 5 revises the certificate of compliance to include two new versions of the HI-STORM UMAX design (Version B1 and B2) with new lid features designed to enhance the safety of the cask system by minimizing exposure of the canisters to air with salt particles.

As documented in the preliminary safety evaluation report, the NRC performed a safety evaluation of the proposed certificate of compliance amendment request. The NRC determined that this amendment does not reflect a significant change in design or fabrication of the cask. Specifically, the NRC determined that the design of the cask would continue to maintain confinement, shielding, and criticality control in the event of each evaluated accident condition. In addition, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the implementation of Amendment No. 5 would remain well within the limits specified by 10 CFR part 20, “Standards for Protection Against Radiation.” Thus, the NRC found there will be no significant change in the types or amounts of any effluent released, no significant increase in the individual or cumulative radiation exposure, and no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents.

The NRC staff determined that the amended Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System cask design, when used under the conditions specified in the certificate of compliance, the technical specifications, and the NRC's regulations, will meet the requirements of 10 CFR part 72; therefore, adequate protection of public health and safety will continue to be reasonably assured. When this direct final rule becomes effective, persons who hold a general license under § 72.210 may, consistent with the license conditions under § 72.212, load spent nuclear fuel into Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System casks that meet the criteria of Amendment No. 5 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1040.

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this direct final rule, the NRC revises the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System cask design listed in § 72.214, “List of approved spent fuel storage casks.” This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements.

Under the “Agreement State Program Policy Statement” approved by the Commission on October 2, 2017, and published in the Federal Register on October 18, 2017 (82 FR 48535), this rule is classified as Compatibility Category NRC—Areas of Exclusive NRC Regulatory Authority. The NRC program elements in this category are those that relate directly to areas of regulation reserved to the NRC by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the provisions of 10 CFR chapter I. Therefore, compatibility is not required for program elements in this category.

The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31885).

Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the NRC's regulations in 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” the NRC has determined that this direct final rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. The NRC has made a finding of no significant impact on the basis of this environmental assessment. This environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact can be tracked with identification number NEPA ID EAXX-429-00-000-1770783521.

The action is to amend § 72.214 to revise the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to include Amendment No. 5 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1040.

This direct final rule amends the certificate of compliance for the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System design within the list of approved spent fuel storage casks to allow power reactor licensees to store spent fuel at reactor sites in casks with the approved modifications under a general license. Specifically, Amendment No. 5 revises the certificate of compliance to include two new versions of the HI-STORM UMAX design (Version B1 and B2).

On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. The potential environmental impact of using NRC-approved storage casks was analyzed in the environmental assessment for the 1990 final rule. The environmental assessment for this Amendment No. 5 tiers off of the environmental assessment for the July 18, 1990, final rule. Tiering on past environmental assessments is a standard process under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended.

Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System is designed to mitigate the effects of design basis accidents that could occur during storage. Design basis accidents account for human-induced events and the most severe natural phenomena reported for the site and surrounding area. Postulated accidents analyzed for an independent spent fuel storage installation, the type of facility at which a holder of a power reactor operating license would store spent fuel in casks in accordance with 10 CFR part 72, can include tornado winds and tornado-generated missiles, a design basis earthquake, a design basis flood, an accidental cask drop, lightning effects, fire, explosions, and other incidents.

This amendment does not reflect a significant change in design or fabrication of the cask. Because there are no significant design or process changes, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the implementation of Amendment No. 5 would remain well within the 10 CFR part 20 limits. The NRC has also determined that the design of the cask as modified by this rule would maintain confinement, shielding, and criticality control in the event of an accident. Therefore, the proposed changes will not result in any radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts that significantly differ from the environmental impacts evaluated in the environmental assessment supporting the July 18, 1990, final rule. There will be no significant change in the types or significant revisions in the amounts of any effluent released, no significant increase in the individual or cumulative radiation exposures, and no significant increase in the potential for, or consequences from, radiological accidents. The NRC documented its safety findings in the preliminary safety evaluation report.

The alternative to this action is to deny approval of Amendment No. 5 and not issue the direct final rule. Consequently, any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee that seeks to load spent nuclear fuel into a Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System in accordance with the changes described in proposed Amendment No. 5 would have to request an exemption from the requirements of §§ 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, interested licensees would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee. The environmental impacts would be the same as the proposed action.

Approval of Amendment No. 5 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1040 would result in no irreversible and irretrievable commitments of Federal resources.

No agencies or persons outside the NRC were contacted in connection with the preparation of this environmental assessment.

The environmental impacts of the action have been reviewed under the requirements in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the NRC's regulations in subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” Based on the foregoing environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that this direct final rule, “Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1040, Amendment No. 5,” will not have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, the NRC has determined that an environmental impact statement is not necessary for this direct final rule.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, as amended by E.O. 14215, provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will determine whether a regulatory action is significant as defined by E.O. 12866 and will review significant regulatory actions. OIRA determined that this direct final rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866.

This direct final rule does not contain any new or amended collections of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). Existing collections of information were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval number 3150-0132.

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the document requesting or requiring the collection displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC certifies that this direct final rule will not, if issued, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This direct final rule affects only nuclear power plant licensees and Holtec International. These entities do not fall within the scope of the definition of small entities set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC (§ 2.810).

On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent nuclear fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. Any nuclear power reactor licensee can use NRC-approved cask designs to store spent nuclear fuel if (1) it notifies the NRC in advance; (2) the spent fuel is stored under the conditions specified in the cask's certificate of compliance; and (3) the conditions of the general license are met. A list of NRC-approved cask designs is contained in § 72.214. On March 6, 2015 (80 FR 12073), as corrected (80 FR 15679; March 25, 2015), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 that approved the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System by adding it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in § 72.214.

On April 18, 2024 (ML24136A189), and as supplemented on September 19, 2024 (ML24263A280), January 31, 2025 (ML25031A419), August 4, 2025 (ML25216A284), and October 6, 2025 (ML25279A207) submitted a request to amend the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System as described in Section IV, “Discussion of Changes,” of this document.

The alternative to this action is to withhold approval of Amendment No. 5 and to require any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee seeking to load spent nuclear fuel into a Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System under the changes described in Amendment No. 5 to request an exemption from the requirements of §§ 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, each interested 10 CFR part 72 licensee would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee.

Approval of this direct final rule is consistent with previous NRC actions. Further, as documented in the preliminary safety evaluation report and environmental assessment, this direct final rule will have no adverse effect on public health and safety or the environment. This direct final rule has no significant identifiable impact or benefit on other government agencies. Based on this regulatory analysis, the NRC concludes that the requirements of this direct final rule are commensurate with the NRC's responsibilities for public health and safety and the common defense and security. No other available alternative is believed to be as satisfactory; therefore, this action is recommended.

The NRC has determined that the backfit rule (§ 72.62) does not apply to this direct final rule. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required. This direct final rule revises Certificate of Compliance No. 1040 for the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System, as currently listed in § 72.214. The revision consists of the changes in Amendment No. 5 previously described, as set forth in the revised certificate of compliance and technical specifications.

Amendment No. 5 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1040 for the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System was initiated by Holtec International and was not submitted in response to new NRC requirements, or an NRC request for amendment. Amendment No. 5 applies only to new casks fabricated and used under Amendment No. 5. These changes do not affect existing users of the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System, and the current Amendment No. 4 continues to be effective for existing users. While current users of this storage system may comply with the new requirements in Amendment No. 5, this would be a voluntary decision on the part of current users.

For these reasons, Amendment No. 5 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1040 does not constitute backfitting under § 72.62 or § 50.109(a)(1) or otherwise represent an inconsistency with the issue finality provisions applicable to combined licenses in 10 CFR part 52. Accordingly, the NRC has not prepared a backfit analysis for this rulemaking.

This direct final rule is not a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.

The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons as indicated.

The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal rulemaking website at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2026-0562. In addition, the Federal rulemaking website allows members of the public to receive alerts when changes or additions occur in a docket folder. To subscribe: (1) navigate to the docket folder (NRC-2026-0562); (2) click the “Subscribe” link; and (3) enter an email address and click on the “Subscribe” link.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72:

The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments using a method listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2026-3470; Project Identifier MCAI-2026-00210-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to regulations.gov , including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this final rule.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Joshua Baek, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 562-627-6725; email: joshua.y.baek@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Transport Canada AD CF-2026-10, dated February 27, 2026 (Transport Canada AD CF-2026-10) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. The MCAI states that it was discovered during production flight tests that the OFV DC motor could potentially be inoperative when used in high differential pressure conditions. The cabin pressure control system (CPCS) automatically controls the pressure inside the cabin by controlling the flow of pressurized air through the OFV. The OFV normally operates in automatic (AUTO) mode and uses two separate OFV stepper motors during all phases of flight. The OFV can also operate in manual (MAN) mode and use the OFV DC motor under certain condition. The high differential pressure across the OFV can increase the friction between the OFV butterfly shaft and the OFV body, resulting in excessive torque being required to operate the OFV. This excessive torque may trip the OFV MAN mode torque limiter resulting in loss of OFV control in CPCS MAN mode. This condition, if not corrected, could potentially lead to total loss of cabin pressure control, excessive differential pressure across the airplane structure, inability to rapidly depressurize the airplane to ambient, when needed, and inability to evacuate smoke, when needed.

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-2026-3470.

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 is issuing this AD after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

This AD prohibits dispatching an airplane under certain dispatch provisions within Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL) items 21-33-03 and 21-33-04 and prohibits dispatch if a certain CAS message is displayed.

The FAA notes there are two operational procedures (O) within MMEL items 21-33-03 and 21-33-04. For this AD, only the operational procedures listed in figure 1 to paragraph (g)(2) of this AD are prohibited.

The FAA considers that this AD is an interim action. If final action is later identified, the FAA might consider further rulemaking then.

Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency, for “good cause,” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a final rule without providing notice and seeking comment prior to issuance. Further, section 553(d) of the APA authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days, upon a finding of good cause.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies forgoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because the OFV DC motor could potentially be inoperative when used in high differential pressure conditions. The high differential pressure across the OFV can increase the friction between the OFV butterfly shaft and the OFV body, resulting in excessive torque being required to operate the OFV. This excessive torque may trip the OFV MAN mode torque limiter resulting in loss of OFV control in CPCS MAN mode. This condition, if not corrected, could potentially lead to total loss of cabin pressure control, excessive differential pressure across the airplane structure, inability to rapidly depressurize the airplane to ambient, when needed, and inability to evacuate smoke, when needed. Additionally, the compliance time in this AD is shorter than the time necessary for the public to comment and for publication of the final rule. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days, for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forgo notice and comment.

The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 198 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

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

This final rule makes minor technical amendments to an appendix in the CFR. On January 20, 2025, the President issued E.O. 14168, Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, 1 which requires Federal agencies to use the term “sex” and not “gender” in all applicable agency policies and documents when administering or enforcing sex-based distinctions. In compliance with this E.O., these technical amendments replace the term “gender” with “sex” wherever it appears in the regulatory text of the Listing of Impairments (listings). 2 These technical amendments are limited to changing the term in SSA's regulations to comply with section 3(c) of the E.O. 14168 and do not make any substantive changes to the regulations.

The APA provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and comment procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, it may issue a final rule without prior notice and comment. 3 We have determined that there is good cause for making this technical amendment without prior notice and comment because the revisions do not make any substantive changes to our regulations and will not impact the programs we administer. Therefore, notice and comment procedures are unnecessary and there is good cause under the APA for proceeding to a final rule.

We consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and OMB has determined that this rule does not meet the criteria for a significant regulatory action under section (3)(f) of E.O. 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563, and is not subject to OMB review. Therefore, OMB has not formally reviewed it.

Based upon the criteria in E.O. 14192, and OMB Memorandum M-25-20, Guidance Implementing Section 3 of Executive Order 14192, Titled “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” this rule is not an “E.O. 14192 regulatory action.”  4

Our Actuarial Services anticipates no direct effect on program costs for the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) and Federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI) programs as a result of the implementation of this final rule. This final rule makes technical changes to terminology but does not alter the policies or procedures that the agency currently follows. Therefore, no changes in OASDI or SSI program eligibility or benefit payments are expected due to this action.

Our Budget Office expects that we will not incur any administrative costs nor realize any savings from the implementation of the final rule, as this rule will not change any current agency policies or procedures.

We analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles and criteria established by E.O. 13132 and determined that the rule will not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism assessment. We also determined that this rule will not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' abilities to discharge traditional State governmental functions.

We certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it makes technical, nomenclature changes only. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended.

This final rule makes only limited nomenclature changes to our regulations that reflect the necessary de minimus changes we already made to the affected forms at the beginning of 2025 due to E.O. 14168. Since we previously obtained OMB PRA approval for these language revisions, this rule does not create any new or affect any existing collections and, therefore, does not require OMB approval under the PRA.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, we amend 20 CFR part 404 as follows:

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

On January 9, 2026 (91 FR 937), the EPA proposed to approve revisions submitted on March 19, 2025, and August 5, 2025, to Ohio's air permitting rules into the SIP under the CAA, including incorporating by reference Ohio rule(s) 3745-31-01 [with the exception of OAC 3745-31-01(A)(8), (E)(3)(b)(ii) and (iii), (M)(10)(a)(ii), (P)(12), (Q), and (S)(11)], 3745-31-02, 3745-31-03 [with the exception of OAC 3745-31-03(B)(1)(p)], 3745-31-05 [with the exception of OAC 3745-31-05(E)], 3745-31-06, 3745-31-07, 3745-31-09, 3745-31-10, 3745-31-11, 3745-31-12, 3745-31-13 [with the exception of OAC 3745-31-13(H)(1)(c)], 3745-31-14, 3745-31-15, 3745-31-16, 3745-31-17, 3745-31-18, 3745-31-19, 3745-31-20, 3745-31-21, 3745-31-22 [with the exception of OAC 3745-31-22(A)(3)(b)], 3745-31-23 [with the exception of the 1-hour NO 2 SIL in 3745-31-23(A)], 3745-31-24 [with the exception of OAC 3745-31-24(F)], 3745-31-25, 3745-31-26 [with the exception of OAC 3745-31-26(D)], 3745-31-27 [with the exception of OAC 3745-31-27(A)(1)(b)], 3745-31-28, 3745-31-29, 3745-31-30, and 3745-31-32. An explanation of the CAA requirements, a detailed analysis of the revisions, and the EPA's reasons for proposing approval were provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking and will not be restated here. The public comment period for this proposed rule ended on February 9, 2026. The EPA received no comments on the proposal.

The EPA is approving Ohio EPA's March 19, 2025, and August 5, 2025, submittals as revisions to its existing SIP. The EPA finds that the revisions are consistent with Federal requirements. As requested by Ohio EPA, the following provisions are not included in this proposed approval: OAC 3745-31-01(A)(8), (E)(3)(b)(ii) and (iii), (M)(10)(a)(ii), (P)(12), (Q), and (S)(11); 3745-31-03(B)(1)(p); 3745-31-05(E); 3745-31-13(H)(1)(c); 3745-31-22(A)(3)(b); 1-hour NO 2 SIL in 3745-31-23(A); 3745-31-24(F); 3745-31-26(D); 3745-31-27(A)(1)(b); and 3745-31-34(B), (C), and (D).

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 the Ohio Regulations described in section I. of this preamble and set forth in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 below. The 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 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. 1

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 these reasons, 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).

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 June 1, 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:

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

On April 3, 2025, the ODEQ submitted revisions to the Oregon SIP containing updates to Chapter 340, Division 256—Motor Vehicles section of the SIP, which includes the provisions for Oregon's VIP. ODEQ added a new provision under OAR 340-256-0200(4) to make explicit that new vehicles are exempt from on-board diagnostic (OBD) test requirements of the VIP program contained in OAR 340-256-0355 until January 1st of the calendar year that is four years after a vehicle's designated model year. Additionally, sections 340-256-0010, 340-256-0300, 340-256-0370, and 340-256-0465 were revised to include non-substantiative changes. On September 25, 2025, the EPA proposed to approve these changes (90 FR 46117). The reasons for our proposed approval were stated in the proposed rulemaking and will not be re-stated here. The public comment period for our proposed action ended on October 27, 2025.

The EPA provided a 30-day period for the public to comment on the proposed action that ended on October 27, 2025. The EPA received three comments on the proposed rule. The comments received and EPA's responses can be found in the “Response to Comments” document included in the docket for this action. The full text of all public comments may also be found in the docket for this action. After considering the comments, the EPA's position remains that approval of the revisions is consistent with the CAA.

We are approving, and incorporating by reference into the Oregon SIP, the submitted revisions to the Division 256 “Motor Vehicles” regulations, sections 0010, 0300, 0370, and 0465. These rules became State effective January 10, 2025, and were submitted to the EPA by the ODEQ on April 3, 2025. Based on the demonstration provided by ODEQ, we find that these revisions will not interfere with attainment of the NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.

In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that will be incorporated by reference into 40 CFR part 52. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are finalizing the incorporation by reference of Oregon Chapter 340, Division 256—Motor Vehicles revisions, State effective January 10, 2025, as described in section I. of this preamble and set forth in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 in this document. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 10 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.

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 (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 June 1, 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, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

This action corrects an error in the amendatory instructions in a final rulemaking affecting 40 CFR part 52.

On January 8, 2026 (91 FR 613), the EPA published a final rule approving amended or rescinded prohibitory and administrative rule revisions adopted by the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) as a revision to the California SIP.

The EPA's January 8, 2026 final rule included amendatory instructions for section 52.220 (of title 40 of the CFR) to add paragraph (c)(42)(xiii)(G) to read as follows: “(G) Previously approved on June 3, 1980, in paragraph (c)(42)(xiii)(C) of this section and now deleted with replacement in paragraph (c)(610)(i)(D)( 7 ) of this section: Rule 702.” However, paragraph (c)(42)(xiii)(G) had already been added by another final rule published at 91 FR 607 on the same day. Due to these inaccurate amendatory instructions, the paragraph that the EPA had intended to add to the CFR through the EPA's final rule published at 91 FR 613 could not be added. The EPA is correcting the error by adding paragraph (c)(42)(xiii)(H) to 40 CFR 52.220 to read: “(H) Previously approved on June 3, 1980, in paragraph (c)(42)(xiii)(C) of this section and now deleted with replacement in paragraph (c)(610)(i)(D)( 7 ) of this section: Rule 702.”

The EPA has determined that this action falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation where public notice and comment procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. Public notice and comment for this action is unnecessary because the underlying rule for which this correcting amendment has been prepared was already subject to a 30-day comment period. Further, this action is consistent with the purpose and rationale of the final rule for which inaccurate amendatory instructions are being corrected herein. Because this action does not change the EPA's analysis or overall action, no purpose would be served by additional public notice and comment. Consequently, additional public notice and comment are unnecessary.

The EPA also finds that there is good cause under APA section 553(d)(3) for this correction to become effective on the date of publication of this action. Section 553(d)(3) of the APA allows an effective date of less than 30 days after publication “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in APA section 553(d)(3) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. This rule does not create any new regulatory requirements such that affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule takes effect. This action merely corrects inaccurate amendatory instructions in the previous rulemaking. For this reason, the EPA finds good cause under APA section 553(d)(3) for this correction to become effective on the date of publication of this action.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and is therefore not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget, and because SIP actions are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025).

In addition, because this action merely corrects inaccurate amendatory instructions in a previous rulemaking, this action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ); does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate 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); 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); and 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).

Because this action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the APA or any other statute, it is not subject to the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ).

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the General Accounting Office prior to publication of this rule in the Federal Register . This rule 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 amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:

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

On November 28, 2025 (90 FR 54609), EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of Connecticut. The NPRM proposed approval of revisions to Connecticut's New Source Review (NSR) permit program, primarily to clarify applicability for stationary sources in nonattainment areas.

The formal SIP revision was submitted by The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) on October 3, 2024. 1 CT DEEP submitted a SIP revision containing changes to Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) sections 22a-174-3a(a)(2)(C)(ii), 22a-174-3a(l)(1)(B) and 22a-174-3a(l)(1)(C). These revisions to RCSA became effective, as a matter of state enforceability, on March 14, 2024.

The first revision made by CT DEEP is to RCSA section 22a-174-3a(a)(2)(C)(ii), which references the federal definition of a “non-road engine.” The citation to 40 CFR part 89 in this clause was amended to 40 CFR 1068.30 in order reflect the correct citation after EPA renumbering. The two other revisions relate to subsection (l) of RCSA section 22a-174-3a, which addresses permit requirements for nonattainment areas. Subparagraph (B) of subdivision (1) of subsection (l) is amended to clarify how the subsection applies to modifications. The revised text provides more detail on how changes to an existing unit may be considered a major modification. The amended text also includes references to the states' significant emission rate thresholds at Table 3a(k)-1. In subparagraph (C) of the same subdivision, the text is revised to add the phrase “for such pollutant” after “nonattainment area” for clarity.

The rationale for EPA's proposed action is explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPRM.

EPA is approving the changes to RCSA sections 22a-174-3a(a)(2)(C)(ii), 22a-174-3a(l)(1)(B) and 22a-174-3a(l)(1)(C) as a revision to the Connecticut 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 the RCSA section 22a-174-3a 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. 2

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 June 1, 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 whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.

On June 3, 2011, Ohio submitted its recommendations to the EPA to designate certain areas of the State as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassifiable for the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS. Ohio recommended that the area located in southeastern Ohio that includes Center Township in Morgan County and Waterford Township in Washington County, the Muskingum River area, be designated as nonattainment for the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS. The EPA concurred with Ohio's analysis and, on August 15, 2013 (78 FR 47191), published a final action designating the Muskingum River area as nonattainment of the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS, effective October 4, 2013.

Under section 192(a) of the CAA, States are also required to submit attainment plans to demonstrate that the respective areas will attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years from the effective date of designation. Ohio submitted statewide nonattainment area SIPs to the EPA on April 3, 2015, and October 13, 2015, and submitted supplemental attainment plans for the Muskingum River area on June 24, 2020, July 28, 2022, and May 23, 2023. The EPA approved Ohio's attainment plan for the Muskingum River area on September 8, 2023 (88 FR 61969).

On October 2, 2025 (90 FR 47686), the EPA proposed to redesignate the Muskingum River area from nonattainment to attainment for the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS in accordance with Ohio's March 31, 2025, request. The EPA determined that the area is attaining the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS and that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable SO 2 emission reductions in the area. The EPA also proposed to approve Ohio's maintenance plan, which is designed to ensure continued attainment of the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS. Finally, the EPA proposed to approve and incorporate by reference Ohio's DFFOs issued to Globe Metallurgical on March 26, 2025, which set forth emission limits and other requirements that will provide for attainment of the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS in this area.

The EPA received two adverse comments on this action. Summaries of the adverse comments and the EPA's responses are provided below. All comments submitted during the public comment period are available in the docket of this action.

Comment: One commenter stated that the docket materials available to the public did not include the complete, machine-readable AERMOD/AERMET/BPIPPRM input and output files, the meteorological data files used, or the underlying spreadsheets for the base- year and projected inventories used in the maintenance demonstration.

Response: The EPA notes the modeling report was provided in both the attainment plan (88 FR 61969) and the docket for this action. All supporting modeling and meteorological data files are available for public viewing via the Freedom of Information Act process, but typically aren't included in the dockets for these actions due to the large sizes of the files. Therefore, the EPA does not find the comment to warrant any changes to this action.

Comment: Commenter states that the enforceability of the SO 2 reductions attributed to the retirement of the Muskingum River Power Plant requires documentation of the binding, federally enforceable instruments ( e.g., enforceable permanent shutdown permits or SIP-approved rules/consent orders) that preclude restart without full New Source Review (NSR) and applicable limits. Commenter also states that if the maintenance demonstration relies on retirements or voluntary limits that are not yet codified as SIP provisions, that reliance cannot satisfy the “permanent and enforceable” requirement.

Response: Unrelated to this present rulemaking, the Muskingum River Power Plant notified Ohio EPA of the permanent shutdown of all coal-fired boilers effective May 31, 2015. Ohio's rule at Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) 3745-31-02 prohibits the installation or modification of new sources without obtaining appropriate permits. A new source is defined in Ohio's SIP at OAC rule 3745-31-01(N)(3) as any air contaminant source for which an owner or operator undertakes a continuing program of installation or modification. Modification is defined in Ohio's SIP at 3745-31-01(M)(10) as any physical change in, or change in the method of operation of any air contaminant source that results in an increase in the allowable emissions. The resumption of operations at the facility would constitute a change in the method of operation that qualified as a “modification.” The facility's title V permit-to-operate P0090944 was revoked effective May 31, 2015, and therefore, these reductions are permanent and enforceable.

Regarding the comments related to the maintenance plan, the EPA finds that Ohio has appropriately fulfilled its maintenance plan obligations as required under CAA section 175A, 42 U.S.C. 7505A. To further clarify, the docket of this action contains Ohio's redesignation request, which outlines Ohio's requirements for verification of continued attainment and the requirements for maintenance demonstration under section 175A. The EPA determines that Ohio adequately fulfilled these requirements through commitments to annual emissions submittals that verify continued attainment of the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS and review of the projected emissions inventory for the Muskingum River area. 1

Comment: Commenter asserts this action does not provide adequate factual basis to certify compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). Commenter requests that the Agency perform an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) or supply a revised 605(b) certification with a factual basis to support the conclusion that the action will not have a significant economic impact on small entities.

Response: The RFA does not apply to this rulemaking because the EPA has certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The regulatory analysis provisions of the RFA are only triggered by a threshold determination by the Agency that this rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rulemaking does not impose any regulatory requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Because the Agency has certified this rule will not have a significant economic impact, section 603 and 604 of the RFA do not apply to this rulemaking. 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

Comment: Commenter contends that the Agency did not provide sufficient explanation for how this action complies with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). Commenter requests that the EPA provide analysis showing the absence of a qualifying Federal mandate.

Response: With regard to the UMRA, the EPA has complied by making its own determination that this rule will not result in expenditures of $100M+, and therefore the Agency does not need to complete a statement under 2 U.S.C. 1532.

Comment: Commenter requests that the Agency amend the record to explain the Executive Order 12866 significance determination in light of the redesignation's permitting and compliance implications.

Response: The EPA has complied with E.O. 12866 by determining that this rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in E.O. 12866.

Comment: Commenter asserts that the modeling analysis used to establish the area's background concentrations does not align with the most recent data available, thereby undermining the model's ability to demonstrate future attainment under current conditions.

Response: Globe Metallurgical's October 2024 modeling report notes that the attainment demonstration modeling (May 2022) used the three-year period of 2018-2020 of ambient air quality monitoring data for background concentrations from the Hackney, OH monitor (AQS Monitor ID 39-115-0004). For the modeling presented in the October 2024 modeling report, the years of air monitoring data used for the background concentration were updated to the most recent three-year period of 2021-2023 for the Hackney monitor at the time the modeling was conducted, which is the most recent period of data available prior to submittal of the modeling report.

Comment: Commenter asserts that the period used to represent the facility's actual emission profile for the compliance demonstration is insufficient and potentially unrepresentative of current operations.

Response: The EPA disagrees with commenter's statement. Modeled emissions used both allowable emissions as well as the most recently available actual emissions. Allowable emissions are determined by the source's design capacity as well as any controls and enforceable operating factors and are required for use as emissions inputs for dispersion modeling to determine attainment with a NAAQS. 2 Modeled results were provided for both the allowable emissions and actual emissions scenarios, and both modeled emissions scenarios demonstrated that emissions would not exceed the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS. The use of allowable emissions in the modeling analysis is more conservative than the use of actual emissions data and indicates that with the more conservative emissions inputs the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS is still being maintained in the area. The ambient air monitoring data from the Globe monitor supports that the area is below the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS. Further, the April 2014 SO 2 Guidance also notes that a separate actuals-based modeling to support a redesignation request is not necessary if an attainment determination was made based on allowables-based modeling and a demonstration of a fully implemented control strategy has been provided. 3

The actual emissions scenario used emission testing data from April 2021 to April 2022. While this was not on a traditional calendar year basis (January 1-December 31), this is still a full year of data and would capture seasonal operational variability as well as peak seasonal demand. More recent emissions testing data was not available for use in the modeling analysis as testing is typically conducted in association with state title V permit renewals. Annual emissions inventory data that is reported to both the state and the EPA on an annual basis are not used for air dispersion modeling analysis.

Comment: Commenter asserts that the record is currently incomplete regarding the approval of the non-default downwash modeling technique employed.

Response: The Equivalent Building Downwash (EBD) parameters are not a non-default modeling approach; it is a source characterization study which does not require explicit regulatory pre-approval from the Model Clearinghouse and is not subject to requirements of section 3.2 of 40 CFR part 41, appendix W: Guideline on Air Quality Models. Non-default modeling methodologies involve using non-regulatory models or non-default (ALPHA or BETA) AERMOD options to conduct the modeling analysis as outlined in Section 3.2 of appendix W. In this case, the need to use refined building downwash parameters for the wind direction sectors between 240-290 degrees within AERMOD was due to the building downwash processor, BPIP-PRIME, calculating unrepresentative building downwash parameters for Shop 1.

Furthermore, a protocol for the wind tunnel testing was reviewed and approved by both the Ohio EPA and the EPA. Ohio EPA reviewed the final EBD report and considered the inclusion of the source characterization of the building downwash parameters resulting from the wind tunnel testing within the redesignation package their final approval of the source characterization study and report. Similarly, the EPA reviewed the final EBD report included with Ohio EPA's redesignation package and considered the inclusion of the modeling analysis within the redesignation rule, which included the final EBD report and EBD parameters for the wind direction sectors 240-290 degrees for Shop 1, the final approval of the EBD report for the source characterization study.

As noted above, air modeling files were not included within the docket due to the large file sizes. All modeling input and output files, including meteorological input files, are available by request.

The EPA is redesignating the Muskingum River area from nonattainment to attainment for the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS in accordance with Ohio's March 31, 2025, request. The EPA determined the area is attaining the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS and that the improvement is due to permanent and enforceable SO 2 emission reductions in the area. The EPA is also approving Ohio's maintenance plan as part of Ohio's federally enforceable SIP to ensure the Muskingum River area will continue to maintain attainment of the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS. Finally, the EPA is approving and incorporating by reference Ohio's DFFOs issued to Globe on March 26, 2025, which set forth emission limits and other requirements that will provide for attainment of the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS in this area.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d) of the APA, this action shall become effective immediately upon publication. The immediate effective date for this action is authorized under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).

Section 553(d)(1) of the APA provides that final rules shall not become effective until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register “except . . . a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction.” The purpose of this provision is to “give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior before the final rule takes effect.” Omnipoint Corp. v. Fed. Commc'n Comm'n, 78 F.3d 620, 630 (D.C. Cir. 1996); see also United States v. Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d 1099, 1104 (8th Cir. 1977) (quoting legislative history). However, when the agency grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction, affected parties do not need a reasonable time to adjust because the effect is not adverse. The EPA has determined that this rule relieves a restriction because this rule relieves sources in the area of Nonattainment NSR permitting requirements; instead, upon the effective date of this action, sources will be subject to less restrictive Prevention of Significant Deterioration permitting requirements. For this reason, the EPA finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) it is appropriate for this action to become effective on the date of publication of this action.

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 the Ohio's DFFOs issued to Globe described in section I of this preamble and set forth in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 below. The 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 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. 4

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 these reasons, 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).

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 June 1, 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 CAA section 307(b)(2).42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(2).

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

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

On August 5, 2013 (78 FR 47191), the EPA designated the Detroit area, a portion of Wayne County, Michigan, as nonattainment for the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS. On May 19, 2025 (90 FR 21228), the EPA approved Michigan's plan for attaining the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS for the Detroit area and for meeting other nonattainment area planning requirements of CAA sections 110, 172, 179 and 192. On August 14, 2025 (90 FR 39148), the EPA proposed to approve Michigan's redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Detroit nonattainment area for the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS.

Upon publication of the August 14, 2025 (90 FR 39148), proposed rulemaking, the EPA opened a 30-day comment period, ending September 15, 2025. The EPA received one adverse comment, which is summarized below along with the EPA's response. The comment is included in the docket for this action.

Comment: The commenter suggests that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate attainment in the Detroit area. Wayne County, in partnership with JustAir, has placed 100 air sensors in the county that have shown an average SO 2 level of 14.5 parts per billion (ppb) from May 1, 2024, when they began operation, to June 30, 2025. The commenter argues that the JustAir monitoring network demonstrates a more granular measure of air quality than the five regulatory SO 2 monitors that Michigan EGLE operates in the Detroit area. While the commenter concedes that preliminary data from the JustAir sensors shows SO 2 levels below the primary SO 2 standard, the commenter suggests that the JustAir sensors have captured values that could indicate an exceedance of the recently revised secondary SO 2 standard. Additionally, the commenter states that the attainment demonstration relies on modeling using maximum allowable emissions but does not provide robust evidence that the applicable facilities are complying with the emission limits and associated requirements included in the plan.

Response: The reference to the secondary SO 2 standard is outside of the scope of this action, as this action is only addressing the primary standard for SO 2. For monitoring compliance with the NAAQS, the EPA utilizes an appendix of the CAA to address the requirements for monitoring quality assurance. The appendix, 40 CFR part 58 appendix A, specifies the minimum quality system requirements applicable to State and Local Monitoring Stations and other monitor types used to determine compliance with the NAAQS. The appendix addresses quality system requirements, measurement quality check requirements, calculations for data quality assessments, and reporting requirements. Therefore, the JustAir monitoring program, which does not follow this appendix, is not a reliable source of data for comparison to the NAAQS.

With regard to modeling using maximum allowable emissions, the EPA's April 23, 2014, “Guidance for 1-Hour SO 2 Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions” states that the EPA may make determinations of attainment based on the modeling, using allowable emissions, from the attainment demonstrations for the applicable SIP for the affected area. For a short-term ( i.e., 1-hour) standard, the EPA believes that dispersion modeling, using allowable emissions and addressing stationary sources in the affected area (and in some cases those sources located outside the nonattainment area which may affect attainment in the area) is technically appropriate, efficient and effective in demonstrating attainment in nonattainment areas because it takes into consideration combinations of meteorological and emission source operating conditions that may contribute to peak ground-level concentrations of SO 2. In reality, it is extremely unlikely that all sources would be operating at maximum emission rates simultaneously. The Detroit area met all compliance dates in Michigan's plan, and Michigan included compliance documentation as appendix D of its May 5, 2025, redesignation request, which is included in the docket for this action. Additionally, Michigan has shown that it maintains an active enforcement program to ensure ongoing compliance with the requirements included in the Detroit attainment plan.

Comment: The commenter raises concern that the primary 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS was set to protect against short-term SO 2 exposure and does not reflect long-term exposure risks. The commenter states that Wayne County residents have experienced health impacts from long-term, low-level exposure to SO 2, which the primary 1-hour standard does not address.

Response: Under section 109 of the CAA, the EPA sets primary, or health-based, NAAQS for all criteria pollutants to provide requisite protection of public health, including the health of at-risk populations, with an adequate margin of safety. In the EPA's June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), rulemaking strengthening the SO 2 NAAQS to the level of 75 ppb, the EPA provided a detailed rationale for the Administrator's determination that the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS would be protective of public health. This rationale included explicit consideration of protection for people, including children, with asthma. Specifically, the standard was based on direct evidence of SO 2 -related effects in controlled human exposure studies of exercising individuals with asthma, as well as epidemiologic evidence of associations between SO 2 concentrations in ambient air and respiratory-related emergency department visits and hospitalizations. This action does not address the primary SO 2 NAAQS itself but rather recognizes that the Detroit area has achieved the primary SO 2 NAAQS.

Comment: The commenter raises concerns over the potential for increased pollution from facilities within the Detroit area, citing that redesignating the area to attainment risks signaling that efforts to reduce emissions are no longer a priority. The commenter states that the decreased SO 2 levels in the Detroit area suggest that the current nonattainment status of the area has successfully led to lower pollution in the area and removing the enhanced scrutiny and enforcement measures that come with nonattainment status may lead to increased emissions. Additionally, the commenter contends that the measures put forth by Michigan within the maintenance plan for the area are reactive rather than preventative, as contingency measures would be triggered only after exceedances occur. Therefore, the commenter suggests that the maintenance plan should contain proactive measures that would be triggered at the first signs of SO 2 increases.

Response: A redesignation to attainment does not remove any emission control measures for existing sources that are already adopted into the EPA approved SIP for Michigan. As discussed in the proposal for this action, Michigan's redesignation request includes a demonstration that attainment of the SO 2 NAAQS was attributable to permanent and enforceable emissions reductions. Further, Michigan's redesignation request includes a plan to maintain the SO 2 NAAQS, which includes an attainment emission inventory, a maintenance demonstration, a commitment for continued air quality monitoring, a process for verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan, which all will support measures to ensure the Detroit area remains in attainment and does not violate the SO 2 NAAQS in the future.

In the “General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” published on April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), the EPA provides discussion of contingency measures specifically for SO 2 . This guidance states that in many cases, attainment revolves around compliance of a single source or a small set of sources with emission limits shown to provide for attainment. Although this guidance applies to contingency measures under section 172(c)(9), the EPA applies a similar policy with respect to contingency measures for SO 2 required in maintenance plans under section 175A(d). The requirement to submit contingency measures in accordance with section 175A of the CAA can be adequately addressed for SO 2 by the operation of a comprehensive enforcement program, which can quickly identify and address sources that might be causing exceedances of the NAAQS.

As discussed in the proposal, Michigan has demonstrated that it maintains a comprehensive and active enforcement program capable of prompt action to remedy compliance issues. Beyond this, as part of its contingency plan, Michigan commits to adopt and expeditiously implement necessary corrective actions in the event of a violation of the standard, or if an annual 99th percentile daily maximum 1-hour SO 2 concentration of 79 ppb or above occurs in a single calendar year in the Detroit area.

Comment: The commenter states that the attainment framework does not adequately capture the cumulative impacts of long-term exposure to pollution. The commenter states that residents living in the Detroit area are disproportionately exposed to environmental hazards, including SO 2 and other pollutants. The commenter also notes that SO 2 can react in the atmosphere to form particulate matter and argues that elevated levels of SO 2 could lead to health effects from both exposure to SO 2 and particulate matter.

Response: The EPA is committed to protecting human health. For all criteria pollutants, the EPA ensures that the NAAQS are set to provide an adequate margin of safety for both the general population and susceptible populations that are potentially at increased risk for health effects in response to exposure to ambient air pollution.

When considering the primary SO 2 NAAQS, the EPA took into account the Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) of scientific information on known and potential human health effects associated with exposure to SO 2 in the air via the (1) Assessments in the Risk and Exposure Assessment (REA) of the most policy-relevant information in the ISA as well as quantitative exposure and risk analyses based on that information; (2) Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Panel advice and recommendations, as reflected in its letters to the Administrator and its public discussions of the ISA and REA; (3) public comments received during the development of the ISA and REA; and (4) public comments received on the EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking. Additionally, the EPA referred to the ISA regarding health effects and long-term exposures to SO 2 which addressed and concluded the long-term health evidence to be of insufficient quantity, quality, consistency, or statistical power to make a determination as to whether SO 2 was truly associated with these health outcomes. Therefore, when strengthening the SO 2 standard, the EPA drew upon an entire body of evidence on human health effects associated with the presence of SO 2 in the ambient air, and upon the results of the quantitative exposure and risk assessments reflecting this evidence.

In this action, the EPA is recognizing that the Detroit area has achieved the primary SO 2 NAAQS and is approving Michigan's maintenance plan for the area. While the EPA appreciates the commenter's concerns regarding other pollutants in the Detroit area, the EPA is not evaluating the air quality in the Detroit area with respect to other NAAQS in this action.

The EPA is redesignating the Detroit area from nonattainment to attainment for the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS in accordance with Michigan's May 5, 2025, request. The EPA has determined that the area is attaining the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS and that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable SO 2 emission reductions in the area. The EPA is also approving Michigan's maintenance plan, which is designed to ensure that the area will continue to maintain the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), this action shall become effective immediately upon publication. The immediate effective date for this action is authorized under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).

Section 553(d)(1) of the APA provides that final rules shall not become effective until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register “except . . . a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction.” The purpose of this provision is to “give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior before the final rule takes effect.” Omnipoint Corp. v. Fed. Commc'n Comm'n, 78 F.3d 620, 630 (D.C. Cir. 1996); see also United States v. Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d 1099, 1104 (8th Cir. 1977) (quoting legislative history). However, when the agency grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction, affected parties do not need a reasonable time to adjust because the effect is not adverse. The EPA has determined that this rule relieves a restriction because this rule relieves sources in the area of Nonattainment New Source Review permitting requirements; instead, upon the effective date of this action, sources will be subject to less restrictive Prevention of Significant Deterioration permitting requirements. For this reason, the EPA finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) it is appropriate for this action to become effective on the date of publication of this action.

Under the CAA, redesignation of an 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 state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the applicability of 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 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).

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 June 1, 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 parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

On June 27, 2023, Ohio submitted a final complete program revision application, seeking authorization of changes to its hazardous waste management program in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. EPA reviewed Ohio's application, determined that these changes satisfied all requirements needed to qualify for final authorization, and on November 18, 2025, proposed to authorize the State's changes. 90 FR 51525 (Nov. 18, 2025) (the “Authorization Proposal Notice”). EPA now makes a final decision that Ohio's hazardous waste program revisions that are being authorized are equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program, and therefore satisfy all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. For a list of State rules being authorized with this final authorization, please see Table 1 and Table 2 in Section B.9. of this notice, below.

EPA received ten comments on its November 18, 2025 Authorization Proposal Notice: two from nonprofit organizations questioning the completeness of the docket and requesting more time for meaningful comment; one from an industry group supporting authorization of Ohio's revisions but questioning EPA's disclosure of exchanges with the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) on its application; two individuals claiming the action was contrary to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution; one concerned with the impact of the action on interstate waters; one concerned with Ohio EPA actions regarding his facility and the State litigation that addressed his dispute; one concerned with the impact of Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS); and one who did not support authorizing states to implement federal statutes that may have “interstate implications in water pollution.” EPA also received a comment from Ohio EPA on revisions that were not captured in the proposal. These comments are provided in the docket for today's final action. See Docket ID No. EPA-R05-RCRA-2025-1675 at https://www.regulations.gov.

Comment: One comment from Citizens Rulemaking Alliance questioned whether EPA disclosed and made available the technical and legal basis for proposed actions under the Administrative Procedure Act so that interested persons may provide informed comments. These comments alleged that EPA did not permit enough time and information for public comment; considered EPA's Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) certification conclusory and unsupported; sought clarification on the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA); and said EPA should clearly distinguish “broader-in-scope” versus “more stringent” provisions and explain enforceability. The comment requested that EPA place certain materials in the public docket; provide explanations for its equivalency determinations; extend the public comment period; and make statements regarding the RFA, UMRA, and PRA.

EPA response: We first address the request for extension and addition to the docket. The docket available at the time the proposal went out for public comment on November 18, 2025, included Ohio EPA's application for the revision to its authorized program, the State regulations, a list of the checklists for which Ohio was seeking authorization, the Attorney General statements, letters EPA exchanged with Ohio EPA on its application, and the existing 2006 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). EPA also provided additional information in the November 18, 2025, Authorization Proposal Notice, describing the rules, citing to the federal notices that promulgated the federal rules for which the State seeks authorization, describing those rules, providing the State citations, and discussing differences between the federal rules and the State rules, which were in the docket. See 90 FR 51625, 51627-29. The commenters did not specify concerns with specific state rules. EPA initially provided 30 days for public comment, and later extended the public comment period until January 23, 2026, providing a total of 65 days to comment.

EPA is not extending the public comment period further. As described in more detail below, the information in the docket and the Federal Register notice did summarize the rules and the proposal to authorize them, providing information that allowed for meaningful comment. The Checklist numbers for the particular requirements EPA is authorizing reference checklists that provide specific language describing each federal requirement which the State rules were to replace. 1 The Authorization Proposal Notice, in Section G, further identified which State provisions were different. See 90 FR 51625, 51628-29. At Section F, it told the public that EPA was proposing to determine that Ohio's hazardous waste program revisions are equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program, and therefore satisfy all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. See id. at 51627. The Authorization Proposal Notice also included a table that identified each federal rule for which the State was seeking authorization, cited the Federal Register notice that promulgated the rule, and listed the State analogues to each rule and their effective dates. See id. at 51627-28. Those State regulations were in the docket. The correspondence and the Federal Register notice available during the comment period also discussed anticipated updates to the MOA. See id. at 51626 and the correspondence with Ohio EPA in the docket.

At Section B, the Authorization Proposal Notice stated that Ohio's revision application meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established under RCRA, as set forth in RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), and 40 CFR part 271. The statute and regulations identify the terms EPA referenced in EPA's authorization analysis, and there is also guidance online on those terms. 2 Assessing equivalency under Section 3006(b) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926, and stringency under Section 3009 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6929, involves comparing the State regulations to the federal regulations and/or checklists. Consistency is defined at 40 CFR 271.4, and the criteria for adequate enforcement authority is set forth at 40 CFR 271.16. As noted above, EPA cited checklists with the regulatory wording; provided a table citing and summarizing the Federal Register promulgating the federal regulations and identified differences.

With respect to the RFA, EPA certified in the Authorization Proposal Notice 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. ). At this point, EPA is authorizing State requirements already in place and enforceable under State law.

For the same reason, this action does not contain an unfunded mandate as described in the UMRA, 2 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1538 and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

A more detailed analysis under the RFA and UMRA can be found in the Federal Register notices cited in the Authorization Proposal Notice. It was in those earlier promulgations that EPA imposed the RCRA obligations for which it is authorizing equivalent State analogues. The State also would have promulgated its equivalent state regulations in accordance with state law.

The Authorization Proposal Notice also indicated that this action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). It references the definition of “Burden” at 5 CFR 1320.3(b), which at (b)(3) clarifies that collection of information conducted or sponsored by a Federal agency that is also conducted or sponsored by a unit of State, local, or tribal government is presumed to impose a Federal burden except to the extent that the agency shows that such State, local, or tribal requirement would be imposed even in the absence of a Federal requirement.

EPA observes that the PRA does not apply to all Agency actions. That statute imposes requirements when EPA conducts or sponsors a collection of information using identical questions posed to, or reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on, ten or more persons; and also provides exemptions. For example, EPA's enforcement action information collections are exempt from PRA requirements. The State enforces its regulations, including its information collection provisions, pursuant to State law. This authorization action itself is not a collection of information as defined by 44 U.S.C. 3502(3).

EPA has followed the Administrative Procedure Act requirements for rulemakings. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, an agency promulgating rules by notice and comment rule-making must provide “a concise general statement of (the rules') basis and purpose” 5 U.S.C. 553(c). This statement need not be comprehensive, but it must indicate sufficiently the agency's reasons for the rules selected, so that the reviewing court is not faced with the task of “rummaging” through the record to elicit a rationale on its own. Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Nuclear Regulatory Com., 673 F.2d 525, 534-535 (D.C. Cir. 1982). For proposed rules, the APA requires either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3). EPA provided its legal authority and a description of the subjects and issues involved, and summarized its proposed action as discussed above.

As discussed above, EPA is authorizing revisions to the authorized State program on the basis that the revisions are equivalent to the federal revisions EPA previously adopted after notice and comment; the State has adequate authority to enforce the revised program; and the requirements are consistent with the Federal program and applicable programs in other States. The State rules were also previously adopted by the State under its laws, including Ohio's own Administrative Procedure Act at Ohio Rev. Code Chapter 119, and are already enforceable under State law. Upon authorization, EPA can enforce them as well, in lieu of the federal regulations cited, under RCRA section 3006(b). As mentioned in Section K of the Authorization Proposal Notice, this action authorizes State requirements for the purpose of RCRA section 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law.

Please note that while EPA followed the rulemaking  3 provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, any appeal of this RCRA section 3006 authorization action must be brought under Section 7006(b) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6976(b), as provided by the RCRA statute. Under RCRA section 7006(b), any judicial review shall be in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 701-706.

Comment: One joint comment from two environmental organizations makes the claim that EPA's decision to authorize Ohio EPA's program is premature. It cites the failure to finalize changes to the MOA as the reason EPA has failed to provide interested parties with meaningful notice of the proposed revisions and ensure that programs are at least as stringent as federal law, and says this is arbitrary and capricious and otherwise unlawful because it deprives the public of adequate notice, conflicts with EPA's regulations and fails to ensure that Ohio programs meet minimum federal standards.

EPA response: EPA and Ohio EPA have since executed an updated MOA on February 26, 2026. That MOA has been placed in the Docket, No. EPA-R05-RCRA-2025-1675-0021. EPA provided an explanation of anticipated changes to the MOA in the Notice of Proposed Action and the correspondence in the docket. Thus, the public, including these commenters, had an opportunity to comment on the changes or the changes needed. The final MOA reflects those changes described in the proposed rule, so there is no procedural error as asserted in the comment. Notably, the commenter does not propose edits to the existing MOA that was in the docket at the time the comment period started or identify substantive concerns about the updated MOA that is now in effect.

EPA has followed its public comment procedures at 40 CFR 271.21, which governs procedures for revision of State hazardous waste programs, provides that EPA's public notice shall summarize the State program revision, indicate whether EPA intends to approve or disapprove the revision, and provide for an opportunity to comment for a period of 30 days.

Based on the application submissions and Ohio's commitments to address concerns regarding the use of exemptions and variances for RCRA permits, EPA has determined that Ohio's application for program revision meets the standards for approval. While EPA did not require the updated MOA before authorization approval, EPA and Ohio did indeed negotiate an updated MOA memorializing the Agencies' commitments. See the February 26, 2026 MOA in the Docket No. EPA-R05-RCRA-2025-1675-0021. That update is a logical outgrowth of the discussion in the proposal regarding Ohio EPA's commitments to ensure common understanding and efficient coordination for any future proposal to issue an exemption or variance and that we would be memorializing those commitments in an MOA. At the time the proposal was published, on November 18, 2025, the docket included the then-existing MOA, the letters exchanged with Ohio on its application and the background discussion in the Authorization Approval Notice itself, letting the public know that Ohio EPA had made commitments to EPA and agreed to revise its MOA to address exemptions. EPA appreciates Ohio EPA's investment and cooperation towards negotiating an updated MOU prior to authorization.

The comment reads the provision in 40 CFR 271.21(b)(1) that the State shall submit a modified program description, Attorney General's statement, Memorandum of Agreement, or such other documents as EPA determines to be necessary under the circumstances, to require all of those documents in every circumstance; but the use of “or” in the phrase “or such other documents as EPA determines to be necessary” gives EPA the discretion to determine what is needed for each revision application. This can vary with the extent and substance of the revisions. EPA placed in the docket the then-existing MOA and identified potential changes to that document that were subsequently memorialized in an updated MOA.

The response to comment 1 above summarizes information in the docket and reflects that EPA is not extending the comment period further.

Comment: One comment expressed dissatisfaction with the tone of portions of the proposed rule, particularly Section B, “What decisions has EPA made in this proposed rule?”, as well as EPA's decision to include background documents in the public docket (for example, EPA-R05-RCRA-2025-1675-0006, EPA-R05-RCRA-2025-1675-0007, and EPA-R05-RCRA-2025-1675-0008), which the commenter considered unnecessary and unrelated. The comment interpreted EPA's inclusion of this information to have been adversarial and requested clarification that EPA is committed to cooperation with State agencies.

EPA response: EPA regrets any misunderstanding its description and documentation of its review of Ohio's RCRA program revisions created. EPA is strongly committed to cooperative federalism and supports Ohio EPA's implementation of its authorized RCRA program. EPA is taking final action to authorize Ohio's RCRA program revisions and will continue to work cooperatively with Ohio as it implements the newly approved provisions. The background discussion in Section B of the proposed rule summarized for the public a topic to be addressed in the new MOA, and the inclusion of official correspondence on this matter shows how Ohio EPA has been working with EPA to address comments on the State's application. As noted, EPA appreciates Ohio EPA's diligence in addressing questions and comments on its authorization revision application, as well as our joint efforts to negotiate an updated MOA. EPA's decision to include this description and materials in the proposal was to provide this context and transparency.

With respect to the alleged sharing of inter-agency documents, EPA notes the term Inter-agency is confined to federal agencies for purposes of the Freedom of Information Act, which defines “agency” to mean each authority of the Government of the United States at 5 U.S.C. 551(1). For example, the Sixth Circuit held that “[t]o be inter-agency memorandums or letters, RFAs must have been sent from an authority of the Government of the United States to an authority of the Government of the United States,” in Lucaj v. FBI, 852 F.3d 541, 547 (6th Cir. 2017). Further, the correspondence in the file became final when it was signed.

Comment: Two comments claimed EPA's action would be unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution by allowing a state program to operate in contravention of Federal law. These comments claimed that this authorization would permit Ohio to have lower standards than the Federal RCRA program, and additionally that this authorization would permit releases of hazardous waste into the Ohio River watershed.

EPA response: EPA does not agree with comments stating that this authorization violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution by allowing a state program to operate or that this is in contravention of Federal law. As stated previously, a hallmark of the Federal hazardous waste program centers on the idea that a partnership between federal, state, and local governments will have the most impactful results and that regulating hazardous waste is the prerogative of state and local governments in accordance with federal standards. However, a state's authority to operate a hazardous waste program in lieu of the Federal program requires a state's successful application for such authority, which is to be granted when a state shows that it is prepared to implement and capable of implementing a program that meets or exceeds the standards of the Federal program. The federal RCRA statute provides for authorization of state programs when standards are met, and EPA finds that Ohio's application has met the standards for approval, will meet or exceed the same requirements of the Federal program, and is therefore not contrary to law.

Concerning the risk of hazardous waste pollution of the Ohio River watershed, neither the Federal RCRA program nor State authorized programs allow for unmanaged disposal of waste. RCRA outlines a “cradle to grave” management system, strictly regulating hazardous waste from the point of generation to its final disposal. These standards are designed to minimize, not allow, the release of hazardous waste into the environment and clean up such releases should they occur. Permits issued by EPA or an authorized State agency come with strict regulatory requirements that facilities must comply with in order to treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste.

Comment: One comment expressed concern that the Federal government was ceding its authority to regulate interstate commerce to a State and claimed that this action would have implications in potential interstate water pollution.

EPA response: In this action, EPA is making a determination on whether to authorize revisions to Ohio's authorized hazardous waste program under Section 3006(b) of RCRA, and has considered the equivalence, adequate enforcement, and consistency of the State's program, as required by RCRA. RCRA regulates the generation, transport, and treatment, storage and disposal (TSD) of hazardous waste and the permitting of hazardous waste TSD facilities. It authorizes imposing requirements on such facilities necessary to protect human health and the environment. See RCRA section 3005(c)(3), 42 U.S.C. 6925(c)(3).

Congress explicitly provided for the authorization of State RCRA programs. Section 3006(b) of RCRA says states are authorized to carry out their program in lieu of the Federal program under Subtitle C of RCRA and to issue and enforce permits for the storage, treatment, or disposal of hazardous waste unless EPA notifies such State that such program may not be authorized based on findings that:

This comment, like the previous comment, appears to focus on the impact of the authorization on water pollution. It is the Clean Water Act (CWA), rather than RCRA, that governs permits for discharges to Waters of the United States. While multiple rivers do cross through and out of Ohio, the authorized State RCRA program generally regulates hazardous waste facilities located “in such State” as discussed at Section 3006(b) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926(b). The comment does not explain why Ohio's increased regulation of hazardous waste facilities located within the State would hurt interstate waters. RCRA permits do not authorize discharges into rivers. A comment must provide enough facts and reasoning to show the agency what the issue is and how it is relevant to the agency's aims. See Oakbrook Land Holdings, LLC v. Comm'r, 28 F.4th 700, 714 (6th Cir. 2022) (quoting Vermont Yankee, 435 U.S. at 553; Home Box Office, Inc., 567 F.2d at 35 n.58.). EPA's aim is to determine if Ohio's revised program meets RCRA requirements.

Furthermore, EPA's authorization of the revisions to Ohio's existing authorized RCRA program will not only give Ohio a greater role in administering RCRA permitting at facilities in Ohio, as contemplated by Section 3006(b) of RCRA, but also allow EPA to enforce more RCRA requirements in the State of Ohio. RCRA provisions not promulgated under the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984 do not go into effect in an authorized State until EPA authorizes a State for their equivalent analogues. Section 3006(g)(1) of RCRA only authorizes requirements imposed pursuant to HSWA to take effect in authorized States on the same date as they take effect in states that are not authorized ( e.g., Iowa). After EPA authorizes the State for non-HSWA provisions, EPA, as well as the State, will be able to enforce such provisions in Ohio. EPA retains its enforcement authorities at 3007 and 3008 of RCRA when it authorizes a State, although it would be enforcing the authorized State requirements under 3008(a). EPA has found the State provisions it is authorizing in this action to be equivalent to and no less stringent than their federal counterparts, and also that the State has adequate enforcement authority to enforce the State requirements. This action increases RCRA regulation of hazardous waste facilities in Ohio.

This action also effectively allows regulated entities to be covered under a single RCRA permit in Ohio, because EPA has had to issue a separate subpart AA, BB, and CC component of RCRA permits since those are HSWA provisions for which EPA carries out such requirements under 3006(g)(1) until the State is authorized for them. Having all RCRA requirements contained in a single permit facilitates compliance.

With respect to releases from TSD facilities, Ohio EPA was authorized for the HSWA Corrective Action requirements effective December 23, 1996. See 61 FR 64950 (Oct. 23, 1996). Ohio already administers those requirements in its RCRA permits. EPA retains its authority to require corrective action at interim status facilities under RCRA section 3008(h). In this authorization, Ohio and EPA have updated the MOA to include more information on coordinating corrective action activities. Among other things, the State has agreed to promote rapid achievement of cleanups while protecting human health and the environment; and EPA has agreed to provide appropriate and relevant support to the State. See 2026 MOA at pp. 19-20, in Docket No. EPA-R05-RCRA-2025-1675-0021. The 2006 MOA did not provide as much detail on corrective action. This action could thus enhance corrective action.

Furthermore, EPA does consider the effect of authorization on interstate commerce when it evaluates the requirement that the State program be consistent with the Federal or State programs applicable in other states, pursuant to RCRA section 3006(b). 40 CFR 271.4, which governs consistency, places limits on a State program's ability to restrict or impede the movement of hazardous waste across state lines or to ban a type of treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous waste.

As discussed above, EPA has considered whether the authorized program is consistent with the Federal or State programs applicable in other states. Furthermore, neither this authorization nor the requirements EPA is authorizing endanger interstate waters.

Comment: Ed McCabe of McCabe Engineering & Consulting made claims about Ohio EPA's implementation of its authorized program, referring to specific alleged fraud in specific cases and at a specific facility. The comment also refers to Ohio EPA making unsatisfactory state-initiated changes to its Voluntary Action Program (VAP) rules.

As a supplement, Mr. McCabe provided an email dated November 19, 2025, to EPA forwarding an email he sent to someone at kent.edu, requesting that EPA add that email to the comments he submitted. That email has been added to the record and appears to concern a private contract and State enforcement of a closure plan for the commenter's facility, arguing that Ohio EPA had made misrepresentations of fact in this prior case.

EPA Response: While this comment makes broad allegations, it does not provide details to support those allegations. The commenter seems to be referring to allegations to which EPA responded as far back as 2012, regarding the commenter's acquisition of a RCRA facility on Irwin Street in Dayton, Ohio, in 1997, from Republic Environmental Systems Inc. (Republic), a 1999 release of excess funds from a closure trust fund set up by the Republic, State enforcement of a closure plan approved in 1998, and litigation between Mr. McCabe and Ohio EPA in State ex rel. Rogers v. Rep. Envtl. Sys., Docket Nos. 23513, 23644, 23723, 2010 Ohio App. LEXIS 4656 (Ohio Ct. App. Nov. 12, 2010); McCabe Corp. v. Ohio EPA, Docket No. 2009-01476, 2012 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 89 (Ohio Ct. Claims Feb. 3, 2012); McCabe Corp. v. Ohio EPA, Docket No. 12AP-204, 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 5406 (Ohio Ct. App. Dec. 31, 2012), State ex rel. DeWine v. Republic Envtl. Sys., 943 NE2d 573 (Ohio 2011); and more recently in State v. Republic Envtl. Sys., Docket No. 26492, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 4049 (Ohio Ct. App. Sep. 30, 2015). EPA is including its correspondence in the record and citing to State court decisions that already have ruled on Mr. McCabe's allegations against the State. EPA did not find violations of State program requirements in its 2012 review of this matter.

The comment also includes allegations unrelated to EPA's Action. Mr. McCabe has also added a reference to rule changes in Ohio's VAP rules (at Ohio Administrative Code chapter 3745-300) but does not explain what the changes were or how they affect Ohio's RCRA program. Moreover, EPA has not authorized the Ohio VAP as part of Ohio's authorized RCRA program and is not authorizing VAP provisions in this authorization. Most of Mr. McCabe's allegations have been addressed or are being addressed in the State court system before judges who apply the rules of evidence in evaluating the relevance, reliability and admissibility of such evidence.

As discussed above, our aim in this action is to determine whether Ohio's revision application meets the requirements for authorization set forth at RCRA section 3006 and 40 CFR part 271. EPA previously looked into the allegations regarding Mr. McCabe's transactions from the 1990s that were referenced in the comment and the related court decisions and previously responded to the commenter. EPA did not find violations of RCRA State program requirements.

The commenter was not denied an opportunity to challenge the State action or to appeal the adverse decision which the trial court rendered in his case. The dispute has already been litigated in the State courts. The State Supreme court issued a ruling in 2011, 15 years ago. The State courts are the appropriate forum to hear this commenter's allegations, and while the decisions issued may not have been favorable to the commenter, his allegations have been heard and considered in appeals through the State court system. EPA's authorization of a State program revision does not create a new avenue for appeal of State court decisions in the commenter's cases.

In this action, EPA is determining whether the State's revised program meets the requirements for authorization under RCRA. While EPA would look at how a state implements its program and whether it has adequate authority to enforce the requirements of that program, allegations that the state lacks such authority or otherwise is failing to implement its hazardous waste program need to be substantiated. Furthermore, this comment does not specify any authorization requirements for state programs in RCRA or the regulations at 40 CFR part 271 that were violated. While EPA looked at the impact of cases on State authorities, the State court decisions here did not strike down, or limit Ohio EPA's authorities as described in 40 CFR 271.22(a)(1)(ii). In fact, they upheld State authority. Nor does the comment allege that Ohio EPA failed to enforce the requirements of its hazardous waste program. Moreover, the comment does not explain how Ohio's current revised program fails to meet the requirements for State authorization. The State program revisions are equivalent to and as stringent as EPA's analogous federal requirements, the State has adequate authority to enforce those requirements, and the State program is consistent as defined in 40 CFR 271.4. EPA has determined that Ohio's revised RCRA program meets the requirements for authorization.

Comment: One comment was concerned about the potential for release of PFAS into groundwater. The commenter worried that regulated entities might dilute certain substances as a method of disposal or a substitute for treatment.

EPA response: This comment is concerned with releases into groundwater and PFAS. As a preliminary matter, RCRA is an existing law, and EPA is implementing RCRA section 3006 and its regulations at 40 CFR part 271 in authorizing a state program. As discussed above, RCRA imposes requirements on the management of hazardous waste to protect human health and the environment. This law does not encourage dilution nor allow dilution as a substitute for treatment; rather, dilution is expressly prohibited as a substitute for treatment by the Federal program at 40 CFR 268.3 and Ohio EPA has been authorized for its prohibition of impermissible dilution at OAC 3745-270-03 since January 20, 2006. See 71 FR 3220. Ohio EPA regulates hazardous waste and owners and operators of hazardous waste facilities. As mentioned in the response to comment 5, authorizing the State's revised hazardous waste program would enhance both the State's and EPA's ability to enforce requirements and require corrective action for releases of hazardous waste and hazardous waste constituents at RCRA regulated facilities.

Further, this authorization action does not address the regulation of PFAS, nor does it enact any new laws related to PFAS or dilution. 4

Comment: One anonymous public comment expressed a desire for hazardous waste management to be a Federal-only program, worrying about transparency and accountability.

EPA response: RCRA was enacted in 1976 by Congress to address the problems the nation faced from the growing volume of municipal and industrial waste, which had become an increasing threat to human health and the environment.

Even before Congress undertook legislation aimed at regulating solid waste in RCRA, the Federal government was aware that localized resources would be critical in implementing laws aimed at reducing the negative impacts of pollution and industrial waste. In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson remarked on the importance of partnerships between the Federal government and local entities, including states, in this regard. Under RCRA, Congress further stated that while the Federal government had an interest in waste disposal, which had become a national issue, the collection and disposal of solid waste was primarily a function of State, regional and local agencies.

Codified at 42 U.S.C. 6926, RCRA's provisions for authorized state hazardous waste programs require that the Administrator of the EPA promulgate guidelines to assist states in developing their own state hazardous waste programs. Under paragraph (b) of that section, states may submit an application to the EPA Administrator to carry out their own hazardous waste program in lieu of the Federal program if the state program: (1) is equivalent to the Federal program, (2) is consistent with the Federal program and applicable programs in other states, and (3) provides adequate enforcement of compliance with the requirements of RCRA. These requirements ensure that states' hazardous waste programs implementing the provisions of RCRA are protective of human health and the environment to at least the same extent as they would be by the federal government.

Concerning issues of transparency and accountability, Sections 3007 and 3008 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6927 and 6928, provide EPA with the authority to enter, inspect, and order compliance at all RCRA-regulated facilities that fall under the authority of a state's hazardous waste program. EPA takes an active role in the oversight of state-permitted facilities. RCRA also provides for oversight of state programs. Section 6926(e) of RCRA authorizes EPA to withdraw a state program whenever it determines, after public hearing, notification of the state and an opportunity to take corrective action, that a state is not administering and enforcing an authorized program in accordance with requirements of Section 3006. See 42 U.S.C. 6926(e). EPA has promulgated standards for state programs at 40 CFR part 271. Additionally, RCRA requires public participation in multiple aspects of the administration of the state RCRA program, and there is an online, publicly available compendium of hazardous waste rules and a database of all permitted facilities on the State of Ohio website. RCRA provides for public participation at 42 U.S.C. 6974. Ohio's program is required to comply with the Part 124 public participation requirements set forth at 40 CFR 271.14, and to provide for public participation in enforcement proceedings as set forth in 40 CFR 271.16(d). This authorization does not change those requirements; rather, it only adds provisions for which Ohio's program is to be authorized.

Comment: EPA received a lengthy comment from Ohio EPA, the applicant in this action. Ohio EPA's comment indicated that the proposed rule made twelve errors and misconstrued parts of Ohio EPA's original application for authorization.

EPA response: EPA agrees that in some instances the proposed rule does not correctly match parts of the State's application for authorization, particularly the program description (docket ID EPA-R05-RCRA-2025-1675-0004). This final rule reflects the corrections requested by Ohio EPA.

Ohio initially received final authorization on June 28, 1989, effective June 30, 1989 (54 FR 27170, June 28, 1989) to implement the RCRA hazardous waste management program. Subsequently, the EPA granted authorization for changes to the Ohio program effective June 7, 1991 (56 FR 14203, April 8, 1991) supplemented June 19, 1991, effective August 19, 1991 (56 FR 28088); effective September 25, 1995 (60 FR 38502. July 27, 1995); effective December 23, 1996 (61 FR 54950, October 23, 1996); effective January 24, 2003 (68 FR 3429, January 24, 2003); effective January 20, 2006 (71 FR 3220, January 20, 2006); effective October 29, 2007 (72 FR 61063, October 29, 2007); effective March 19, 2012 (77 FR 15966, March 19, 2012); effective February 12, 2018 (83 FR 5948, February 12, 2018); and effective September 26, 2019 (84 FR 50766, September 26, 2019).

This action amends 48 CFR Chapter 13, which contains Commerce's agency-specific acquisition regulation (CAR). The CAR supplements, and generally corresponds with, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) found at 48 CFR Chapter 1. This action amends the CAR in the following ways.

First, this action updates § 1301.105-3, which addresses how the public can obtain copies of the CAR. See 48 CFR 1301.105-3. Currently, § 1301.105-3 indicates that copies of the CAR may be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents at the Government Printing Office, and that the CAR is available online at a provided link. But the described superintendent is no longer the appropriate point of contact for purchasing copies of the CAR, and the provided link is no longer active. This action revises § 1301.105-3 to simply identify the correct, current method of obtaining printed copies of the CAR: by purchasing them from the Bookstore of the Government Publishing Office. The contents of the CAR, which are codified at 48 CFR Chapter 13, can be accessed and viewed online in the eCFR.

Second, this action removes § 1301.304, which states that “[o]perating unit counsel shall limit issuance of directives that restrain the flexibilities found in the FAR.” 48 CFR 1301.304. This language essentially restates 48 CFR 1.304(a), which requires agencies to “control and limit issuance of agency acquisition regulations and, in particular, local agency directives that restrain the flexibilities found in the FAR.” Upon review, Commerce finds it sufficiently clear, without any restatement needed, that Commerce's operating unit counsel must adhere to the requirement set forth broadly by § 1.304(a).

Third, this action corrects the spelling of the word “Definitions” in the part heading of part 1302.

Fourth, this action removes § 1303.101-3, which states that “[Commerce] has issued rules implementing Executive Order 11222 prescribing employee standards of conduct (see DOC Office of [the] General Counsel website).” 48 CFR 1303.101-3. This language is referring to 15 CFR part 0, which Commerce removed in its entirety via final rule on January 15, 2026 (91 FR 1674), given its near-total overlap with the government-wide employee conduct regulations in Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Thus, the removal of § 1303.101-3 will properly reflect the removal of part 0.

Fifth, this action updates § 1322.1001 by removing a reference to an official position that no longer exists within Commerce ( i.e., the Assistant General Counsel for Administration/Employment & Labor Law Division) and replacing it with the appropriate, current position ( i.e., the Deputy General Counsel for Administration).

Sixth, this action removes the drug-free workplace requirements from part 1323 and moves them to part 1326, to better track and correspond with the FAR (specifically, 48 CFR part 26 and subpart 26.5) and thereby make it easier to locate and understand the drug-free workplace requirements of the CAR. This action also makes a conforming edit to the heading of part 1323, to account for the removal of the described requirements from that part.

In sum, this action makes a series of minor updates, corrections, and other amendments to the CAR to promote accuracy, simplicity, and efficiency. None of these changes is expected to create or alter any entitlements, restrictions, or obligations.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), Commerce finds good cause to waive the prior notice and opportunity for public participation requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act for this final rule. Commerce considers this rule to be uncontroversial, and has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public participation is unnecessary, because this rule only makes minor updates, corrections, and amendments to the CAR that do not create or alter any entitlements, restrictions, or obligations. These changes are consistent with the FAR, the underlying statutory authority, and Commerce's broader regulatory policies; public participation would not justify the continued maintenance of any of the outdated, inaccurate, misplaced, and/or otherwise unwarranted regulatory language at issue. For the same reasons, Commerce has determined that delaying the effectiveness of these amendments would be contrary to the public interest. The changes described above will immediately promote accuracy, simplicity, and efficiency—thereby benefiting the public—at little to no cost. Commerce therefore finds good cause to waive the public notice and comment period under 553(b)(B) and to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness under 553(d).

The Office of Management and Budget has determined this rule is not significant pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. This rule is an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action. This rule does not contain policies having federalism implications as the term is defined in E.O. 13132.

Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public participation are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required, and none has been prepared.

This rule will not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Commerce amends 48 CFR chapter 13 as follows:

The DOC labor advisor is the Deputy General Counsel for Administration.

The Gulf reef fish fishery, which includes red snapper, is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf (FMP). The Gulf Council prepared the FMP, which was approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and is implemented by NMFS through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

Through this temporary rule, NMFS announces the recreational fishing season for the red snapper recreational sector for-hire component in the Gulf for the 2026 fishing year. The final rule implementing Amendment 40 to the FMP established two components within the recreational sector fishing for Gulf red snapper: the private angling component and the Federal for-hire component (80 FR 22422, April 22, 2015). Amendment 40 also allocated the red snapper recreational annual catch limit (recreational quota) between the components and established separate seasonal closures for the two components. The Federal for-hire component's red snapper annual catch target (ACT) is 9 percent below the for-hire component quota (87 FR 74014, December 2, 2022; 50 CFR 622.41(q)(2)(iii)(B)).

The red snapper for-hire component seasonal closure is projected based on an evaluation of when landings are expected to reach the component's ACT. Projecting the for-hire component's seasonal closure using the ACT reduces the likelihood of the harvest exceeding the component quota and the total recreational quota. The Federal for-hire component ACT for red snapper in the Gulf EEZ is 3,076,322 pounds (1,395,396 kilograms), round weight (50 CFR 622.41(q)(2)(iii)(B)).

NMFS has determined that the 2026 Federal Gulf red snapper for-hire fishing season will be 147 days. This is 19 days longer than the 2025 season (90 FR 20127, May 12, 2025; 90 FR 55513, December 12, 2025).

NMFS considered season length projections based on average catch rates for 2021-2023, 2021-2025, and 2023-2025, and using only 2025 preliminary landings. This resulted in a range of season lengths from 97 to 214 days. NMFS decided to set the season at 147 days based on catch rates from the 2023-2025 fishing seasons, which takes into account the variability during the most recent 3-year time period. Therefore, the 2026 recreational season for the Federal for-hire component will begin at 12:01 a.m., local time, on June 1, 2026, and close at 12:01 a.m., local time, on October 26, 2026.

On and after the effective date of the Federal for-hire component closure, the bag and possession limits for red snapper for Federal for-hire vessels are zero. When the Federal for-hire component is closed, these bag and possession limits apply in the Gulf on board a vessel for which a valid Federal for-hire permit for Gulf reef fish has been issued, without regard to where such species were harvested, i.e., in state or Federal waters. In addition, a person aboard a vessel that has been issued a charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf reef fish any time during the fishing year may not harvest or possess red snapper in or from the Gulf EEZ when the Federal charter vessel/headboat component is closed.

NMFS will monitor landings of the Federal for-hire component for red snapper during the 2026 fishing season. If landings of the for-hire component from the season are less than that of the component ACT, then NMFS may reopen the fishing season to allow harvest of the remaining component ACT (50 CFR 622.8(c)).

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.41(q)(2)(i) and (ii), which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rules implementing the red snapper for-hire quota and ACT, and the requirement to close the for-hire component when its ACT is projected to be reached have already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Such procedures are contrary to the public interest because many for-hire operations book trips for clients in advance and require as much notice as NMFS is able to provide to adjust their business plans to account for the fishing season.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the FMP prepared and recommended by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR parts 679 and 680.

As described in the final 2026 and 2027 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA, allocations among vessels belonging to catcher vessel (CV) cooperatives or catcher/processor (CP) cooperatives are not included in the final harvest specifications (91 FR 11902, March 11, 2026). Rockfish Program applications for CV cooperatives and CP cooperatives are not due to NMFS until March 1 of each calendar year; therefore, NMFS cannot calculate 2026 and 2027 Rockfish Program cooperative allocations in conjunction with the final harvest specifications (§  679.81(f)). NMFS has received the 2026 Rockfish Program applications and has calculated the 2026 allocations for CV cooperatives and CP cooperatives, as set forth in §  679.81(b), (c), (d), and (e). NMFS is listing the 2026 allocations in table 1.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Through previous actions, the FMP and regulations are designed to authorize NMFS to take this action. See 50 CFR part 679. This action is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. This notification provides information on the 2026 Rockfish Program cooperative allocations, and does not change operating practices in the fisheries. This notification is consistent with the harvest specifications recommended by the Council in December 2025 and implemented by NMFS in the final rule for the 2026 and 2027 harvest specifications (91 FR 11902, March 11, 2026). Those harvest specifications specify the final total allowable catch (TAC) limits from which NMFS calculates the Rockfish Program cooperative allocations based on existing regulations, which were implemented through prior notice and comment rulemaking (§  679.81(b), (c), (d), and (e)). The public was provided with notice and opportunity to comment during the public comment period for the proposed harvest specifications (90 FR 58185, December 16, 2025) and has had notice of the final harvest specifications implementing the final TAC limits (91 FR 11902, March 11, 2026). Because the public already had a meaningful opportunity to comment on the TAC limits from which these allocations are derived, further opportunity for public comment is unnecessary and would not be meaningful.

This notification announces the Rockfish Program cooperative allocations based on applications received after the publication of the 2026 and 2027 harvest specifications. If this notification is delayed to allow for notice and comment it could also result in confusion for participants in the Rockfish Program given that the final rule implementing the 2026 and 2027 harvest specifications is effective as of March 17, 2026, and the Rockfish Program fishery opens April 1, 2026.

There is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to establish an effective date less than 30 days after date of publication. This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared and recommended by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The A season allowance of the 2026 Pacific cod TAC specified for vessels using jig gear in the BSAI is 990 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2026 and 2027 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (91 FR 11750, March 10, 2026).

The 2026 Pacific cod TAC allocated to catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI is 2,342 mt as established by the final 2026 and 2027 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (91 FR 11750, March 10, 2026).

The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) has determined that jig vessels will not be able to harvest 930 mt of the A season allowance of the 2026 Pacific cod TAC allocated to those vessels under § 679.20(a)(7)(ii)(A)( 1 ). The Regional Administrator has also determined that catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear have the capability to harvest additional Pacific cod TAC.

Therefore, in accordance with and as required by § 679.20(a)(7)(iv)(C), NMFS reallocates 930 mt of Pacific cod from the jig gear A season allowance to the annual amount specified for catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear.

The harvest specifications for 2026 Pacific cod included in final 2026 and 2027 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (91 FR 11750, March 10, 2026) are revised as follows: 60 mt to the A season and 721 mt to the annual amount for vessels using jig gear, and 3,272 mt to catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would not allow for the full harvest by the sectors with harvesting capability of the 2026 Pacific cod TACs established by the final 2026 and 2027 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI, which were published on March 10, 2026 and effective on March 18, 2026 (91 FR 11750). NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of March 10, 2026.

There is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action. This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.