On December 18, 2025, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register at 90 FR 59072. The NPRM provided amendments to the regulations governing Senior Executive Service Candidate Development Programs (SESCDPs) in 5 CFR part 412 and provided opportunity for the submission of public comments. Public comments were due February 17, 2026.

The Senior Executive Service (SES) is a corps of top-level Federal executives who provide leadership and oversee Government operations, bridging the gap between political appointees and career civil servants. The SES was established by the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) of 1978 and became effective in July 1979. The CSRA envisioned a senior executive corps with solid executive expertise, public service values, and a broad perspective of the Government. The CSRA established the SES as a distinct personnel system that applies the same executive qualifications requirements to all members. The system was designed to provide greater authority to agencies to manage their executive resources, including the flexibility for selecting and developing Federal executives within a framework that preserves the larger corporate interests of the Government.

An SESCDP is a structured program designed to identify and prepare individuals who aspire to become senior executive leaders, exhibit readiness or near-readiness for executive-level responsibilities, demonstrate leadership across organizational boundaries, and show potential to manage complex, cross-agency initiatives. Graduates of an OPM-approved SESCDP, who are selected through civil service-wide competition and are certified by OPM's Qualifications Review Board (QRB), may receive a career SES appointment without further competition.

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued a Presidential Memorandum titled “Restoring Accountability for Career Senior Executives.” 90 FR 8481, January 30, 2025. With this Presidential Memorandum, President Trump directed agencies to “reinvigorate the SES system and prioritize accountability” to ensure proper accountability to both the President and the American people.

To advance this directive, on May 29, 2025, OPM released the memorandum, Hiring and Talent Development for the Senior Executive Service , 1 which provides policy, guidance, and timelines to agencies on SES hiring and development, to include new SESCDP certification requirements. The memorandum noted that “these changes in hiring, training, development and oversight will drive a cultural shift in the SES.” The memorandum further highlights that Federal agencies are responsible for ensuring appropriate succession planning for executive positions by building a pipeline of qualified candidates that are well-prepared to serve as Federal executives, and that “OPM is required to establish programs for the systematic development of candidates for the SES and/or assist agencies in the establishment of such programs which meet OPM prescribed criteria.”

Through the introduction of more stringent SESCDP certification requirements, OPM aims to enhance training and development for aspiring SES and accelerate the development of well-prepared leaders to ensure leadership continuity. OPM has reviewed evaluation feedback from agencies and graduates of SESCDPs over the years, which suggest some adjustments can be made to enhance the experience for SESCDP participants and aim for better outcomes. To accomplish this transformation, OPM is adjusting the formal training content, adopting a more streamlined program cohort duration, and modifying developmental assignments to a longer minimum duration. In turn, agencies will have a more appropriate timeframe to conduct an SESCDP and allow for aspiring SES to learn in an environment that promotes governmentwide cohesion and prepares them to deliver results as accountable senior executives.

During the 60-day comment period, OPM received ten written comments: two from Federal agencies, four from members of the public, and four from professional organizations, including one duplicate submission from the same professional organization.

Some comments provided feedback about specific provisions of the proposed rule, but most discussed broader themes related to the rulemaking. OPM addresses commenters' concerns below.

One commenter (0002)  2 provided support for the regulatory changes, simply stating, “Good.” Another commenter, Commenter 0003, voiced general opposition to the regulations and expressed concern that they could be used against OPM by future administrations. Commenter 0003 further stated OPM should use language written in Executive Order (E.O.) 14356, “Ensuring Continued Accountability in Federal Hiring,” October 15, 2025, specifically around Annual Staffing Plans (ASPs), to accomplish OPM's goals for SES career development and training. The commenter suggested that OPM could use its authority to approve only those ASPs that include precise training programs in lieu of issuing more regulations.

OPM appreciates Commenter 0003's recommendations. The intent of an agency's ASP is to evaluate agency workforce and staffing needs to help guide hiring efforts and “. . . to ensure that new career appointments in the upcoming fiscal year are in the highest-need areas.” Therefore, these plans support agencies in identifying their workforce and executive staffing needs and, therefore, will inform agency SESCDP requirements as they pertain to agency succession management. In fact, OPM is concurrently pursuing revisions to its 5 CFR part 250 regulations that would require ASPs to target the agency's hiring to enable succession planning. However, this rulemaking regarding SESCDPs serves a purpose distinct from the annual workforce planning process created by E.O. 14356, and using the ASP process to convey the requirements pertaining to the approval, oversight and evaluation of SESCDPs likely would be confusing, inefficient and unhelpful. Therefore, OPM concludes that placing these requirements in its regulations will best support its goals in strengthening the effectiveness of SESCDPs in the long term.

Commenter 0003 further stated that, if OPM must write a regulation, OPM should “prescribe the plan approval process of E.O. 14356 in your regulation.” However, prescribing the ASP approval process is outside the scope of this rulemaking. Lastly, OPM notes that, while SESCDPs are not required developmental programs, each agency must obtain OPM approval of its program policies if the agency wants to administer program cohorts. The requirements to obtain approval of SESCDP policies are promulgated in regulation, and this final rule modifies those regulations to strengthen program requirements and to hold agencies more accountable when managing their SESCDPs.

OPM considered a set of comments submitted by Commenter 0011 and determined that the ideas suggested are not appropriate for governmentwide regulations at this time. A majority of the submission extended beyond the scope of the notice of proposed rulemaking in that it primarily focused on the modernization of the SESCDPs through the implementation and use of artificial intelligence (AI) agents. While the paper provided a technical analysis of how agencies can optimize their SESCDP programs via the use of AI agents, OPM felt the paper did not propose any viable recommendations that would be applicable to changing regulatory language to support the goals of this rulemaking. OPM is a proponent of integrating AI into agency operations to enhance human capital management for better efficiency, integrity, and decision-making and supports agency exploration on how AI can enhance the administration of their SESCDPs. Commenter 0011 stated that only a minority of SES members possess sufficient AI literacy and proposed a four-tier training methodology for Federal employees. OPM appreciates the Commenter's feedback and will explore how it can further support agencies' efforts to increase employee AI knowledge. However, OPM does not believe that imposing regulatory requirements to use large-scale AI architecture and agents to operate their SESCDPs, at a time when agencies are building capacity to use AI in their day-to-day operations, is advisable. Furthermore, use of AI for these purposes can be implemented later without changing OPM's regulations.

Some commenters raised concerns that certain SESCDP requirements could be implemented in ways that would reward alignment with partisan priorities, rather than focusing on demonstrated executive ability. Commenter 0007 opposed the proposed regulation, stating that the regulation “seeks not to just train career Senior Executive Service (SES) candidates to work in public administration, but to either indoctrinate them in the specific polices of a specific administration or political adherence to a particular administration's specific policies.” The commenter also maintains that the proposed regulation does not address the concerns and needs of a Senior Executive.

OPM respectfully disagrees with Commenter 0007's characterization of OPM's motivations for improving the training and development of SES leadership. OPM does not agree that the final rule creates a political loyalty test or authorizes partisan considerations in SESCDP selection or development. OPM maintains that SESCDP requirements are designed to support agencies in implementing programs that are designed to identify and further develop high-potential, skilled employees so that they are ready to lead across the Government. SESCDP training requirements provide candidates with unique and meaningful experiential opportunities, grounded in the Executive Core Qualifications (ECQs), and that focus on developing transferable leadership competencies. Nowhere in the proposed or final rule does OPM seek to indoctrinate the SES leadership corps, require a political loyalty test, or otherwise violate the merit system principles; indeed, the regulations continue to direct that agencies be mindful of merit principles when carrying out their functions under this subpart. SESCDP training requirements provide candidates with unique and meaningful experiential opportunities, grounded in the ECQs, and that focus on developing transferable leadership competencies.

Commenter 0007 additionally stated that incorporating specific partisan policies as a part of the curriculum is not only bad policy but contrary to law, arguing that, if “any executive branch training spends taxpayer money in an attempt to get federal officials (including current federal employees who are candidates for the career SES) to adopt a given administration's policy preferences, it potentially risks violating 18 U.S.C. 1913.” Yet, Commenter 0007 does not identify specific partisan policies nor explain how these purported policies are integrated into the SESCDP curriculum and would ultimately drive Federal employee work to influence or lobby Members of Congress. Additionally, as the commenter correctly notes, OPM regulations (5 CFR 412.302(b)(1)) state: “Consistent with the merit system principles in 5 U.S.C. 2301(b)(1) and (2), agencies must ensure that recruitment for the program is from all groups of qualified individuals within the civil service, or all groups of qualified individuals whether or not within the civil service.” The regulations also charge agency Executive Resources Boards (ERBs) to “oversee and be accountable for SESCDP recruitment, merit staffing, and assessment,” and “ensure the program follows SES merit staffing provisions in 5 CFR 317.501.” SES candidate development is rooted in the ECQs; specifically ECQ 1, which “requires demonstrated knowledge of the American system of government, commitment to uphold the Constitution and rule of law, and commitment to serve the American people.” This ECQ rejects adherence to a specific administration or political ideology. In sum, OPM believes there are sufficient safeguards established under current regulations that are unchanged in the final rule that protect against the risk of partisanship in the training and development of the SES.

Commenter 0008 expressed concern about agencies assessing candidates based on political essays by referencing guidance published by OPM on the Merit Hiring Plan. 3 As a threshold matter, OPM released guidance stating that these essay questions are not to be used in the SES hiring process. 4 Additionally, OPM rejects the notion that the essay questions are political essays. These essays are designed to give applicants an opportunity to provide additional information about themselves, their background, and dedication to public service. OPM has clarified that the four essay questions are not scored or rated (and thus are not to be used as an assessment) and must not be used to screen candidates out or impose an ideological litmus test on applicants. Thus, the concern about the four essay questions is misplaced and inapplicable to the proposed regulatory changes.

Furthermore, agencies are required to recruit for SESCDPs consistent with the merit system principles in 5 U.S.C. 2301(b)(1), and candidates must be selected through SES merit staffing procedures described in 5 CFR 317.501. These procedures include a prohibition on using political or other non-job-related factors in selecting candidates. Lastly, selected candidates are not hired directly into an SES position but are chosen for a developmental program to strengthen their leadership skills and ready them for an executive position in the SES. Once they complete all program requirements, graduates may be submitted for Qualifications Review Board (QRB) review of their executive qualifications. 5 It is not until a program graduate is certified by a QRB that the graduate “may receive an initial career appointment without further competition to any SES position for which he or she meets the professional and technical qualifications requirements.”  6

Two commenters also raised concerns about assessment use in selection, possible bias, and the relationship between assessments and individualized development planning. Commenter 0008 argued that psychometric or behavioral assessments should not be used as screening devices for CDP selection and should instead be used to identify a candidate's starting point and growth. Commenter 0008 also stated that, if assessments are used in selection, they should be tied to ECQs and agency leadership-skill needs. Commenter 0009 raised concerns about how executive assessments may perpetuate bias, and that validation does not guarantee neutrality. The commenter argued that unless assessments are carefully calibrated, they are often built on cultural and leadership norms and may favor certain groups. Commenter 0009 continues, stating that according to an article by Rosette, Leonardelli, and Phillips, 7 “common ideas of what a leader looks like or sounds like are often tied to majority-group characteristics and are not culturally neutral.” Additionally, the commenter states that, under the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), “lower selection rates for protected groups require a showing of business necessity,” and that OPM should require subgroup validity analyses, cultural-bias reviews, and regular recalibration of assessment tools to ensure that evaluation is fair and not just technically defensible.

OPM acknowledges and understands Commenter 0009's argument, and while we concede that validation may not guarantee neutrality, all agencies administering a program must ensure that the merit system principles are followed throughout the development and implementation of their SESCDPs. Federal agencies are prohibited from engaging in personnel practices (5 U.S.C. 2302) that would violate any of the Equal Employment Opportunities (EEO) laws and are subject to comply with the UGESP. Further, while the referenced article raises potential concerns, the commenter does not acknowledge the authors' stated limitations that could undermine their findings. Most notably, the authors relied upon student participants with little to moderate work experience. OPM finds this limitation significant as it does not reflect the reality in the Federal sector where SESCDP candidates often have significant experience in the Federal and/or private sector.

OPM agrees with Commenter 0008's suggestion that skills-based assessments should be used during the selection process, providing agencies with the results needed to identify the top candidates for their programs. Agencies should use technical assessments that are grounded in the ECQs and related competencies and that identify both areas of strength and those requiring further attention. This will not only highlight strong executive leadership potential but also provide candidates with self-awareness around skill areas to focus their learning during their program training and developmental assignment. Furthermore, assessments may be used as one component of a holistic evaluation approach that incorporates multiple, job-related indicators of executive leadership potential. When applied in this manner, validated assessments not only support merit- and evidence-based selection but also serve as highly effective developmental tools providing candidates with objective feedback on strengths and growth areas that can guide individualized development throughout the program. OPM has modified the proposed rule language to clarify that assessments should be objective and tied to the ECQs and related competencies. This emphasizes the importance of assessments measuring an individual's skills, capabilities, and readiness for executive leadership roles, while still providing agencies with the flexibility to determine the appropriate assessment(s) to utilize.

In its submission, Commenter 0008 references the SES Joint Policy Agenda , 8 which states that ERBs “are run inconsistently and do not operate under a set of reliable and transparent business practices.” The SES Joint Policy Agenda then goes on to re-emphasize Commenter 0008's declaration that “review boards should operate in a professional and politically neutral manner to ensure strong management practices across agencies.” OPM echoed this sentiment in the Hiring and Talent Development for the Senior Executive Service memorandum (May 29, 2025), affirming that agencies are required to create an ERB to conduct the merit staffing process for career entry into the SES, noting: “An ERB is the driving force for ensuring and improving the quality of leadership within its agency, and subsequently, the Federal Government.” The memo also provides agencies with expanded guidance to strengthen and formalize the roles and responsibilities of ERBs, to include boards' involvement in succession management and SESCDPs. Furthermore, as a part of this final rule, OPM restructured the regulation language in §  412.302(a) to outline ERB roles and responsibilities more clearly. OPM also added language to delineate the role of an agency's ERB in a multi-agency or governmentwide SESCDP, providing more clarity and consistency around operational roles across agencies and programs.

OPM made a number of proposals to modify the regulatory language focused on the structure and implementation of SESCDPs. This included an effort to streamline the policy review and approval process by requiring agencies to submit one overarching policy document using an OPM program policy template. Further, with the goal to realize program efficiencies and provide more emphasis on the developmental experience, OPM proposed to reduce program cohort duration to no longer than 12 months, while increasing the number of training hours from 80 to 100, adding in a requirement for candidates to work with a coach, and extending the minimum length of a developmental assignment. Multiple commenters provided feedback that voiced support for stronger and more consistent standards but also relayed concerns that rigid program requirements may not fit different missions, workforce compositions, and operating authorities, and, therefore, may not operate equally across agencies. OPM also included prerequisites for policy re-approval and expanded upon current program evaluation requirements. Lastly, it is important to note that, as a precursor to this rulemaking, OPM made enhancements to the ECQs. 9 Commenter 0008 asserted that, “Recent updates to the ECQs focus solely on organizational results, discounting other critical elements of what modern leaders should be accountable for.” However, OPM disagrees with this notion and reaffirms that the updated ECQs place emphasis on merit, competence, leading people and organizations, stewardship, and commitment to the Constitution and American public. As mentioned, the ECQs serve as the foundation for SESCDPs and framework for career development of employees across the Federal Government.

Commenter 0008 noted that few agencies operate their own SESCDPs and that employees are unaware of their existence. OPM acknowledges and understands that these barriers exist. Many factors—to include resource constraints—may impact an agency's choice to not conduct an SESCDP. This not only removes the ability for the agency to utilize the SESCDP as a strategic succession management tool to support broader workforce planning efforts, but also eliminates the opportunity for eligible employees to participate in the program. Additionally, while certain employees may be eligible to apply to another agency's SESCDP, as the commenter noted, there may be a gap in program awareness. In an effort to support such agencies, and to help increase visibility and access, OPM has modified the final rule language to include a provision allowing OPM to establish a governmentwide SESCDP. OPM is the Federal Government's central human resources (HR) agency, and therefore uniquely positioned to leverage the benefits of an SESCDP on a governmentwide scale. Lastly, OPM will further consider how to best advertise any established governmentwide SESCDP and how to also create more awareness around other agency SESCDPs.

Commenter 0006, a Federal agency, submitted a comment about the new provision in §  412.301 that requires a department or agency HQ-level seeking policy approval to submit a blanket, enterprise-wide policy for itself and all subcomponents. The agency inquired whether these differences will be accounted for to avoid creating authority-related conflicts. Per 5 CFR 412.301(b), agencies covered by 5 U.S.C., chapter 31, subchapter II, may apply to OPM to conduct an SESCDP. While an agency could potentially operate under differing titles than that of their parent agency or department, so long as the subcomponent agency meets the definition of a covered agency in 5 U.S.C. 3132, the agency is able to operate an SESCDP following the approved policy of its parent agency or department.

Another area of discussion among commenters was around potential access barriers created by compressed program timelines and required developmental elements. There were several commenters who argued that the shorter cohort structure and related mandatory elements may create practical participation barriers or reduce program quality, especially for employees balancing full-time duties or personal constraints. Some commenters raised concerns that the length of a continuous development assignment may discourage certain candidates from participation in an SESCDP.

After consideration of the comments, OPM agrees that these compressed timelines, while initially meant to increase program efficiency, could impose unintended limitations. OPM has removed the proposed requirement to shorten the program length to 9-12 months and is retaining the current requirement of a minimum of 12 months. However, as discussed in the proposed rule, OPM continues to be concerned that programs not be overly long and, rather than shortening the program length will instead require that they cannot exceed 24 months in length. OPM views 24 months as sufficient time for candidates to meet the requirements of their agency's SESCDP. However, OPM acknowledges there may be extenuating circumstances that cause a participant not to complete all requirements within this period. Therefore, OPM also added a provision whereby agencies may grant an extension of up to 120 days for individual candidates who cannot complete the program in 24 months due to extenuating circumstances. Any extension beyond 120 days must be submitted to OPM for approval.

The proposed rule would have required a 120-day continuous developmental assignment. Commenters raised two distinct concerns about the design of this requirement. First, commenters observed that a continuous, full-time assignment away from a candidate's home position can disadvantage candidates with significant caregiving or household responsibilities and may favor candidates with greater scheduling flexibility. One commenter specifically recommended that OPM permit “split assignments, remote components, or comparable developmental experiences” in lieu of a single continuous in-person block. Second, commenters cautioned that combining a developmental assignment with concurrent training hours and ongoing job duties risks overwhelming participants and degrading the quality of the developmental experience.

After considering these comments, OPM has determined to lengthen the developmental assignment period to 180 days. OPM is increasing the length by 60 days from the proposed rule based on the experience of private sector firms and current Federal development programs. Firms like GE Aerospace, Circle K, and Alcon require participants to undergo developmental assignments. GE Aerospace established the Experienced Commercial Leadership Program (ECLP) for mid-career leaders that requires participants to participate in three one-year rotations as part of the program. 10 Circle K established the CK Compass Global Rotational Program that requires participants to undergo four 12-month rotations across different functional areas of the business. 11 Alcon established the Accelerated RADAR program for mid-career professionals, which lasts four to five years and includes two strategic enterprise rotations lasting up to 24 months each. 12 Additionally, there are current Federal programs that focus on providing participants with core developmental opportunities through completing an extended assignment at other organizations. The White House Leadership Development Program (WHLDP) selects current GS-15 (or equivalent) civil service employees for one-year fellowship roles that align with center-of-Government needs, Administration priorities, and allow participants to further develop their leadership skills. 13 The Department of War (DoW) Cyber Information Technology Exchange Program (CITEP) authorizes a temporary exchange between DoW civilian and private sector employees to strengthen or develop cyber and IT related competencies and skills through structured experiences  14 which can range from 3 to 12 months  15 in duration. These private and public sector programs suggest that 120 days is on the lower end of the length of developmental assignments and, therefore, may be insufficient for candidates to assume meaningful responsibility in an unfamiliar organizational setting and demonstrate the executive competencies measured against the ECQs.

Additionally, considering the adjustment from a 9 to12-month to a 12 to 24-month overall program duration, there is more time for the developing leader to participate in a meaningful experience during the developmental assignment. J.M. Geertz (2024), in their study of return on investment (ROI) on leadership development indicates there is “a linear, positive relationship between longer programs and improved outcomes at individual and organizational levels.”  16 Benefits of the increased length of the developmental assignment support the participant in two impactful ways, (1) by providing adequate time to allow the candidate to demonstrate cognitive, behavioral, and organizational changes at an increased level of mastery and (2) to support the implementation of impact projects which benefit the participant and their hosting assignment agency. 17

Moreover, OPM's prior guidance for senior executive career development stated that rotations should be a minimum of 120 consecutive calendar days to broaden an executive's knowledge, skills, and experience, 18 indicating that this time period functions as a baseline minimum rather than an optimal duration in all cases. A 180-day minimum better positions agencies to structure assignments around meaningful work cycles and substantial executive-level responsibilities, while still remaining shorter than many existing Federal leadership development assignments used to prepare employees for enterprise level leadership role. OPM recognizes the burdens commenters identified and emphasizes that agencies retain substantial existing authority to address them within the 180-day period. Agencies may approve alternative work schedules, including flexible and compressed schedules. Where personal circumstances require, candidates and their agencies may avail themselves of the full range of leave authorities, including annual leave, sick leave for family care and bereavement purposes, leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, and other applicable leave programs. OPM encourages agencies to design developmental assignments in partnership with the gaining organization and the candidate so that these existing flexibilities can be deployed in a manner that accommodates documented caregiving, medical, or other personal obligations without compromising the developmental integrity of the assignment.

OPM also received comments concerning the formal training required of SESCDP participants. Commenter 0008 stated that OPM should not prescribe a specific number of hours for each of the proposed training topics because doing so would create rigidity and not allow flexibility for agencies to prepare future leaders for the unique conditions and challenges of their agencies. Other commenters challenged whether OPM provided enough clarity around the topic areas or whether they were inclusive enough to account for emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence.

OPM agrees with these commenters that the training required of SESCDPs should be flexible to account for the uniqueness in their missions and emerging issues. Thus, OPM is issuing a final rule to remove the specific enumeration of topic areas but will retain the specific number of hours required of candidates to undergo formalized training. OPM views a successful SESCDP requiring significant formalized training that agencies may adapt to their current and future leadership needs. Allowing agencies to establish training topics without assigning minimal hours for each topic will provide sufficient flexibility for agencies while promoting candidate development.

Multiple commenters voiced overall support for the utilization of coaching to support candidate development but with some having concerns around confidentiality and governance. Commenter 0004 highlighted “OPM's clear recognition of the importance of personal growth and leadership development through executive coaching” but expressed concern with the provision that would require agencies to monitor coaching relationships and intervene and adjust as needed as the language “lacks sufficient clarity regarding ethical boundaries.” The commenter felt that “[c]larifying the scope and limits of agency oversight would help preserve the integrity of the coaching relationship while still supporting appropriate program accountability and evaluation.” Commenter 0005 also provided feedback on this provision, recommending OPM remove the requirement for an agency to assess coaching relationships and noted it was redundant with the requirement proposed for § 412.303.

OPM agrees that there should be sufficient ethical boundaries that govern coaching relationships and that these guidelines should be incorporated into agency SESCDP policies and reflected in the documented agreements made between coaches and candidates. Furthermore, OPM concurs with Commenter 0005's recommendation not to codify these requirements and has removed language from proposed § 412.302(c)(5), as this feedback should be provided as a part of the broader SESCDP training evaluation conducted by agencies.

Lastly, Commenter 0005 questioned whether ERBs are equipped to properly assess coaches but suggested that ERBs could determine acceptable coaching certifying organizations. That same commenter also brought attention to the fact that coaches, by definition, do not advise candidates, but rather support candidates to find their own solutions or answers. OPM agrees that these are valid points. OPM has modified the regulatory text in the final rule to use “supports” rather than “advises” and require that coaches either be certified by an accredited coaching organization or have completed formal, accredited training to ensure coaches have the skills necessary to appropriately support candidates.

Commenter 0008 emphasized support for program evaluations to ensure that SESCDPs are effective and they continually improve and use taxpayer resources effectively. However, the commenter also conveyed that this presumes agencies have the capacity to not just conduct evaluations but also make changes based on the findings, and that metrics for program evaluations should be chosen carefully to avoid creating additional burden. Section 410.202 requires agencies to evaluate their training programs on an annual basis to determine whether they effectively contribute to mission accomplishment and meet organizational performance goals. Consequently, SESCDPs need to be updated to ensure the program meets the current needs of the agency and candidates consistent with section 410.201. To support agencies with their evaluation and broader re-approval efforts, OPM previously developed two templates, both for the overarching program and individual program cohorts. The templates help to streamline the evaluation process by providing agencies with a resource that identifies and helps track key metrics needed to evaluate the program and that directly supports the re-approval process.

Commenter 0009 argued that, by requiring a minimum placement rate, “Selectors may lean toward candidates who look familiar and predictable, people who resemble the current SES, rather than high-potential, nontraditional candidates who may need more time and development. When placement rates become the driving measure, agencies hedge their bets; they invest in what feels safe.” Although OPM understands the commenter's concern, this statement appears to reference the post-program requirement for graduates into the SES as driving the selection process that determines which candidates participate in the SESCDP. OPM believes that the connection is attenuated but that there are also sufficient protections in place to avoid the scenario Commenter 0009 fears. First, agencies and their ERBs are required to ensure that programs follow merit staffing provisions (5 CFR 317.501), and OPM has re-emphasized that, “Federal executives must be selected based on their merit, competence, and dedication to our Nation's Founding ideals—without regard to race, sex, color, religion, or national origin.”  19 Second, as applicants are generally Federal employees, the Government has already invested in the development of applicants for a program. So, the agency should be incentivized to select any candidate likely to successfully complete the developmental prerequisites for graduation, subsequently achieve a QRB certification, and then ultimately place in the SES. Finally, ensuring that programs can achieve a minimum placement rate supports agencies in identifying whether their programs are successfully training candidates for placement in the SES, and if not, determining how they can make the proper adjustments moving forward.

Commenter 0008 provided additional feedback on this topic, suggesting that, “Minimum placement rates may also be a helpful metric to ensure that CDPs are training future leaders with the skills and experience needed . . . however, rates must be set using a strategic workforce planning process” to avoid imposing undue burdens on agencies. One of OPM's policy goals of this rulemaking is to help ensure that agencies have effective and cost-efficient SESCDPs that will not only further candidates' development but also support agencies' management succession programs. OPM understands the commenter's perspective and agrees that minimum placement rates should tie to staffing plans or broader succession management process. If OPM set a floor on the number of SESCDP graduates required to be placed in SES positions via regulation, doing so may run counter to OPM's objectives. Such rigidity would disincentivize agencies from establishing SESCDPs unless its vacancy rate for SES positions fell to the placement rate. Instead, the final rule establishes in § 412.303(b) that agencies will be required to follow OPM guidance in setting placement rates for its SESCDPs. This will allow for more flexibility for agencies to run successful SESCDPs.

Commenter 0008 offered suggestions for managing SESCDPs, which included the creation of a centralized, governmentwide roster of CDP graduates, and also consideration to allow agencies to temporarily or permanently backfill SESCDP candidates' positions. The commenter believes that these could impact visibility and agency reluctance to participate in SESCDPs. While these features could potentially support participation and placement efforts, OPM does not believe they are appropriate to include in the regulatory language. OPM will explore these ideas further and may provide future resources and guidance to facilitate these solutions.

OPM has reviewed the supervisory, management, and executive development regulations governing the SESCDP and is issuing this final rule in response to the President's directives and pursuant to OPM's regulatory authority in 5 U.S.C. 3396(a) and (b). The following are the principal results sought by the changes to 5 CFR part 412:

○ Agencies have effective and cost-efficient SESCDPs that will support agency succession planning and candidate development;

○ Agencies identify and select individuals that have demonstrated executive ability and further develop them professionally to step into the SES with the experiences to handle the challenges presented at the highest caliber of public service;

○ Agencies maintain a minimum placement rate of program graduates receiving OPM QRB certification to ensure a return on investment; and

○ Agencies are better equipped to identify and implement program enhancements or alternative approaches to improve program administration.

To assist agencies in accomplishing these results, OPM is adopting changes to 5 CFR part 412, subpart C “Senior Executive Service Candidate Development Programs.” In addition to modifying §§  412.301 and 412.302 as originally proposed, OPM also added a new §  412.303 to address SESCDP oversight and evaluation in response to public comment. The following are the major changes in part 412, subpart C:

Section 412.301 provides the requirements for an agency to obtain approval from OPM to conduct an SESCDP. As discussed in “ Program Structure, Implementation, and Evaluation,” OPM is adding a provision that clarifies that it may establish a governmentwide SESCDP in its capacity as the Federal Government's central HR agency. With that new provision, OPM has revised the numbering of the paragraphs in the section. OPM is also adding a requirement for each department or agency HQ-level seeking approval to submit a blanket, enterprise-wide policy for itself and all subcomponents. OPM also has revised and clarified the proposed language requiring agencies to use an OPM-provided program policy template when applying for program approval. The template submission process streamlines program creation by standardizing most elements and aligning all policies across agencies for uniformity. The changes require a participating agency to include in its policy a description of SESCDP program methodologies, modifications, and improvements by using the OPM-developed SESCDP policy template. Further, the changes also require agencies to obtain OPM re-approval for an SESCDP on a triennial basis to ensure alignment and strategic linkage with agency succession plans.

Agencies that submitted updated policies prior to the issuance of this final rule must resubmit their policies to reflect the requirement modifications made in this final rule. Agencies must use the OPM-developed template to submit their updated policies. OPM policy approvals will occur within 30 days after the effective date of this final rule ( i.e., by August 24, 2026), and agencies cannot begin new program cohorts until a new policy has been approved by OPM. Finally, OPM notes that it is retaining language in § 412.301 that prohibits an agency implementing an SESCDP from submitting graduates of a program for QRB review, without first obtaining formal approval from OPM. OPM did not discuss removal in the NPRM but inadvertently left the sentence out of the proposed regulation text.

Section 412.302 provides the criteria for an SESCDP. To align with updated policy requirements under §  412.301, OPM proposed to provide further clarification around expectations and the role of the ERB as it pertains to agency program oversight and is adopting its proposed language in §  412.302(a) accordingly with modifications. Additionally, as a result of this final rule, SESCDPs must be a minimum of 12 months and can run up to 24 months in length. This program length provides candidates sufficient time to meet the requirements of their SESCDP while supporting agencies' succession planning efforts to develop “ready now” talent.

Current SESCDPs must provide at least 80 hours of formal interagency or multi-sector training experience. As discussed above, this final rule increases this requirement to 100 hours of formal training that relates to the ECQs and related competencies; topics and competencies identified by the agencies that best serve the development of their participants; and topics and competencies prescribed by OPM through policy and guidance. The number of specific hours allocated to each of these topics is at the discretion of each agency.

OPM proposed that participants in an agency SESCDP must receive at least two validated executive assessments ( i.e., assessment methods or instruments supported by evidence showing their validity and reliability in evaluating executive leadership competencies, behaviors, or traits relevant to successful SES performance). The first assessment must be conducted during candidate selection. This selection assessment must be tied to the ECQs to determine potential candidates' leadership qualifications and readiness to participate in an SESCDP. An agency must consider the results of the first assessment in its evaluation of which candidates are best suited to participate in an SESCDP. The second assessment must be conducted during the program cycle to assess the candidate's continuing developmental needs. Similarly, agencies must use in-program assessment results to refine program content and identify and implement, as needed, individualized development opportunities that support SESCDP participants throughout their progression in the program cohort.

Finally, as described above, OPM is requiring a minimum 10 hours each of coaching and mentoring and at least one developmental assignment of 180 continuous days outside the scope of the candidate's position of record. The developmental assignments must include roles at the executive level where the candidate is held responsible for achieving organizational or agency results. The purpose of the new developmental assignment provision is to enhance and broaden the candidate's experience, increase his or her knowledge, and maximize his or her understanding of the overall functioning of the agency, so the candidate is prepared for a range of agency positions at the SES level. OPM is also removing proposed rule language in § 412.302(c)(5) that required agencies to obtain feedback from coaches and candidates on the coaching relationship, as this should be completed as a part of the broader SESCDP training evaluation process. OPM is modifying the proposed requirement for ERBs to approve coaches. In the final rule, the SESCDP must provide for each participant a coach certified by an accredited coaching organization or who has completed formal, accredited training.

OPM is adding provisions to provide for SESCDP oversight and evaluation with minor wording changes for clarity. Agencies are required to implement programmatic changes based on their program evaluation results and candidate feedback. Each SESCDP must obtain re-approval from OPM based on demonstrated program effectiveness.

OPM is issuing this final rule pursuant to its authority to issue regulations governing the development for and within the SES in 5 U.S.C. 3396. Succession planning, through the identification of high performers, coupled with enhanced leadership preparation and development, plays a critical part in agency mission success. Building a pipeline of high performing GS-14s, 15s, and equivalents equipped with the skills, knowledge, technical expertise, and strategic mindset necessary to excel in senior leadership roles is crucial. Therefore, to build and maintain this “ready now” pipeline, a reformed, focused, and targeted SESCDP is needed to increase succession readiness, particularly through the strategic placement of program graduates who receive OPM SES QRB certification. These prescribed changes will also drive a shift in the culture of the SES and implement more impactful SES training and development requirements.

Inconsistencies among SESCDPs have yielded mixed results across participating agencies. That variability has resulted in different training and development experiences for SESCDP participants and leads to some programs that are more effective than others in preparing their leaders. This causes fluctuating levels of candidate placement rates and creates challenges in supporting governmentwide succession planning efforts. Additionally, OPM and agencies lack visibility on standardized governmentwide program data. The absence of consistent metrics prevents OPM and agencies from comparing results across programs and assessing the impact and value to SESCDP participants and the Government.

SESCDPs are designed to strengthen ECQ competencies for selected high-performing aspiring executives through a demanding learning and developmental experience. An SESCDP provides candidates with governmentwide leadership challenges, opportunities to interact with senior employees outside their assigned department and/or agency, interagency training experiences, executive-level development assignments, mentoring, and coaching.

This experience boosts participants' executive competencies and expands their understanding of governmentwide programs and issues beyond their individual agency of assignment and their profession, broadening participants' understanding of missions, programs, core values, and management challenges. An SESCDP can support an agency's talent management and succession planning efforts through building an equipped pipeline of “ready now” aspiring leaders. This allows senior agency leaders to make strategic and timely placements to improve performance, accomplish agency mission, and effectively provide services to the American public.

These program changes will add a more unified structure to SESCDPs across Government and ensure a more aligned cadre of graduates through this succession management track. Templated program areas, from policy to program evaluations, will allow for a more integrated comparison of programs over time, allowing decision makers to further tailor the programs to meet the needs of agencies governmentwide and fully aligned with incumbent SES demonstrated leadership competencies. Ultimately, by increasing program standards and training requirements, an SESCDP will better equip program participants to excel in senior leadership roles and effectively implement the President's agenda. This will not only increase the President's confidence in the ability of the Executive Branch to serve the Nation but also build trust with the American people.

This final rule will affect the operations of the 13 Federal agencies that currently have an OPM-approved SESCDP policy—ranging from cabinet-level departments to small independent agencies. There are also two other Federal agencies that previously informed OPM that they would be submitting an SESCDP policy for approval. We estimate that this rule would require individuals employed by these agencies to spend time creating an updated SESCDP policy—whether updating their current SESCDP policy or creating a policy to start a new SESCDP—to reflect the updated program structure and administration. There would also be potential cost savings for the two sub-level agencies that have currently approved SESCDP policies as, moving forward, they would fall under their top-level agency policy.

Typically, an agency's Executive Resources or Training and Development staff handles tasks associated with overseeing the management of SESCDP policies and programs. Therefore, for this cost analysis, OPM assumes the average salary rate of Federal employees performing this work will be the rate in 2026 for GS-14, step 5, in the Washington, DC, locality pay table ($163,104 annual locality rate and $78.15 hourly locality rate). Typically, there are two types of roles who oversee the administration of an SESCDP—program managers and program coordinators—and their combined time would average the equivalent of one FTE at this grade level. We assume the total dollar value of labor, which includes wages, benefits, and overhead, is equal to 200 percent of the wage rate, resulting in an assumed labor cost of $156.30 per hour.

To comply with the regulatory changes in the final rule, affected agencies need to review the rule and update their policies and procedures. We estimate that, in the first year following publication of a final rule, this would require an average of 100 hours of work by employees with an average hourly cost of $156.30 per hour. Accounting for the 11 agencies with current approved policies, and the two agencies planning to submit for initial policy approval, this would result in estimated costs of about $16,000 per agency, or about $210,000 total. Further, because Federal agencies are not required to obtain an OPM-approved SESCDP policy, each additional agency that decides to apply for a policy approval would equal an estimated cost of $16,000 per agency. For the second and third years of having an approved policy, agencies would see a cost savings of $16,000 each year, as the 100 hours of work to review the rule and update policies would not be required. However, following the third year, this cost would be incurred again when the agency must submit a policy for re-approval.

When calculating other operational program costs per SESCDP participant, OPM estimates the average number of participants per program is about 25 participants per cohort. In addition, when calculating program costs for the assessment of applicants, OPM estimates that the assessments would be administered to those applicants on the Best Qualified list, which we estimate to be 40 people per cohort.

These additional program costs would include the increase in formal training hours, the addition of a second validated executive assessment, and the addition of 10 coaching hours to develop a candidate at the executive level. The current average cost of a formal training hour per SESCDP participant is $150. By adding 20 more formal training hours, the cost of this program element increases the cost per participant by $3,000. The current average cost of administering one validated executive assessment is $350 per assessment. Typically, these assessments require the results to be interpreted to the participant by a professional, adding additional cost. Adding a second assessment for use during the program is an additional $350. Finally, the cost of external coaching services can range anywhere from $200 to $3,000 per hour. When identifying sources that provide the level of professional expertise and coaching services needed to support SESCDP participants, OPM estimates the cost at approximately $1,000 per hour.

However, to offset costs pertaining to coaching requirements, agencies can utilize Federal coaches ( i.e., graduates of the Federal Internal Coaching Training Program) certified in providing coaching services and administering feedback on assessments used by the agency. Of the 11 agencies currently holding policies, and the two agencies that have expressed interest in obtaining an approved policy, eight have formal programs that offer coaching to employees. If these eight agencies utilize their certified internal coaches to provide this service, the cost of adding the coaching requirement into the SESCDP could be reduced by approximately $2 million each year across Government. Additionally, agencies that do not have coaching programs can partner with OPM to identify and utilize Federal coaches through the Federal Coaching Network (FCN). The FCN is a community of individuals across the Federal Government who are invested in the practice of coaching and support its role in leadership development. Furthermore, by leveraging a multi-agency OPM-approved SESCDP policy, these agencies can partner with those that do have a formal coaching program to combine and share resources. If the remaining agencies (four that currently hold policies and one that has expressed interest in obtaining an approved policy) are able to partner and leverage the preceding coaching resources, this would offset an additional $1.2 million in coaching costs annually. For agencies able to leverage internal coaching services, OPM estimates that the combined costs for new training and development requirements would be approximately $152,000 per agency. For agencies who must or choose to leverage external coaching services, that cost would increase to approximately $402,000 per agency.

It is also important to note that the recruitment and hiring costs to onboard an SES can vary from agency to agency. OPM anticipates that the SESCDPs under this revised framework will more reliably produce high-caliber SES candidates that are ready to step into SES positions. This final rule would require a minimum level of SESCDP graduate placement rate of participants set by OPM as evaluation criteria, reflecting the improved effectiveness of the OPM-approved SESCDPs. OPM expects that this would allow agencies to realize cost savings, as they could offset SES recruitment and hiring costs by increasing the number of SESCDP graduates placed in vacant executive positions.

OPM anticipates that total costs for agencies who are able to leverage the internal savings mentioned above would be an estimated $168,000 per agency, or $2.2M across all participating agencies. If all participating agencies must, or choose to, leverage external developmental services or resources, that cost would increase to approximately $418,000 per agency, or $5.4M total.

The standardization of program policies will save time for agencies by reducing policy drafting and approval timelines. Common practice in program evaluation allows for measuring the individual SESCDP participant input on program outcomes, and the standardized feedback will allow for easier comparison from program to program. Additionally, adding an organizational standard evaluation feedback tool provides an opportunity for the impact to be measured more easily for return on investment to the organization, as referenced by Njah et al., which can aid in continued decisions about the impacts that the program outcomes have on the organization. 20

Use of validated assessments during the recruitment process will support agencies in identifying those candidates who are on the cusp of becoming senior executives and who are best suited to participate in an SESCDP. Further, use of an assessment—such as a 360-degree assessment—during the course of the SESCDP will also provide valuable feedback to candidates, especially when used as a part of the coaching relationship. Because this kind of assessment provides feedback from a variety of perceptions, coaches can provide feedback “to bring a measure of objectivity and structure to the coaching engagement.”  21 The frequency of coaching sessions can be prescribed using the common practice of meeting once per month as is typical with a leadership or executive coach. Because SESCDPs must last at least 12 months, a minimum of 10 hours of coaching is consistent with a cadence of approximately monthly coaching sessions, with additional flexibility for assessment feedback and individualized developmental needs. This structure is supported by research from DiGirolamo, who discusses the benefits of using coaching as a tool in leadership succession management and how “[i]ndividualized attention in coaching will bring a laser-sharp focus on unique strengths and growth opportunities.”

An alternative to this rulemaking is to not modify current regulatory program requirements and instead issue further OPM guidance encouraging agencies to be increasingly rigorous in their management of their SESCDPs. OPM could recommend that agencies incorporate these changes as promising or best practices, with the goal to increase program oversight, participation, and performance. However, previous attempts to achieve this result through recommendations and informal guidance to agencies have not been successful and, instead, have allowed agencies to continue to modify program methodologies, resulting in varying program policies and results. According to feedback from agencies with approved policies, program managers and coordinators have consistently suggested that OPM standardize improved program requirements so that their SESCDPs would be more aligned. Therefore, solidifying the requirements through OPM-developed templates will reduce the burden on agencies and help produce consistent data points for comparison to ensure quality implementation of SESCDPs governmentwide. Additionally, this will help provide universal data points to agency leadership to illustrate the effectiveness of an agency's SESCDP, how it compares to other agency programs, and ensure program accountability to produce measurable high-quality, timely, and cost-effective results.

OPM has examined the impact of this rule as required by E.O.s 12866 and 13563, which direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public, health, and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). A regulatory impact analysis must be prepared for rules that have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. This rulemaking does not reach that threshold but has otherwise been designated a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. This rule is not considered an E.O. 14192 regulatory action because it imposes no more than de minimis costs.

The Director of OPM certifies that this rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it will apply only to Federal agencies and employees.

This rulemaking will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this final rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

This rulemaking meets the applicable standards set forth in section 3(a) and (b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that would impose spending costs on State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or on the private sector, in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. That threshold is currently approximately $206 million. This rulemaking will not result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, in excess of the threshold. Thus, no written assessment of unfunded mandates is required.

This is a rule relating to agency management or personnel. It also addresses agency practice or procedure and does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. Accordingly, this rule does not come within the meaning of the term “rule” as used in 5 U.S.C. 804(3), and the reporting requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not apply.

This regulatory action will not impose any reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

The Director of OPM, Scott Kupor, reviewed and approved this document and has authorized the undersigned to electronically sign and submit this document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, OPM amends 5 CFR part 412 as follows:

Table of Contents I. Introduction and Background A. Financial Data Transparency Act Statutory Requirements 1. Joint Agency Rulemaking 2. Agency-Specific Rulemakings 3. Consultations B. Joint Agency Establishment vs. Individual Agency Adoption C. Summary of the Proposed Joint Rule D. Brief Summary of Comments Received on the Proposed Joint Rule 1. Administrative Law Comments 2. Municipal Securities Market Comments II. Final Joint Rule A. Collections of Information B. Legal Entity Identifier C. Other Common Identifiers 1. Unique Product Identifier (UPI) and Classification of Financial Instruments (CFI) 2. Financial Instrument Global Identifier (FIGI) and Other Financial Instruments Identifiers 3. Dates 4. States, Possessions, or Military “States” of the United States of America or Geographic Directionals 5. Countries and Their Subdivisions 6. Currencies D. Data Transmission and Schema and Taxonomy Format Standards E. Accounting and Reporting Taxonomies and Census Tracts III. Effective Date IV. Other Matters A. Regulatory Planning and Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Plain Language E. Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Determination G. Executive Order 13132—Federalism H. Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families I. Congressional Review Act I. Introduction and Background

On December 23, 2022, the Financial Data Transparency Act of 2022 (FDTA) was signed into law. 1 The FDTA seeks to promote interoperability of financial regulatory data. The FDTA directs the OCC, Board, FDIC, NCUA, CFPB, FHFA, CFTC, 2 SEC, and Treasury (each referred to individually as an Agency and collectively as Agencies) to jointly establish data standards through rulemaking (final joint rule). The FDTA also directs the OCC, Board, FDIC, NCUA, CFPB, FHFA, and SEC (each referred to individually as an implementing Agency and collectively, as implementing Agencies) to issue individual rules adopting applicable joint standards for certain collections of information under their respective purview (Agency-specific rulemakings).

In August 2024, the Agencies issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking inviting comment on a proposed joint rule to establish data standards pursuant to the FDTA (proposed joint rule). 3 As described in detail below, the Agencies are now finalizing the joint rule, with certain changes based on public comments on the proposed joint rule. The Agencies are establishing the joint standards as shown in Table 1. These standards are established as proposed, except that the Agencies are (1) not establishing the proposed joint standard of the Financial Instrument Global Identifier (FIGI) for the identification of financial instruments, (2) specifying that International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 10962—Securities and related financial instruments—Classification of financial instruments (CFI) is to be used in the classification, rather than identification, of financial instruments that are not swaps or security-based swaps, (3) establishing ISO 8601 for dates without reference to the Basic format option, and (4) more explicitly stating that the Agencies may tailor the data standards they ultimately adopt or adopt data standards not established in the final joint rule.

Section 5811 of the FDTA amends subtitle A of the Financial Stability Act of 2010 (Financial Stability Act)  4 by adding a new section 124. 5 Section 124(b) of the Financial Stability Act directs the Agencies to jointly issue regulations establishing data standards for (1) certain collections of information reported to each Agency by financial entities  6 under the jurisdiction of the Agency, and (2) the data collected from the Agencies on behalf of the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC). Section 124 of the Financial Stability Act defines the term “data standard” to mean a standard that specifies rules by which data is described and recorded. 7 In this preamble, “joint standard” refers to a data standard that has been established by the Agencies pursuant to the final joint rule.

Section 124(c)(1)(A) of the Financial Stability Act requires the joint standards to include common identifiers, including a common nonproprietary legal entity identifier that is available under an open license for all entities required to report to the Agencies. Further, section 124(c)(1)(B) of the Financial Stability Act requires that the data standards must, to the extent practicable:

• Render data fully searchable and machine-readable;  8

• Enable high quality data through schemas, with accompanying metadata  9 documented in machine-readable taxonomy or ontology models, 10 which clearly define the semantic meaning of the data, as defined by the underlying regulatory information collection requirements;

• Ensure that a data element or data asset  11 that exists to satisfy an underlying regulatory information collection requirement be consistently identified as such in associated machine-readable metadata;

• Be nonproprietary or made available under an open license;  12

• Incorporate standards developed and maintained by voluntary consensus standards bodies; and

• Use, be consistent with, and implement applicable accounting and reporting principles.

Finally, section 124(c) of the Financial Stability Act directs the Agencies, in establishing the joint standards, to consult with other Federal departments and agencies and multi-agency initiatives responsible for Federal data standards, 13 and to seek to promote interoperability of financial regulatory data across members of the FSOC. 14

As noted in sections I.A.2 and I.B below, the FDTA directs the implementing Agencies to issue Agency-specific rulemakings adopting applicable data standards and to incorporate and ensure compatibility with, to the extent feasible, the joint standards. 15 The application of the joint standards to specific collections of information would take effect through adoption by an Agency of an Agency-specific rulemaking or other action. 16

Separate from section 124 of the Financial Stability Act, the FDTA specifically requires each implementing Agency to adopt by rule data standards for certain collections of information. Subject to the flexibilities and discretion discussed below, the data standards that an implementing Agency adopts in its Agency-specific rulemaking must incorporate and ensure compatibility with, to the extent feasible, applicable joint standards. Pursuant to the FDTA, the data standards adopted by each implementing Agency through its respective Agency-specific rulemaking must take effect not later than two years after the final joint rule is promulgated. 17

Generally, in its Agency-specific rulemaking, an implementing Agency will determine the feasibility of adopting and implementing the joint standards for the collections of information specified in the FDTA under its purview. Additionally, in issuing an Agency-specific rulemaking, the FDTA specifies that each implementing Agency (1) may scale data reporting requirements to reduce any unjustified burden on smaller entities affected by the regulations and (2) must seek to minimize disruptive changes to those entities or persons. 18 Further, section 5891(c) of the FDTA provides that nothing in the FDTA may be construed to prohibit an Agency from tailoring the data standards when those standards are adopted. Moreover, the FDTA does not impose new information collection requirements. That is, it does not require an implementing Agency to collect or make publicly available additional information that the Agency was not already collecting or making publicly available prior to the enactment of the FDTA. 19 Finally, an implementing Agency retains the discretion to decide whether the reporting of any data field or report is mandatory or voluntary, consistent with applicable law.

Accordingly, in connection with an Agency-specific rulemaking, an Agency could determine to use an identifier that is not in the joint standards, including an Agency-specific identifier, rather than, or in addition to or in combination with, an identifier established by the final joint rule. This could occur if, for example, the Agency exercised its authority to tailor the joint standards in its Agency-specific rulemaking, 20 determined either that using the identifier established by the final joint rule was not feasible, 21 or determined that using an identifier that is not in the joint standards, including an Agency-specific identifier, would minimize disruptive changes to the persons affected by those standards. 22 In addition, an Agency may adopt data standards, including data standards other than the joint standards, pursuant to separate authority an Agency may have.

The Agencies may work together on the adoption of the established joint standards in the Agency-specific rulemakings or other Agency actions, as appropriate. Each Agency also expects to monitor developments related to data standards, including the joint standards, and consider updating the joint standards, as appropriate, given that the field of data standards, data transmission, schemas, and taxonomies is always evolving. The individual Agencies will interpret the final joint rule in their individual rules and other Agency actions.

Section 124(c)(2)(A) of the Financial Stability Act directs the Agencies to consult with other Federal departments and agencies and multi-agency initiatives responsible for Federal data standards. To comply with this requirement, before issuing the proposed joint rule, the implementing Agencies and Treasury consulted with a variety of Federal governmental entities with relevant experience. 23 The implementing Agencies and Treasury also met with public stakeholders with relevant experience in advance of issuing the proposed joint rule. 24 These consultations provided the implementing Agencies and Treasury with a greater understanding of the issues involved in establishing the joint standards.

In addition, as anticipated, the Agencies received many public comments on this proposed joint rule from a wide range of stakeholders, as described in detail below.

As discussed in section I.A above, the FDTA has two rulemaking requirements: (1) a joint agency rulemaking, in which the Agencies must issue this final joint rule to establish the joint standards; and (2) subsequent Agency-specific rulemakings, in which the implementing Agencies must consider for adoption the specific data standards to be used for certain collections of information.

The joint standards, as established in this final joint rule, are only applicable to the Agencies themselves—they do not change existing reporting obligations of any person or entity and, therefore, will not have a direct economic effect on any person or entity. The joint standards established by this final joint rule would only impact persons or entities beyond the Agencies to the extent that an individual Agency incorporates one or more of the joint standards into its rules through an Agency-specific rulemaking or other action. As discussed in section I.A.2 above, however, establishment of the joint standards does affect the implementing Agencies' obligations in their Agency-specific rulemakings—the FDTA requires each implementing Agency in its Agency-specific rulemaking to adopt data standards that incorporate and ensure compatibility with, to the extent feasible, applicable joint standards established in the final joint rule. In their Agency-specific rulemaking or other action, the individual Agencies have significant flexibility in whether and how to incorporate the joint standards, as discussed in section I.A.2 above.

As discussed below, some commenters expressed the view that the Agencies should conduct a cost-benefit or economic analysis at this joint rulemaking stage. In particular, various comments asserted that (1) the joint standards will form the economic baseline for these subsequent Agency actions and, thus, the economic impacts of the joint standards will not be fully analyzed in subsequent Agency actions, (2) because inclusion of common identifiers in the joint standards will leave little discretion to subsequent Agency actions, the economic impact on entities beyond Agencies can (and should) be analyzed at the joint rulemaking stage, or (3) failure to consider the joint standards' economic impacts cannot be cured at the Agency-specific phase.

The Agencies have considered these comments and have determined that, given the sequential rulemaking structure, an analysis of the economic effects of the joint standards for persons or entities beyond the Agencies cannot be meaningfully completed at this joint rulemaking stage, because any such analysis would depend on the future decisions in subsequent Agency actions. For example, without knowing whether an Agency will incorporate a particular joint standard in that Agency's rules, and if so, whether a data field related to that standard would be required or optional for firms to report and on which forms or reports, it would not be possible to evaluate the impact of that joint standard on persons or entities beyond that specific Agency. Relatedly, because the Agencies retain significant flexibility under the statute to determine whether and how to incorporate the joint standards in their Agency-specific rulemakings, the Agencies disagree with commenters who asserted that the joint standards will limit Agency discretion or form the economic baseline for any subsequent Agency actions. Indeed, it is because of this significant flexibility that the Agencies are unable to conduct a meaningful assessment of the economic effects of the joint standards at this time. The joint standards, as established in this final joint rule, are only applicable to the Agencies themselves—they do not create or change existing reporting, recordkeeping, or other obligations of any person or entity. Therefore, the joint standards will not have a direct economic effect on any person or entity.

The appropriate economic analyses will be included when the implementing Agencies conduct their subsequent Agency actions, and the public will have an opportunity at that time to comment on all aspects of the relevant proposals, including the joint standards chosen and the manner of implementation, and the associated benefits, costs, and other economic effects. The subsequent Agency actions, such as Agency-specific rulemakings and any clearances under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA)  25 for revisions to specific information collections, will be subject to public comment. Given the additional steps needed to incorporate any joint standards into specific collections of information, the public will have adequate opportunity to comment on the specific uses of the joint standards during this subsequent implementation stage.

In August 2024, the Agencies issued for comment a proposed joint rule implementing the statutory requirements of the FDTA. In accordance with the FDTA, the proposed joint rule sought to promote the interoperability of financial regulatory data. The proposed joint rule defined the term “collections of information” by reference to the definition of that term under the PRA. 26

In the proposed joint rule, the Agencies proposed to establish the following data standards and sought comment on this approach:

• ISO  27 17442—Financial Services—LEI as the legal entity identifier joint standard. 28

• ISO 4914—Financial services—UPI  29 for reporting of swaps and security-based swaps, and ISO 10962—Securities and related financial instruments—CFI code  30 for reporting of other types of financial instruments.

• The FIGI  31 for an identifier of financial instruments.

• Date and time as defined by ISO 8601  32 using the Basic format option for date fields.

• The U.S. Postal Service Abbreviations, as published in appendix B of Publication 28 “Postal Addressing Standards, Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service,”  33 for the identification of a State, possession, or military “state” of the United States of America or a geographic directional.

• Country codes and their subdivisions, as appropriate, as defined by the GENC standard  34 for the identification of countries.

• The alphabetic currency code as defined by ISO 4217 Currency Codes  35 for the identification of currencies.

The Agencies sought comment on each of the proposed joint standards, as well as on alternative options for each proposed joint standard. The Agencies likewise sought comment on whether to establish an additional common identifier for Census Tract reporting as part of the joint standards.

In addition to the common identifiers, the proposed joint rule also sought to establish joint standards for data transmission and schema and taxonomy formats. Rather than proposing any specific data transmission or schema and taxonomy format, the Agencies instead identified the four properties that a data transmission or schema and taxonomy format should, to the extent practicable, have. Specifically, the Agencies proposed that the data transmission and schema and taxonomy format should, to the extent practicable: (1) Render data fully searchable and machine-readable; (2) Enable high quality data through schemas, with accompanying metadata documented in machine-readable taxonomy or ontology models, which clearly define the semantic meaning of the data, as defined by the underlying regulatory information collection requirements, as appropriate; (3) Ensure that a data element or data asset that exists to satisfy an underlying regulatory information collection requirement be consistently identified as such in associated machine-readable metadata; and (4) Be nonproprietary or available under an open license. The Agencies sought comment on the establishment of a properties-based joint standard for data transmission or schema and taxonomy format, as well as the specific properties proposed.

Finally, though the Agencies considered establishing joint standards related to taxonomies, the proposed joint rule did not establish a joint standard related to taxonomies. Instead, in the proposed joint rule, the Agencies invited comment on: (1) whether to establish a joint standard for taxonomies based on certain properties, and if so, the properties that should be set forth in the joint standard; or (2) whether to establish specific taxonomies, and if so, the taxonomies that should be set forth in the joint standard. The proposed joint rule also sought comment on the use of the term “taxonomy” and whether the Agencies should define the term by rule, and if so, how the term should be defined. The Agencies noted that, if after notice and comment, the final joint rule did establish specific taxonomies as joint standards, the implementing Agencies would not be precluded in their individual rulemakings from using data element definitions from another taxonomy or using additional taxonomies, including Agency-specific taxonomies, for the same collection of information. The proposed joint rule sought comment on this approach.

The Agencies emphasized in the proposed joint rule that even when finalized, the joint rule does not mandate the use of any specific standard or impose any changes to collections of information. Rather, as discussed in sections I.A.2 and I.B above, the application of the joint standards to specific collections of information would take effect through adoption by an Agency of an Agency-specific rulemaking or other action. 36

The Agencies received over 150 unique comments on the proposed joint rule to establish data standards to promote interoperability of financial regulatory data across the Agencies, including comments from data standards organizations, financial and market data businesses and consultants, financial services firms, industry, policy, professional and trade associations, law firms and legal associations, academics and researchers, Federal, State and local governmental entities and officials, securities exchanges and clearing organizations, and individuals.

Many commenters expressed support for the goals of the FDTA and support for the proposed joint standards. However, some comment letters expressed concerns with the proposed establishment of FIGI as the common identifier of financial instruments, generally suggesting that the Agencies establish no common identifier for financial instruments. The Agencies received comments both in support and in opposition, as well as comments that asked questions or suggested alternative options, across the proposed joint standards, discussed in more detail below.

Several commenters requested an extension of the comment period, largely focusing on the proposed establishment of FIGI. These commenters stated that a longer comment period was necessary to analyze the potential effects of FIGI's establishment and to gain additional input from market participants. Similarly, some commenters asserted that the proposed joint rule—and particularly the proposed establishment of FIGI—was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because the Agencies did not conduct economic and cost-benefit analyses, provide sufficient justification for establishing certain standards ( i.e., FIGI), or sufficiently consider alternative identifiers. 37

In addition, a few commenters suggested that the implementing Agencies would be required to adopt any standards established in the final joint rule, and thus, economic and cost-benefit analyses would be required at the joint-rulemaking stage. Some commenters also suggested that the proposed joint rule could impose burdens on small entities and local governments. These commenters requested that the Agencies exercise scaling authority to minimize burden and allow longer implementation periods for such entities.

As discussed in section II.C.2 below, the Agencies are not establishing FIGI as a joint standard in this rulemaking after additional consideration and consistent with the views expressed by many commenters. With respect to the need for economic and cost-benefit analyses of the joint standards, as discussed in section I.B, the joint standards do not change existing reporting obligations of any person or entity and, therefore, will not have a direct economic effect on any persons or entities. Moreover, given the significant flexibility that the Agencies retain to determine whether and how to incorporate the joint standards, it is not possible to meaningfully conduct those analyses at the joint rulemaking stage. Instead, economic analyses will be addressed in connection with the subsequent Agency-specific rulemakings. Similarly, scaling considerations for small entities and local governments will be addressed as part of the Agency-specific rulemaking process, rather than at the current phase of rulemaking to establish joint standards.

One commenter suggested that the proposed joint standards specify which version of a standard, such as LEI, is being established in order to comply with Office of the Federal Register rules that prohibit dynamically updating a standard incorporated into regulation by reference. 38 However, the Agencies are not modifying any provisions in the final joint rule for this purpose because the final joint rule is merely establishing the relevant data standards, and no member of the public will be required to comply with, or be adversely affected by, this final joint rule. Each Agency, when adopting the joint standards, can determine the level of specificity that is necessary or appropriate in the context of specific reporting obligations.

The final joint rule, substantially as proposed, states that the standards will “be subject to the consideration by the Agencies of the applicability, feasibility, practicability, scaling, minimization of disruption to affected persons, and tailoring” as specified in the FDTA and the Agencies therefore may tailor the data standards they adopt, or adopt data standards not established in the joint standards. 39 This provision makes clear that the Agencies' adoption of data standards will be subject to the FDTA. A number of commenters supported the Agencies recognizing in the final joint standards that, consistent with the FDTA, the Agencies can tailor the data standards they ultimately adopt for the particular market participants they regulate. Two commenters suggested changes to the final joint rule to better reflect this aspect of the FDTA. One of these commenters suggested that the final joint rule contain additional language recognizing that the Agencies have flexibility under the FDTA to deviate from the joint standards in appropriate circumstances, while the other urged the Agencies to more explicitly state in the final joint standards that the Agencies are required under the FDTA, in implementing the joint standards, to seek to minimize disruptions and scale requirements to reduce unjustified burdens on small businesses. The Agencies agree that the final joint rule should better reflect the Agencies' authority to tailor the data standards they adopt. 40 Accordingly, the Agencies have modified this provision to provide, as discussed above and in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, that the Agencies may tailor the data standards they adopt, or adopt data standards not established in the final joint rule.

The Agencies received several comment letters from municipal securities market participants. While some of these commenters expressed support for the goals of the FDTA, and supported efforts to establish data standards that promote transparency, interoperability, and efficiency in reporting, many municipal securities market commenters expressed opposition to the proposed joint rule.

Some commenters stated that the FDTA establishes a new regulatory framework that is inconsistent with the 10th Amendment's preservation of states' rights by imposing Federal reporting requirements on issuers of municipal securities, infringing upon State sovereignty, and failing to consider principles of comity between governmental bodies. Relatedly, some commenters stated that the FDTA is an unfunded Federal mandate because the adoption of structured data and LEI requirements might impose costs on municipal entities without providing corresponding funding.

Other commenters suggested that due to a provision of the Securities Act Amendments of 1975 commonly known as the “Tower Amendment,”  41 any data standards adopted by the SEC or the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) under the FDTA must be voluntary for issuers of municipal securities. One commenter stated that any joint standards should not apply to information submitted to MSRB because municipal issuers are not “financial entities” and the MSRB is not a “covered agency” under the definitions of those terms in the FDTA. However, decisions regarding any data standards applicable to information submitted to the MSRB can only be meaningfully addressed during the SEC-specific rulemaking.

One commenter opposed any interpretation of “collections of information” in the final joint rule that subjects information submitted to the MSRB to any data standards not developed pursuant to FDTA section 5823. Specifically, the commenter objected to language in Footnote 17 of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking stating that Agencies interpret the directive of section 124(b)(1) of the Financial Stability Act to apply to specific collections of information, including information submitted to the MSRB under FDTA section 5823. Another commenter referenced language in section 5823 requiring that the Agency-specific rulemaking incorporate and ensure compatibility with (to the extent feasible) the joint data standards. The commenter interpreted this language to indicate that the SEC should take into account the idiosyncrasies of the municipal securities market when creating any joint data standard.

As discussed above, the implementation of the joint standards as they apply to information submitted to the MSRB will be separately considered, proposed, offered for comment, 42 and adopted in the Agency-specific rulemaking pursuant to FDTA section 5823.

Under the FDTA, the joint standards established by the final joint rule would apply to certain collections of information reported to each Agency. 43 In the proposed joint rule, the Agencies proposed to define the term “collections of information” as used in connection with the FDTA by reference to the definition of that term in the PRA, an act to which the Agencies are subject. 44

One commenter expressed support for defining “collections of information” in this manner, whereas other commenters expressed concerns about the breadth of the definition. 45 Other commenters requested clarity as to which collections of information would be subject to the proposed data standards, how those collections would be covered, and how the Agencies would treat ad hoc reporting. Other commenters provided recommendations for how the Agencies should collect information and which collections should be implicated by the joint standards when they are adopted by the Agencies.

The Agencies have considered these comments and are establishing the definition of “collections of information” in the final joint rule as proposed. As the Agencies explained in the proposed joint rule, this definition is widely understood by the Agencies and by public stakeholders. All approved and pending collections of information have been categorized and are accessible to the Agencies and the public on Reginfo.gov. 46 The use of the term “collections of information” in the FDTA is consistent with the use of the same term in the PRA. Further, because the PRA definition of “collections of information” includes most information that is reported to the Agencies, use of that definition to scope the final joint rule is consistent with the purposes of the FDTA, which seeks to enhance the information reported to financial regulatory agencies. 47

The Agencies have also considered commenters' requests to provide clarity as to which collections of information would be subject to the proposed data standards, how those collections would be covered, and how the Agencies would treat ad hoc reporting. The statutory language and corresponding requirements for which collections of information would be covered by the FDTA's scope vary from Agency to Agency. As discussed above in sections I.A.2 and I.B, each Agency expects to address which specific collections of information will be covered during the Agency-specific rulemakings or other Agency action pursuant to which joint data standards are adopted.

The Agencies have reviewed commenters' recommendations for how the Agencies should collect information and which collections should apply under the final joint rule. To the extent relevant, the Agencies expect to consider these comments when proposing their Agency-specific rulemakings or other Agency action pursuant to which joint data standards are adopted. In addition, commenters will have the opportunity to provide additional feedback on affected collections of information during the rulemaking processes for the Agency-specific rulemakings or other Agency action pursuant to which joint data standards are adopted.

As noted in the proposed joint rule, section 124(c)(1)(A) of the Financial Stability Act requires that the joint standards include “a common nonproprietary legal entity identifier that is available under an open license for all entities required to report to” the Agencies. The term “open license” is defined by statute to mean a legal guarantee that a data asset is made available at no cost to the public and with no restrictions on copying, publishing, distributing, transmitting, citing, or adapting such asset. 48 As proposed, the Agencies are establishing the LEI, a global, 20-character, alphanumeric identifier standard documented by the ISO that uniquely and unambiguously identifies a legal entity, as the legal entity identifier joint standard. 49

Many commenters supported the establishment of the LEI as the legal entity identifier joint standard. These commenters stated, among other things, that the LEI meets the requirements of the FDTA, would promote interoperability, would provide improved identification of entities across jurisdictions, is already well-established in at least some markets and among larger financial entities, has low costs and fees, and has a transparent and independent governance structure. Other commenters raised concerns that the LEI does not meet the requirements of the FDTA, that establishment of the LEI would impose costs and burdens on entities (particularly on small entities) who would be required to obtain LEIs, and that the LEI is not widely adopted and not fit for purpose for some entities. Other commenters asked questions related to the implementation of the LEI as the joint legal entity identifier. The Agencies have considered these comments, which are discussed in more detail below, and are establishing LEI as the legal entity identifier joint standard in the final joint rule as proposed.

Several commenters expressed concern that the LEI does not meet the requirements of the FDTA. Commenters stated, as the Agencies acknowledged in the proposed joint rule, that entities are required to pay a fee both initially to obtain an LEI and annually to renew an LEI. Some commenters stated that these traits demonstrate that the LEI is neither “nonproprietary” nor “available under an open license,” asserting that the LEI is proprietary to Global Legal Entity Identifier Foundation (GLEIF) and that “open license” as defined under the FDTA should require that an identifier be available at no cost to the entity submitting the data. However, other commenters asserted that the LEI 20-character codes and related reference data can be freely used, shared, and built upon by anyone anywhere, for any purpose. Other commenters raised concerns that LEI is managed by GLEIF. One commenter recommended that the Agencies take steps designed to ensure that GLEIF is not using revenue from LEI for any purpose other than operating the system. Another commenter seemed to suggest that GLEIF may not be a voluntary consensus standards body. Some commenters also raised concerns with mandating the use of a standard that is dependent on, and requires payment to, a foreign entity.

The LEI meets all of the FDTA's requirements for legal entity identifiers, that is, it is common, nonproprietary, and is available under an open license. 50 The LEI is common because it is used worldwide in the private and public sectors and, in certain jurisdictions, including in the United States, is currently used for some regulatory reporting. 51 The LEI is nonproprietary because it is overseen by an independent body composed of regulators and other public authorities with a goal that the data be freely available to all. 52 Specifically, GLEIF and the local operating units (LOUs)  53 are overseen by the Regulatory Oversight Committee (ROC), 54 which consists of financial markets regulators, other public authorities, and observers from more than 50 countries. ROC's charter asserts that an objective of the ROC is to ensure that LEI data be nonproprietary, with no restrictions on access, usage, or redistribution, and that all LEI data should be readily available on a continuous basis, easily and widely accessible using modern technology, and free of charge.

Commenter concerns about GLEIF are addressed by the oversight to which GLEIF is subject, including by regulators in the United States as members of the ROC. GLEIF was established by the Financial Stability Board (FSB) in June 2014 to support the implementation and use of the LEI. 55 GLEIF must adhere to governance principles designed by the FSB and the ROC. The United States is currently represented by the Treasury's Office of Financial Research (OFR), SEC, Board, CFPB, OCC, CFTC, and FDIC, all serving as members on the ROC. The FSB assigned responsibility for maintenance of LEI to GLEIF and established the ROC to set broad policy objectives for GLEIF and oversee its work so that it adheres to established governance principles designed to represent the public interest. 56 Further, the ISO, which documents the LEI standard, is a voluntary consensus standards body. 57

The LEI is also open license as required by the FDTA. 58 GLEIF's LEI data terms of use declares that users can freely download LEIs and LEI data, which are available under a Creative Commons license that permits the public to obtain LEI reference data conveniently and free of charge. 59 The LEI is thus available under an open license even though entities to whom an LEI is assigned must pay a fee to obtain or renew an LEI. 60 In addition, the fees imposed by GLEIF and LOUs on legal entities that register and renew their LEIs are based on the cost-recovery principle, whereby fees must not be higher than necessary to recover an LOU's costs and are intended to remove a potential profit motive as an influence on their LEI activities. 61 The GLEIF Statutes also state that the cost of obtaining an LEI should be modest and not a barrier to acquisition and not bundled with other services. In the United States, the Agencies understand that these fees are approximately between $50 to $100 for registration and the same annually for renewal of an individual LEI. 62 Also, LOUs compete with each other, and some LOUs have reduced their fees in response to this competition. Lastly, the Agencies understand that GLEIF continues to explore vehicles for systematically reducing the costs for entities obtaining LEIs such as multiyear issuance agreements, bulk registration, and registration agents.

Commenters also raised concerns about costs beyond those to obtain an LEI and other challenges that could arise depending on how the Agencies adopt the joint standard. 63 Specifically, some commenters identified concerns with additional direct and indirect costs borne by the entities, such as the costs of updating systems, training, hiring external experts, and conducting compliance outreach efforts. Some commenters asserted that LEI is not widely adopted, especially among smaller entities, non-profit organizations, municipal entities, and foreign entities. Some commenters further requested that the Agencies specifically consider potential costs to small- and medium-sized entities. In addition to concerns about costs, several commenters expressed opposition to the possibility that the Agencies might apply the LEI standard to entities that are not related to the filer of a given report ( i.e., third parties such as clients, counterparties or service providers) to produce an LEI for Agencies' information collections. Different commenters noted that obtaining LEIs from a regulated entity's clients, counterparties, and other third parties would present special challenges, and that certain entities or parties would be unable to obtain an LEI. Some commenters stated that the establishment of LEI would be inappropriate because certain entities cannot obtain an LEI, including natural persons who are acting in a non-business capacity and sole proprietorships and general partnerships in certain states, or because the LEI does not properly identify the obligated parties (or component entities or specific credits thereof, which may be the sole source of repayment for the securities but may not be separate legal entities) involved in municipal securities offerings. Some commenters also raised the concern that the establishment of LEI has the potential to create unverifiable legal entities or create confusion about such entities' obligations. Some commenters requested that the Agencies specify that an LEI that has not been renewed, as is required annually, may still be used in collections of information. 64

Although the Agencies appreciate these concerns, establishing the LEI in the joint standards does not create any new costs or otherwise impact any collection of information or third party as the final joint rule does not mandate the use of any specific standard or impose any changes to collections of information. 65 The concerns raised by these commenters would only arise to the extent that an Agency decides to adopt the joint LEI standard into its rules through an Agency-specific rulemaking or other action. Even then, the Agencies retain significant discretion in how they adopt the joint standards, including tailoring any collection of information consistent with the requirements of the FDTA. For example, as suggested by commenters, collections of information could (and in some cases currently do) allow for other entity identifiers, specify that a reporting entity need only report an LEI if the entity has one, and permit LEIs that have lapsed to nonetheless be reported. 66 Further, the Agencies have the discretion to determine to what extent entities are obligated to renew their LEIs and update their corresponding legal entity reference data as an LEI that has not been renewed can still identify an entity.

Several commenters recommended other legal entity identifiers or identifier standards. These include ISO 8000-116, the ISO standard for formatting Authoritative Legal Entity Identifiers (ALEI) as International Business Registration Numbers (IBRN). ALEI refers to an entity identifier used in an authoritative source, such as a jurisdiction business registry, where an entity is already registered. Some commenters recommended other legal entity identifiers, including the verifiable LEI (vLEI). 67 The vLEI is a GLEIF identifier that GLEIF presents as a digitally trustworthy version of the 20-digit LEI code which is automatically verifiable, without the need for human intervention. Other commenters recommended identifiers issued by the U.S. Federal or State governments such as the SEC's Central Index Key; FINRA's Central Registration Depository numbers, IRS Employer/Taxpayer Identification Numbers, and Delaware Division of Corporations File Numbers.

The Agencies have considered these comments and the legal entity identifier options proposed by the commenters, and determined not to establish alternative or additional legal entity identifiers as part of the joint standards because the LEI best meets the requirements of the FDTA for the reasons discussed above. However, as also discussed above, the individual Agencies have significant flexibility in whether and how to adopt the standards in the future in their Agency-specific rulemaking or other action and may consider them as replacements or alternatives to the LEI at that time consistent with the requirements of the FDTA. 68

In the proposed joint rule, the Agencies proposed to establish ISO 4914—Financial services—Unique product identifier (UPI) as the common identifier for reporting of swaps and security-based swaps. For other types of financial instruments, the Agencies proposed to establish ISO 10962—Classification of financial instruments (CFI) code. The UPI and CFI are useful for aggregating data and increasing global transparency, which is beneficial in certain financial markets such as swaps, forwards, and non-listed options. After considering the comments received, the Agencies are establishing the UPI and CFI as standards in the final joint rule, as proposed, with one change based on commenter feedback as discussed below.

Commenters largely supported establishing both the UPI and CFI standards. These commenters highlighted that both standards are taxonomic systems for financial instruments that are useful for aggregating data and increasing global transparency. Regarding UPI, some of these commenters observed that it is already a required data element under some established SEC, FDIC, Treasury, and CFTC rules. Another remarked that the UPI was driven by global regulators and was the result of years-long consultation, planning, and analysis. This commenter further stated that establishing UPI would be a key step toward global aggregation of over-the-counter derivatives transaction data. Regarding CFI, one of the supportive commenters highlighted how the CFI is useful for a number of financial instruments.

The Agencies proposed to establish the CFI for the identification of financial instruments that are not swaps or security-based swaps. Several commenters observed that the CFI is a classification, not identification, system and questioned how one would use CFI to identify a financial instrument. For example, in the context of an equity security, CFI has a separate category identifier, “E”, for equity securities generally and enables further classification into groups of equity securities such as “P” for preferred shares. CFI thus allows for the classification of equities as a category as in this example, but does not provide a means to “identify” any specific equity security (that is, all preferred shares from all issuers would use the same “E” and “P” classifications so there would be no way to distinguish amongst them). Given this, the Agencies are establishing the use of the CFI in the final joint standards to classify financial instruments, not to identify them.

While no commenters raised any concerns with regard to the establishment of UPI, some did with the establishment of CFI. One commenter suggested that while it did not object to the use of CFI generally, the CFI code was not readily available and posed data quality risks because there is no official assigning body for CFI codes. This commenter encouraged the Agencies to make a list of approved assigning bodies or require the issuer of a security be the entity to assign the CFI code for consistency. Given that both CFI and UPI are supported through the open standards organizations of ASC X9 and ISO, their content (and any need for potential updates) can be assessed by these organizations every five years in collaboration with industry. Further, CFI codes without these additional limitations are currently used in CFTC reporting, as other commenters noted.

Another commenter stated that well-established incumbent identifiers other than CFI are already fully integrated into relevant systems. As explained above, the final joint standards establish the use of CFI to categorize, not identify, relevant financial instruments. Further, the Agencies recognize that there are myriad ways to classify (or identify) financial instruments at use within transactional systems, across many diverse financial products, with many use cases, and various degrees of market penetration. This is one of the compelling reasons to establish the CFI. It allows for mapping a wide variety of financial instruments across different markets, with established mappings for each type of instrument. Each Agency will have discretion in its own Agency-specific rulemakings to consider the benefits and costs of requiring CFI in specific collections of information.

The Agencies proposed to establish the FIGI as the identifier for financial instruments (FIGI proposal). 69 The proposed joint rule stated that each of the proposed identifiers, including FIGI, satisfies the requirements listed in section 124(c)(1) of the Financial Stability Act, which, as discussed above, requires the joint standards to include common identifiers for collections of information reported to the Agencies or collected on behalf of the FSOC that, to the extent practicable, meet the requirements of six specified criteria. 70 After considering comments and in a change from the proposed joint rule, the Agencies are not establishing FIGI as a joint standard in this rulemaking, as discussed further below.

The proposed joint rule described certain aspects of FIGI that meet two of the criteria, specifically, the requirements: (1) to be nonproprietary or made available under an open license;  71 and (2) to incorporate standards developed and maintained by voluntary consensus standards bodies. Specifically, the proposed joint rule stated that FIGI is a global, non-proprietary identifier for all classes of financial instruments, including, but not limited to, securities and digital assets, that is available under an open license. The proposed joint rule also explained that FIGI's intellectual property is owned by Object Management Group (OMG), an open-membership standards consortium, and stated that FIGI has been implemented as a U.S. standard (X9.145) by the ANSI Accredited Standards Committee X9 organization. 72 In proposing to establish FIGI as the common financial instrument identifier, the Agencies noted that they had also considered identifiers established by the Committee on Uniform Securities Identification Procedures (CUSIP numbers) and the ISIN (which includes CUSIP numbers). The Agencies stated that, while these identifiers are widely used, they are proprietary and not available under an open license in the United States.

The Agencies received significant comment on the FIGI proposal, with a notable divergence in commenters' views both in support of and against the FIGI proposal. Some commenters generally supported the FIGI proposal on the grounds that FIGI meets the statutory criteria and would further the FDTA's goal of promoting interoperability among the Agencies. Moreover, certain commenters who supported the FIGI proposal contrasted FIGI with other identifiers, such as CUSIP numbers, which they stated did not meet the FDTA's statutory criteria. Many commenters opposed the FIGI proposal based on objections that included the lack of a statutory requirement to establish—or need for—a financial instrument common identifier, as well as potential operational and other burdens associated with reporting FIGI. Some of these commenters also asserted that the Agencies should have undertaken a cost-benefit analysis in connection with establishing FIGI in the joint standards as a common identifier at the joint Agency rulemaking stage, in addition to the Agency-specific rulemaking stage, and that the failure to do so raises concerns under the APA. 73

Comments were mixed regarding nearly every aspect of the FIGI proposal. Several commenters who supported establishing FIGI as a joint standard in the final joint rule cited certain attributes of the FIGI standard in support of their position, including the lack of license restrictions on the use, reuse, and distribution of FIGIs. Some commenters generally stated that the FIGI standard is nonproprietary because it is owned and maintained by and made available under an open license by OMG, a voluntary standards body. 74 Commenters also asserted that no license is required to view, download, and use FIGI; FIGI is free of charge for use by all market participants with no commercial terms or restrictions on usage; and all of the FIGI reference data elements are available in the public domain. However, other commenters disputed whether FIGI is available under an open license, nonproprietary, and/or available free of charge in practice. For example, some of these commenters stated that the FIGI identifier that is freely available on OpenFIGI.com cannot be used effectively for certain securities for which OpenFIGI's freely available reference data is insufficient to uniquely identify these securities without additional information from a paid subscription service or payment to a third-party.

Some commenters stated that the FIGI standard is developed and maintained by voluntary standards bodies. Other commenters asserted that FIGI may not satisfy the criteria because it was developed by Bloomberg L.P., which is not a voluntary consensus standards body, and did not go through a process that involved the input of other market participants. Some commenters questioned whether OMG is sufficiently independent of Bloomberg L.P. to constitute a voluntary consensus body, while others observed that FIGI has not been adopted by certain other voluntary consensus standards bodies. Other commenters asserted that any concerns about the origins of FIGI have been addressed through the transfer of the FIGI standard to OMG and the establishment of an open and free license. Some commenters also asserted that establishing FIGI as a joint standard may, among other things, undermine fair competition among data vendors, give Bloomberg L.P. an unfair competitive advantage and result in barriers to entry for other market participants. Conversely, other commenters stated that because FIGI is non-proprietary, it reduces barriers to entry associated with proprietary identifiers such as CUSIP numbers, which some commenters asserted are subject to onerous licensing restrictions, and limits equitable participation, innovation, and efficiency across the financial industry, particularly for smaller firms and fintech innovators. Further, some commenters asserted that CUSIP Global Services operates CUSIP numbers as a monopoly and that adopting FIGI would better serve the public consistent with Congressional intent.

Commenters also discussed FIGI's fitness for use as a financial instrument identifier for Federal reporting purposes. Some commenters asserted that adopting a common, freely available and restriction-free financial instrument identifier across the financial regulatory system would enhance the Agencies' ability to collect and manage data reported by regulated and supervised entities, and enable the Agencies to be more effective at identifying and remedying threats to consumers, markets, and overall financial systemic stability. These commenters cited the fact that each financial instrument is assigned a unique FIGI that identifies a security no matter where it trades (share class FIGI), as well as more granular versions that identify the country in which it trades (country composite FIGI) and the exchange on which it is traded (exchange level FIGI) in support of its fitness for use as a common identifier for regulatory purposes. Opposing commenters questioned whether the level of detail required for regulatory reporting could be done with only open-source FIGI information, and suggested that the complexity of the additional granularity would likely introduce errors.

Several commenters raised questions about FIGI's fungibility (broadly characterized by commenters to mean that a specific security has the same identifier regardless of where it trades). Some commenters said FIGI generally is not fungible or interchangeable with other identifiers, such as CUSIP numbers, because although each security has one CUSIP number, it can have multiple FIGIs, which may result in confusion and errors. Other commenters stated that FIGI is fungible because the equity share class FIGI identifies the listed company regardless of the country and the exchange on which the shares trade, and in non-equity asset classes, the base level FIGI serves the same capacity. These commenters also stated that all FIGIs at exchange-level or country composite roll up to the share class level.

Some commenters stated that one of FIGI's advantages over other security identifiers is that it is a unique identifier that does not change, regardless of corporate action, is never recycled for use in new financial instruments, and can serve as a historical reference for retired or obsolete financial instruments. Commenters who opposed FIGI suggested that this aspect of FIGI is undesirable because FIGI does not allow for differentiation of securities before or after corporate actions such as mergers or stock splits, and stated that to the extent that corporate actions are treated differently under the ISIN/CUSIP number and FIGI specifications, there may not always be a one-to-one mapping between ISIN/CUSIP number and FIGI, which may lead to confusion and errors when reporting information about financial instruments to the Agencies.

Regarding mapping, some commenters stated that a free mapping application is available to help access data and facilitate the matching of FIGI with other identifiers. Other commenters said the availability of this open mapping service would facilitate FIGI implementation without expensive replacement of internal processing systems and applications, which would enhance market efficiency, transparency, and interoperability. Several commenters suggested that mapping to FIGI may not be possible or that, although mapping to FIGI may be possible, it may be challenging given, for example, the varying levels of FIGI granularity.

Commenters expressed varying views regarding the scope of FIGI's asset coverage. Certain commenters stated that FIGI offers global asset class coverage for nearly all asset classes, including for fixed income, currency futures, cryptocurrencies, crypto assets, indices, and commodity futures. Conversely, other commenters asserted that FIGIs are not sufficiently available for certain asset classes/financial instruments, such as loans and municipal bonds. Some commenters stated that FIGI provides real-time availability, while others indicated that there are typically delays in obtaining a FIGI for municipal or newly issued financial instruments.

Comments were also mixed regarding the extent to which FIGI is used by market participants. Opposing commenters claimed that FIGI is not widely used by regulated entities and financial market utilities for domestic securities transactions, clearance, settlement, and reporting, in contrast to ISIN/CUSIP numbers. Others stated that FIGI is widely used and provided evidence of the widespread market use of FIGI based on the high volume of monthly downloads of FIGI data from the OpenFIGI.com Application Programming Interface and the fact that data vendors worldwide use FIGI as a security identifier option.

Commenters who opposed the proposal to establish FIGI as a financial instrument identifier cited other reasons for their opposition. Certain commenters asserted that the statute does not require the Agencies to establish a financial instrument identifier and stated that the proposed joint rule does not articulate a need to do so. Others questioned whether the proposal to establish FIGI as a joint standard was within the statutory mandate of the FDTA or otherwise consistent with Congressional intent. Conversely, some claimed that the proposal to establish FIGI was well within the statutory mandate, and the statute did not restrict the types of common identifiers that could be joint standards. Several commenters stated that the statute does not require any data standards (other than the legal entity identifier) to be nonproprietary and made available under an open license. Other commenters asserted that the fact that the statute specifically mandates these criteria for legal entity identifiers does not restrict regulators from applying the same standard to other common identifiers, including financial instrument identifiers. Several commenters asserted that, because the statutory criteria specified for non-legal entity identifier data standards only apply “to the extent practicable,” the Agencies should not have evaluated potential financial instrument identifiers based solely on two particular factors.

Many commenters stated that the proposed joint rule failed to sufficiently evaluate the need for a new financial instrument identifier given that CUSIP numbers/ISIN are historically and currently required to be reported as financial instrument identifiers in some of the Agencies' existing rules and forms. Several commenters asserted that the proposed joint rule failed to properly consider CUSIP numbers/ISIN as a common financial instrument identifier, particularly in light of these instruments' pervasive use in the financial industry coupled with the potential for significant market disruption were FIGI to be established as a common identifier for purposes of regulatory reporting. Other commenters, while acknowledging that CUSIP numbers are widely used in the infrastructure of financial systems, stated that establishing FIGI as a required standard for Federal reporting purposes would not change current trading and settlement practices nor lead to widespread market disruptions. Some commenters asserted that the Agencies should conduct a more thorough investigation and analysis before establishing FIGI as a joint standard, including more engagement with market participants.

Many commenters discussed the potential costs and burdens associated with establishing FIGI as a joint standard. Some commenters asserted that, although FIGI may not have a licensing cost, any requirement to modify internal systems and processes to incorporate FIGI as a financial instrument identifier for purposes of reporting FIGI to the Agencies would be expensive and burdensome, requiring a major transformation to how the financial services industry manages data, with some stating that adopting FIGI is not practicable. In particular, several commenters stated that requiring firms to report a financial instrument identifier that is not currently widely used in the financial markets would be highly costly and disruptive due, among other things, to the need to undertake an extensive mapping exercise to incorporate FIGI. Some commenters stated that establishing FIGI as a joint standard would necessitate redundant and overlapping systems because CUSIP numbers would still be needed. Certain commenters expressed concerns about the potential cost impact of FIGI adoption on smaller entities. Further, some commenters asserted that the Agencies should carefully study whether the expected benefits of the proposed joint rule outweigh the expected costs before selecting a new identifier. Conversely, other commenters disputed the stated cost concerns, asserting that transitioning to FIGI would involve minimal operational adjustments and that long-term benefits would outweigh short-term challenges. Some commenters also pointed out that FIGI has already been adopted as a security identifier for certain U.S. regulatory reporting requirements. Certain commenters also highlighted the significant challenges smaller firms face under the existing regulatory requirements due to the costs associated with using CUSIP numbers.

After considering comments, and given the nature of the issues raised by commenters on the proposal to establish FIGI, as well as the notable divergence in commenters' views, the Agencies are not establishing FIGI as a joint standard in this rulemaking. This approach will provide the Agencies with the flexibility to consider what further action, if any, to take regarding FIGI either in a later joint Agency rulemaking or in each Agency's own individual rules (whether as part of implementing the FDTA or in other Agency rulemakings). This approach also will permit the Agencies to consider the differing views commenters expressed about the utility, benefits, and costs of FIGI relative to other financial instrument identifiers, including in any future Agency-specific action in the context of a specific collection of information. Not establishing FIGI as a common identifier in this rulemaking also provides additional time for the Agencies to monitor developments with respect to the use and adoption of FIGI and other financial instrument identifiers by market participants.

Certain commenters suggested that the Agencies consider establishing financial instrument identifiers other than FIGI, including CUSIP numbers, OTC ISIN, and ISO 24165—Digital Token Identifier (DTI). Some commenters also suggested that the Agencies consider exploring various alternative approaches, including, for example, seeking agreements with CUSIP Global Services and the American Bankers Association to aid more open access to CUSIP numbers/ISIN for specific use cases or the creation of a “CUSIP based FIGI.” These commenters offered various reasons why these should be included as financial instrument identifiers, in particular suggesting they were widely used or how they met various elements of the FDTA standards. The Agencies are not establishing these financial instrument identifiers at this time because, as with FIGI, further review into issues that are beyond the scope of this rulemaking is required to determine their appropriateness as a joint standard, including their utility, benefits, and costs. Given the concerns raised by commenters regarding FIGI, including commenters questioning whether any common financial instrument identifier was necessary, the Agencies are not establishing FIGI or any other common financial instrument identifier as a joint standard. Each implementing Agency retains the flexibility to consider whether to utilize these or other financial instrument standards as they each implement the joint standards during their individual Agency rulemakings. At that time, any implementing Agency that chooses to implement a financial instrument standard can seek public input.

For date fields, the Agencies proposed to establish the date as defined by ISO 8601 using the Basic format option (which minimizes the number of separators). 75 For example, the Basic format would appear as YYYYMMDD whereas the Extended format appears as YYYY-MM-DD. In the preamble to the proposed joint rule, the Agencies recognized that date and time information may be displayed on forms, web pages, user interfaces, and other media in other formats ( e.g., Month, Day, Year). However, the Agencies proposed that underlying machine-readable data should, to the extent feasible, follow the ISO 8601 format. The Agencies are establishing ISO 8601 as the date format in the joint standards but, having considered public comments, are not establishing the use of the Basic format option.

The Agencies received several comments on the proposed date codes standard. The majority of the commenters supported the proposal. One commenter, while generally supportive of the ISO 8601 standard, questioned the need for specifying use of the Basic format option. The commenter stated that the decision whether to use the Basic or Extended format, both of which are within ISO 8601, should be left to each Agency's individual discretion. The commenter stated that derivatives market participants have widely adopted use of the ISO 8601 Extended format in response to guidance issued by international authorities, including FSB and the International Organization of Securities Commissions, that recommended use of the Extended format for reporting details of over-the-counter derivatives transactions to regulators. The commenter expressed concern that mandating use of the Basic format could force entities in the derivatives market to undertake costly system changes for no apparent regulatory benefit, particularly given one of the Agencies already requires dates to be reported in Extended ISO 8601 format in accordance with the guidance issued by international authorities.

A few commenters opposed the ISO 8601 standard. One commenter expressed concern about the preamble language referencing the “underlying machine-readable data.” The commenter stated that this might constitute regulatory overreach if by “underlying” the Agencies meant the data as stored in internal databases. The commenter noted that in many cases, and for various reasons, these databases might use formats more aligned to rapid comparison such as the number of seconds since 01-01-1970. Another commenter expressed concern about the potential economic impact on entities currently using a different standard and recommended that the Agencies further analyze such costs before issuing the final joint rule.

The Agencies agree that there is not a need to specify the Basic format option in the joint standards and are therefore not establishing it as part of those standards. 76 As noted by the commenter, some Agencies currently utilize the Extended format and thus it may be disruptive for those Agencies, and entities that report information to those Agencies, to change to the Basic format. Because it is relatively straightforward to convert dates between Basic and Extended formats given the only difference between the two is the existence of separators, there is no need to specify the Basic format given this potential disruption. The Agencies believe the primary issue addressed by this standard is the order of the date components themselves such as YYYYMMDD, and varying use of Basic or Extended date formats will not significantly impede interoperability.

To address commenters' other concerns, the Agencies would also like to clarify the preamble language in the proposed joint rule regarding how underlying machine-readable data is maintained when displaying date and time in other formats on forms, web pages, user interfaces and other media. This language was in reference to how the Agencies maintain their own data. The final joint rule does not impose any standard on how reporting entities or other third-parties store data.

The Agencies recognize that any future adoption of the date codes standard by the Agencies in their Agency-specific rulemakings may result in entities incurring some costs to revise their existing systems. As discussed, the decision whether to mandate the use of any standard established by this final joint rule is left to the discretion of the individual Agencies. Accordingly, as discussed in section I.B above, the Agencies believe that the costs associated with adoption of the joint data standard can only be meaningfully addressed by each Agency during the Agency-specific rulemakings or other Agency action.

For identification of a State, possession, or military “state” of the United States of America or a geographic directional, the Agencies are establishing as proposed the U.S. Postal Service Abbreviations, as published in appendix B of Publication 28 “Postal Addressing Standards, Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service.”  77 For example, the standard would render “Alabama” as the two-character abbreviation, “AL,” and calls for the use of abbreviations for geographic directionals ( e.g., “N” for “North”).

The Agencies received several comments on the proposed standard, with the majority supporting the proposal. One commenter noted that long names, and not abbreviations, are widely used throughout the derivatives market and have been incorporated into industry standards. This commenter opposed the proposed standard in cases where long names are currently used for geographic directionals in over-the-counter derivatives transactions as it would require firms to incur the costs of updating their systems for no apparent regulatory benefit.

The Agencies have considered the comments and are establishing the States and geographical directional codes standard as proposed. Identification of a State, possession, military “state,” or geographic directional is widely used in collections that are subject to the FDTA. As compared to alternative numeric State codes, the standard established by this final joint rule is more widely used and is more conducive to use by both humans and machines. With regard to the costs that might be incurred by regulated entities in complying with the standard, as discussed in section I.B above, the Agencies have the ability to evaluate the appropriateness of mandating any particularized changes from current practices as part of their of the Agency-specific rulemakings or other Agency action implementing the joint standards.

For identification of countries, the Agencies are establishing as proposed the codes for countries and their subdivisions, as appropriate, as defined by the GENC standard. GENC, which was developed by the Country Codes Working Group of the Geospatial Intelligence Standards Working Group, specifies the U.S. Government profile of ISO 3166, “Codes for the Representation of Names of Countries and their Subdivisions.”  78 For example, the United States of America would be rendered in either the two-character abbreviation “US” or the three-character abbreviation “USA.” As noted in the preamble to the proposed joint rule, this profile addresses requirements unique to the U.S. Government for: restrictions in recognition of the national sovereignty of a country; identification and recognition of geopolitical entities not included in ISO 3166; and use of names of countries and country subdivisions that have been approved by the U.S. Board on Geographic Names.

The Agencies received several comments on the proposed standard. While many commenters supported the proposed standard, a few commenters opposed it. 79 Principally, these commenters were concerned that the GENC modifications to the ISO 3166 standard would be impractical to use in the context of derivatives transactions and would be disruptive to that market given the broad international adoption of the unmodified ISO 3166 standard. Similar to concerns raised in relation to other standards, these commenters expressed concern that mandating the GENC modifications would require industry to incur the costs of substantial system builds and adaptations. These commenters urged the Agencies to permit use of the ISO 3166 standard without modification. The commenters also stated that any change to the current format of a regulatory report should be subject to further cost-benefit analysis.

The Agencies have considered these comments but are not revising the proposed joint rule. The GENC standard is required to be used among Federal agencies and other entities in the United States and helps provide consistency and interoperability of references to geopolitical entities. 80 The Agencies recognize that subsequent adoption of the standard in an Agency-specific rulemaking could require some entities to incur additional system costs. However, the Agencies emphasize that this final joint rule does not mandate the use of any specific standard. Rather, the decision whether to require use of a standard identified in this final joint rule is left to each individual Agency in its Agency-specific rulemakings. Accordingly, the economic considerations can only be meaningfully addressed by each Agency during the Agency-specific rulemakings or other Agency action implementing the joint standards.

For identification of currencies, the Agencies are establishing as proposed the alphabetic currency code as defined by ISO 4217 Currency Codes. 81 Commenters generally expressed support for the proposed standard. 82 As noted in the preamble to the proposed joint rule, these internationally recognized codes are widely used and incorporated into many other data standards. This standard helps support interoperability, enable clarity, and reduce errors.

Standardizing the way in which information is transmitted to the Agencies can promote the interoperability of that information. The formats that the Agencies use to digitally receive collections of information are referred to as data transmission formats.

For certain collections, submitted information may refer to one or more schemas, taxonomies, or ontology models that describe the syntax, structure, or semantic meaning of the information. These can be used to validate and explain the information. A high-quality machine-readable description of the syntax and structure of a data asset allows for automated verification of the associated data asset. A high-quality machine-readable description of semantic meaning of a data asset ensures that the specific meaning remains clear as the data asset is transmitted to multiple parties. 83 Not all Agency collections of information have a schema and taxonomy associated with them, as a schema and taxonomy may not be appropriate in all circumstances. Further, a schema and taxonomy would not be required for all collections of information subject to the FDTA. The formats used to develop and publish schemas and taxonomies are referred to as schema and taxonomy formats.

Rather than proposing a specific data transmission or schema and taxonomy format, the proposed joint rule provided that, to the extent practicable, a data transmission or schema and taxonomy format should have the following properties derived from the requirements listed in section 124(c)(1)(B) of the Financial Stability Act:

Render data fully searchable and machine-readable;

Enable high quality data through schemas, with accompanying metadata documented in machine-readable taxonomy or ontology models, which clearly define the semantic meaning of the data, as defined by the underlying regulatory information collection requirements, as appropriate;

Ensure that a data element or data asset that exists to satisfy an underlying regulatory information collection requirement be consistently identified as such in associated machine-readable metadata; and

Be nonproprietary or available under an open license.

One of these properties is that, to the extent practicable, a data element or data asset that exists to satisfy an underlying regulatory information collection requirement must be consistently identified as such in associated machine-readable metadata. This property is set forth in section 124(c)(1)(B)(iii) of the Financial Stability Act. This means that, to the extent practicable and where collection of information is pursuant to regulatory requirements, a schema and taxonomy should include machine-readable metadata to track the applicable regulatory requirements. Applicable regulatory requirements should be easily identifiable for data assets that are collections of information subject to the PRA. To the extent practicable, Agencies may also identify applicable regulatory requirements on a data-element level.

The proposed joint rule stated that any data transmission or schema and taxonomy format that, to the extent practicable, has these properties would be consistent with this proposed joint standard. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking identified a number of existing data transmission formats that can be used in a method that satisfies these requirements, including Comma Separated Values (CSV) or other delimiter-separated files, eXtensible Markup Language (XML), Java Script Object Notation (JSON), and, to the extent it is used with a schema or a standard that permits it to be machine-readable, HyperText Markup Language (HTML) and Portable Document Format (PDF). 84 The Agencies also stated that XML Schema Definition (XSD), eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) Taxonomy, and JSON Schema are currently available schema and taxonomy formats that have the properties called for in the proposed joint data standard. As a result, the proposed joint standard referred to a list of properties rather than any specific data transmission or schema and taxonomy formats.

Some commenters expressed support for establishing data transmission or schema and taxonomy formats standards in this manner. These commenters stated that they believed that this approach would provide the most flexibility for new formats that develop over time and keep the joint standard technology neutral. They also highlighted the ability of the proposed principles-based data standard to meet current industry practices and believed that they support the aims of the FDTA.

Instead of the proposed properties-based joint standard, some commenters recommended the establishment of specific data transmission or schema and taxonomy formats. These commenters raised concerns that a principles-based approach would have a negative impact on the interoperability of the joint standards. These commenters recommended a number of particular standards, including both those discussed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking like CSV, JSON, XML, and XBRL, as well as others like the Algorithmic Contract Types Unified Standards, the Financial Industry Business Ontology, Universal Financial Industry Messaging Scheme ISO 20022, Common Domain Model (data standards), Financial Information eXchange Markup Language, FIX-Orchestra, FIX-TagValue encoding, Financial products Markup Language, and Simple Binary Encoding. One of these commenters suggested a number of other standards, including Multiple Vocabulary Facility; Languages Countries and Codes; Commons Ontology Library; Pedigree and Provenance Model and Notation; and Distributed Ontology, Model and Specification Language, although the commenter noted that these standards are not tailored to financial data. This commenter also recommended several other prospective standards that are currently under development, specifically the Data Products Ontology, Standard Business Report Model, and Statistical Metadata Interoperability.

The Agencies considered these comments recommending specific data transmission or schema and taxonomy formats and determined that establishing a joint standard that refers to a list of properties rather than any specific data transmission or schema and taxonomy formats would be appropriate for several reasons. While the Agencies agree that interoperability is an important consideration, given that the FDTA specifically directs the Agencies to “seek to promote interoperability of financial regulatory data across members of the FSOC” when establishing the joint standards, 85 the interoperability benefits of greater specificity in the joint standards must also be balanced against the practicality of those standards. The principles-based approach has significant benefits that were recognized by other commenters. For example, this approach gives the Agencies the flexibility to adopt specific, fit-to-purpose formats and also adopt new formats as they are developed, provided that the new formats have the listed properties. Further, because the list of properties is derived from the requirements listed in section 124(c)(1)(B) of the Financial Stability Act, any data transmission or schema and taxonomy format data standards with these properties would satisfy the FDTA's related requirements and would likely include many of the formats identified by commenters and acknowledged by the Agencies in the preamble to the proposed joint standard. Further, while one commenter disagreed, the Agencies nonetheless believe that data transmission or schema and taxonomy formats that have these properties are likely to be interoperable with each other. For example, as discussed above, to meet the joint standard an Agency must determine that a data element or data asset that exists to satisfy an underlying regulatory information collection requirement be consistently identified as such in associated machine-readable metadata to the extent practicable. This principle could lead different Agencies to determine the same data transmission or schema and taxonomy standard is appropriate when implementing the joint standards. Alternatively, different Agencies could determine, as one commenter suggested, different standards that are interoperable with each other are appropriate when implementing the joint standards.

Some commenters stated that it would not be appropriate to establish certain formats expressly identified by the Agencies in the preamble to the proposed joint standard. One commenter suggested that PDF, and PDF/A do not meet the requirements of the FDTA. Other commenters asserted that JSON, XML, and CSV do not meet the requirements of the FDTA unless accompanied by a complete taxonomy. As discussed above, the Agencies contemplated that certain formats may only meet the requirements of the FDTA in certain circumstances. The preamble to the proposed joint rule acknowledged that there are currently various data transmission formats that generally have properties that would be consistent with the final joint standard. For example, there are methods of using JSON, XML, PDF/A, and CSV in a manner that satisfies these joint standards.

Other commenters stated that individual collections of information that may use specific data transmission or schema and taxonomy formats should not impose new burdens or unnecessary costs. One commenter requested clarity regarding whether the proposed properties-based approach for data transmission or schema and taxonomy formats should, to the extent practicable, be applicable to reporting for every collection of information. Another commenter requested that all collections of information required by the Agencies include a supporting schema or taxonomy. One commenter specifically requested that the Agencies refrain from altering, as applicable to credit unions, the current data standards that apply to the 5300 Call Report or 4501A Profile. One commenter requested clarification whether Agencies' filing systems meet the proposed joint rule's data transmission principles, or whether any of these reporting channels will need to be updated once the joint data standards are finalized. As discussed in section I.B above, the Agencies emphasize that this final joint rule does not mandate the use of any specific standard or impose any immediate changes to collections of information. Rather, the application of the joint standards to specific collections of information, if determined by an Agency to be appropriate to a specific collection of information, would take effect through adoption by an Agency of an Agency-specific rulemaking or other action.

Another commenter recommended the replacement of the terms “data transmission format” and “schema and taxonomy format” with the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) Model (ISO/International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 7498), a seven-layer model that describes messaging systems. The Agencies have taken the comments under consideration, and determined that the terms “data transmission format” and “schema and taxonomy format” are more meaningful to a broader audience than using “OSI Layer 6,” which requires familiarity with the OSI Model to understand.

One commenter requested that the Agencies move from report-based information collections to a data-centric methodology. The joint rulemaking is meant to establish joint data standards for collections of information, but is not meant to effectuate a complete paradigm shift in how individual Agencies collect information. Therefore, the Agencies believe the commenter's request is beyond the scope of the final joint rule.

Several commenters expressed support for the inclusion of the language “to the extent practicable” in the data transmission and schema and taxonomy format data standards. This is because of the broad market coverage of the formats and given the four properties may not be applicable to every collection of information currently. One commenter recommended that the final joint rule remove this language in order to prevent the Agencies from selectively choosing which data collections will include data transmission and schema and taxonomy format standards, which could limit the benefits of data standardization. The Agencies have considered these comments and determined to include the language “to the extent practicable” in the data transmission and schema and taxonomy format data standards as proposed, given the FDTA's requirement that the standards ultimately adopted by the Agencies be compatible with the joint standards to the extent feasible and have the characteristics embodied by the four properties called for in the established data transmission and schema and taxonomy standard to the extent practicable.

One commenter was supportive of not establishing specific taxonomy standards, but requested further analysis on structured data formats and various format types discussed in the proposed joint rule. As discussed in section I.B above, the Agencies emphasize that this final joint rule does not mandate the use of any specific standard or impose any immediate changes to collections of information. Rather, the application of the joint standards to specific collections of information would take effect through adoption by an Agency of an Agency-specific rulemaking or other action. To the extent that an individual Agency proposes to adopt a particular data transmission and schema and taxonomy format, that Agency may conduct further analysis on particular structured data formats and format types.

Another commenter recommended that the Agencies limit taxonomy styles and provide recommendations on how to harmonize taxonomies, led by the Agencies' individual Offices of the Chief Data Officer in collaboration to identify consistent data fields and tags across Agencies. This comment is outside the scope of the final joint rule. To the extent that an individual Agency proposes to adopt a particular data transmission and schema and taxonomy format that implicates the concerns raised in its Agency-specific rulemaking, it may conduct further analysis on particular structured data formats and format types.

One commenter expressed concern that individual Agency rules may impose specific taxonomies for individual information collections and requested that the final joint rule provide clarification to avoid the establishment of complex overlapping taxonomies for future Agency-specific rulemakings. The purpose of the four properties called for in the data transmission and schema and taxonomy standard is to help coordinate those standards among the Agencies in a way that is consistent with the requirements of the FDTA. When implementing the joint standard, the Agencies are required to consider the applicability, feasibility, practicability, scaling, minimization of disruption to affected persons, and tailoring, as specified in the FDTA. This provides a framework for each Agency, in its implementation of the joint standards, to consider appropriate taxonomies, if any, and to coordinate with the other Agencies as appropriate on these determinations.

In the proposed joint rule, the Agencies invited comment on whether to establish a joint standard for accounting and reporting taxonomies and whether to establish a standard for census tracts, specifically identifying the 11-digit format census tract code defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, which includes a 5-digit Federal Information Processing Standards country code prefix followed by a 6-digit tract code with no decimals and allows for leading or trailing zeros as applicable. The Agencies, however, did not propose either standard and, after considering the comments, are not establishing either one in the final joint standards.

As discussed in the proposed joint rule, the FDTA does not explicitly require the establishment of specific taxonomies as joint standards. Further, the Agencies stated that it is not clear whether the establishment of specific taxonomies is necessary to enable high quality data, given that the use of any taxonomy would further this objective. Nonetheless, the Agencies requested comment on the following two options: (option 1) whether to establish a joint standard for taxonomies based on certain properties and, if so, the properties that should be set forth in the joint standard; or (option 2) whether to establish specific taxonomies and, if so, the taxonomies that should be set forth in the joint standard (such as the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (FFIEC Call Report) Taxonomy (FFIEC Call Report Taxonomy), the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)'s U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) Financial Reporting Taxonomy (U.S. GAAP Taxonomy), and the International Accounting Standards Board's International Financial Reporting Standards Taxonomy (IFRS Taxonomy) or other specific taxonomies). The Agencies also requested comment on use of the term “taxonomy” and whether that term should be defined by rule and, if so, how it should be defined.

Some commenters supported option 1. One of these commenters recommended establishing a joint standard for taxonomies based on principles with accompanying appropriate metadata that ensure semantic richness and interoperability. Another commenter recommended establishing joint standards for taxonomies because doing so would harmonize the meaning of data standards across the Agencies, thereby reducing inconsistent or isolated expressions of common data points or datasets. By contrast, other commenters opposed option 1. One commenter noted the difficulty of responding to option 1 without knowing the specific properties that would govern the joint standard for taxonomies. Another commenter opposed option 1 and option 2 on the grounds that the Agencies should retain flexibility to adopt rules suitable to the municipal market, which is characterized by significant variance and complexity ( e.g., the use of multiple accounting standards) in financial reporting.

As an example of this complexity, one commenter noted that local government entities in certain jurisdictions have specific reporting obligations under Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) and GAAP standards. This commenter asked whether one particular statutory criterion for data standards ( i.e., for such data standards to be, to the extent practicable, “consistent with and implement applicable accounting and reporting principles”) would require a potentially burdensome process of integrating GASB and GAAP standards into local government annual reporting systems. 86 Another commenter noted that non-profit borrowers use FASB guidance rather than GASB guidance for financial reporting. A different commenter expressed concern that the discussion of taxonomies in the proposed joint rule did not specify how non-GAAP frameworks ( e.g., cash basis and regulatory accounting methods) unique to municipal financial reporting would be incorporated alongside the GAAP standard. Conversely, one commenter stated that the GAAP framework should underpin any established accounting and reporting principles, and that any different approach could cause inconsistency, increased burden, and decreased transparency.

One commenter recommended an approach consistent with option 2, suggesting that the Agencies focus on the establishment of domain or topic-specific taxonomies (including, for example, the U.S. GAAP taxonomy as the established taxonomy standard for GAAP-based reporting) in order to promote consistency and data interoperability. By contrast, several commenters opposed option 2. One such commenter agreed with the Agencies' decision not to propose specific taxonomies, stating that this would preserve flexibility for reporting entities. Another commenter stated that the Agencies should not establish any new, uniform taxonomies due to the variance in terms used in financial reporting. A different commenter opposed option 2 because the example taxonomies discussed in the proposed joint rule ( i.e., the FFIEC Call Report Taxonomy, the U.S. GAAP Taxonomy, and the IFRS Taxonomy) would be unsuitable for municipalities to use in their financial reporting. Another commenter opposed option 2 on the same grounds as it opposed option 1 ( i.e., because the Agencies should retain flexibility to adopt rules suitable to the municipal market, which is characterized by significant variance and complexity). A different commenter, while not expressly opining on option 2, stated that the use of the U.S. GAAP taxonomy in the final joint rule could cause confusion when developing standards for State and local governments (some of which use a non-GAAP basis of accounting for financial statements), and recommended using a taxonomy developed by the GASB in the joint and Agency-specific rules.

As to the question of whether, and if so, how, the word “taxonomy” should be defined, some commenters supported defining “taxonomy.” One of these commenters stated that the meaning of the term “taxonomy” as used within the proposed joint rule was unclear, and recommended defining the term to ensure stakeholders do not misconstrue its intended scope. Another commenter recommended defining “taxonomy” to differentiate it from the term “schema” and proposed the following definition for the term “taxonomy”: “[A] structured system for classifying and organizing concepts within a specific domain, ranging from simple glossaries to complex ontologies that define semantic relationships between concepts.” Similarly, another commenter recommended defining “taxonomy” to ensure consistent application of the joint standards, and provided two potential items for inclusion in the term “taxonomy”—“the systematic classification of data into categories and subcategories” or “a formal structure of data into data types, categories, and subjects.” By contrast, at least one commenter opposed defining the term “taxonomy” at the joint rulemaking stage to preserve flexibility for individual Agencies.

As discussed above and in the proposal, the FDTA does not explicitly require the establishment of specific taxonomies as joint standards. Further, it remains unclear whether the establishment of specific taxonomies is necessary to enable high quality data, given that the use of any taxonomy would further this objective. Given these considerations, and in light of commenters' mixed reactions to option 1 and option 2, the Agencies have determined not to establish any taxonomies or attributes for taxonomies as a joint standard in the final joint rule.

Several of the commenters who supported option 1 or option 2 based their support, in part, on the notion that the implementing Agencies should use existing taxonomies, such as the U.S. GAAP Taxonomy, when they apply data standards to specific information collections. While any of the Agencies may use existing taxonomies for specific information collections (should any such existing taxonomy align with the information collection in question), establishing specific taxonomies or specific attributes for taxonomies at the joint rulemaking stage is not necessary for implementing Agencies to use existing taxonomies at the Agency-specific rulemaking stage. Further, even without establishing such a joint standard, an Agency may still select taxonomies that facilitate data sharing, interoperability, and consistency ( i.e., the priorities some supporting commenters cited) in its Agency-specific rulemaking. 87

In addition, after considering comments, the Agencies have determined not to define the term “taxonomy” at the joint rulemaking stage, as the term appears to be well-understood among market participants, at least in the context used in our joint standards. As such, the absence of a definition for the term “taxonomy” will not result in confusion about the standards established in this rule.

Lastly, the Agencies are not establishing any joint standard relating to census tracts. While a few commenters were supportive of establishing this standard, particularly to the extent data must already be tracked by census tract, 88 in light of the limited engagement on this standard by commenters and its limited use in current Agency collections of information, the Agencies have determined not to establish joint standards related to census tracts at this time.

The effective date for the final joint rule is October 1, 2026, which is the first day of the next calendar quarter that begins at least 60 days after the final joint rule is published in the Federal Register . This is as proposed, and the Agencies received no comments on this aspect of the proposal. As noted above, most Agencies are required to separately adopt data standards for certain collections of information. The joint standards would take effect through adoption by implementing Agencies through the Agency-specific rulemakings, not the final joint rule. The effective date for the final joint rule will not change any reporting requirements without further action by the Agencies.

If any of the provisions of these rules, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or application of such provisions to other persons or circumstances that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this action is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, as amended, and therefore it was not subject to E.O. 12866 review. This final joint rule is also not an E.O. 14192 regulatory action.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995  89 (PRA) states that no agency may conduct or sponsor, nor is the respondent required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OCC has reviewed this final joint rule and determined that it does not create any information collection or revise any existing collection of information. Accordingly, no PRA submissions to OMB will be made with respect to the data standards established by the final joint rule.

In accordance with the PRA, 90 the Board may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a valid OMB control number. While certain provisions of the final joint rule reference “collections of information” within the meaning of the PRA, the Board reviewed the final joint rule under the authority delegated to the Board by the OMB and determined that it contains no collections of information under the PRA. 91 Accordingly, there is no paperwork burden associated with the final joint rule.

The PRA  92 provides that no agency may conduct or sponsor, nor is the respondent required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The FDIC reviewed this final joint rule and determined that it does not create any new information collection or revise any existing collection of information. Accordingly, the FDIC will not make PRA submissions to OMB with respect to this final joint rule.

The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) requires that the OMB approve all collections of information by a Federal agency from the public before they can be implemented. Respondents are not required to respond to any collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. While certain provisions of the final joint rule reference “collections of information” within the meaning of the PRA, NCUA reviewed the final joint rule and determined that it does not create any new information collection or revise any existing information collection as defined by the PRA.

This final joint rule does not contain any information collection requirements as defined in the PRA, and establishes data standards that will not change existing reporting requirements. Moreover, the FDTA does not impose new information collection requirements on an Agency or to make additional information publicly available. Accordingly, the CFPB has not prepared a PRA submission to OMB with respect to the data standards established by the final joint rule.

The PRA requires that regulations involving the collection of information receive clearance from OMB. The final joint rule contains no such collection of information requiring OMB approval under the PRA. Therefore, no information has been submitted by FHFA to OMB for review.

The PRA  93 imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies, including the CFTC, in connection with conducting or sponsoring any collection of information as defined by the PRA. Under the PRA, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. The final joint rule does not contain a collection of information, as defined in the PRA, and will not change existing reporting obligations on the part of financial entities. As a result, the CFTC has determined that the final joint rule does not create any information collection or revise any existing collection of information. Accordingly, the CFTC has not prepared a PRA submission to OMB with respect to the data standards established by the final joint rule.

The final joint rule does not contain any collection of information requirements as defined by the PRA. 94 The data standards established by the final joint rule will not change existing reporting obligations. Furthermore, as noted above, the FDTA does not impose new information collection requirements ( i.e., it does not require an Agency to collect or make publicly available additional information that the Agency was not already collecting or making publicly available prior to enactment of the FDTA). Accordingly, the SEC has not prepared a PRA submission to OMB with respect to the data standards established by the final joint rule.

The PRA provides that no agency may conduct or sponsor, nor is the respondent required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The Treasury reviewed this final joint rule and determined that it does not create any information collection or revise any existing collection of information. Accordingly, no PRA submissions to OMB will be made with respect to this proposed rule.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)  95 requires an agency, in connection with a rule, to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis describing the impact of the rule on small entities (defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) for purposes of the RFA to include commercial banks and savings institutions with total assets of $850 million or less and trust companies with total assets of $47 million or less). However, under section 605(b) of the RFA, this analysis is not required if an agency certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and publishes its certification and a short explanatory statement in the Federal Register along with its rule.

The OCC currently supervises approximately 609 small entities. 96 In general, the OCC classifies the economic impact on an individual small entity as significant if the total estimated impact in one year is greater than 5 percent of the small entity's total annual salaries and benefits or greater than 2.5 percent of the small entity's total non-interest expense. Furthermore, the OCC considers 5 percent or more of OCC-supervised small entities to be a substantial number. Thus, at present, 30 OCC-supervised small entities will constitute a substantial number.

This final rulemaking imposes no new mandates, and thus $0 in direct costs, on affected OCC-supervised institutions. Therefore, the OCC finds that the final joint rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 97

The RFA generally requires that, in connection with a final rulemaking, an agency prepare and make available a final regulatory flexibility analysis describing the impact of the final joint rule on small entities. 98 However, a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required if the agency certifies that the final joint rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

For the reasons described below and under section 605(b) of the RFA, the Board certifies that the final joint rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

In connection with the proposed joint rule, the Board stated that it believed the proposal would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Nevertheless, the Board published and invited comment on an initial regulatory flexibility analysis of the proposed joint rule. No comments were received on the Board's initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

The Agencies are finalizing the joint rule to establish data standards to promote interoperability of financial regulatory data across these Agencies. The standards established pursuant to this joint rule will later be considered for potential incorporation (to the extent feasible) into data standards to be adopted for certain collections of information in separate rulemakings by the Agencies or through other actions taken by the Agencies.

The Board has considered whether to conduct a final regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with the final rule. However, the final joint rule only applies to the Agencies themselves—it does not apply to any other entities, including “small entit[ies]” as defined in the RFA. 99 Therefore, the final joint rule includes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements applicable to any small entity for purposes of the RFA.

As noted above, the final joint rule does not apply to any small entity for purposes of the RFA. In light of the foregoing, the Board certifies that the final joint rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The RFA generally requires an agency, in connection with a final joint rule, to prepare and make available for public comment a final regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the impact of the final joint rule on small entities. 100 However, a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required if the agency certifies that the final joint rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBA has defined “small entities” to include banking organizations with total assets of less than or equal to $850 million. 101 Generally, the FDIC considers a significant economic impact to be a quantified effect in excess of 5 percent of total annual salaries and benefits or 2.5 percent of total noninterest expenses. The FDIC believes that effects in excess of one or more of these thresholds typically represent significant economic impacts for FDIC-supervised institutions. As of December 31, 2025, the FDIC supervises 2,744 insured depository institutions, of which 2,011 institutions would be considered a “small entity” for purposes of the RFA. 102

The final joint rule establishes data standards for collections of information reported to the Agencies, as mandated by the FDTA. The Agencies expect the establishment of these data standards to promote the interoperability of the reported information and to reduce the costs to transmit or share information among the Agencies. The FDIC expects these reduced costs to improve the FDIC's ability to plan, coordinate and evaluate future regulatory and supervisory actions.

The final joint rule imposes some costs on the FDIC to update its current systems to match the proposed standards. The final joint rule does not create additional requirements for, nor does it impose any burden on, private individuals, businesses, organizations, communities, or non-Federal governmental entities. The final joint rule is unlikely to have any substantive effects on financial market activity or the U.S. economy. In light of the foregoing, the FDIC certifies that the final joint rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

The RFA  103 generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency makes such a certification, it shall publish the certification at the time of publication of either the proposed rule or the final joint rule, along with a statement providing the factual basis for such certification. 104 For purposes of this analysis, NCUA considers small credit unions to be those having under $100 million in assets. 105 NCUA fully considered the potential economic impacts of the regulatory amendments on small credit unions.

The final joint rule does not impose new, or modify existing, requirements resulting in the imposition of an economic cost. As discussed, the final joint rule establishes joint standards that will then separately be adopted in Agency-specific rulemakings. The Agency-specific rulemaking might therefore impose some costs on “financial entities under the jurisdiction of” the Agencies, and these will be addressed in the preambles of the individual rules. The Agency-specific rules will generally be subject to the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, allowing the public opportunity to provide comment, including on the potential economic impacts. NCUA notes that the FDTA confers it with authority to mitigate these potential costs. Specifically, section 5873 of the FDTA provides that NCUA: (1) may scale data reporting requirements to reduce any unjustified burden on smaller regulated entities and (2) must seek to minimize disruptive changes to the persons affected by the regulations. Further, section 5891(c) of the FDTA clarifies that nothing in the FDTA may be construed to prohibit an Agency from tailoring the data standards it adopts in its Agency-specific rulemaking. NCUA will take these authorities into consideration in the development of its Agency-specific rule.

Accordingly, NCUA certifies the final joint rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit unions.

The RFA as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act of 1996 requires each agency to consider the potential impact of its regulations on small entities, including small businesses, small governmental units, and small not for profit organizations. The RFA defines a “small business” as a business that meets the size standard developed by the SBA pursuant to the Small Business Act.

The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) of any rule subject to notice-and-comment requirements, unless the agency certifies that the proposed or final rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The CFPB is also subject to certain additional procedures under the RFA involving the convening of a panel to consult with small entity representatives prior to proposing a rule for which an IRFA is required.

The CFPB previously determined that an IRFA was not required for the proposed joint rule. 106 The Director of the CFPB certified, pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, 107 that the proposed joint rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The CFPB included this certification in section IV.C of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The CFPB continues to believe that there will not be a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as a result of the final joint rule. As discussed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the data standards established by the final joint rule will not change existing reporting obligations. The final joint rule does not identify covered persons nor does the final joint rule impose that any such covered persons implement any standards as a direct consequence of the final joint rule. Therefore, while the final joint rule establishes data standards for the agencies to adopt in subsequent individual rulemakings, it does not impose any requirements upon covered persons, including small entities. Instead, after the joint standards are established, the FDTA directs the CFPB to adopt individual rules for specified collections of information that incorporate and ensure compatibility with, to the extent feasible, the joint standards. Accordingly, the Acting Director of the CFPB certifies that the final joint rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The RFA requires that a regulation that has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, small businesses, or small organizations must include an analysis describing the regulation's impact on small entities. FHFA need not undertake such an analysis if the Agency has certified that the regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. FHFA has considered the impact of the final joint rule under the RFA and FHFA certifies that the final joint rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the regulation applies only to the Agencies themselves, it does not apply to any other entities, including small entities.

The RFA requires agencies to consider whether the rules they propose will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and, if so, provide a regulatory flexibility analysis with respect to such impact. 108 The CFTC included this certification in section IV.C of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Commenters did not submit comments regarding the CFTC's certification, and the CFTC continues to believe that there will not be a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as a result of the final joint rule. The data standards established by the final joint rule do not change existing reporting obligations and collections of information. Accordingly, the Chairman, on behalf of the CFTC, certifies that the final joint rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The SEC certified, pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, 109 that the proposed joint rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SEC included this certification in section IV.C of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Commenters did not respond to the SEC's requests for comment regarding the SEC's certification, and the SEC continues to believe that there will not be a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as a result of the final joint rule. As discussed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the data standards established by the final joint rule will not change existing reporting obligations. Instead, after the joint standards are established, the FDTA directs the SEC to adopt individual rules for specified collections of information that incorporate and ensure compatibility with, to the extent feasible, the joint standards. Accordingly, the SEC certifies that the final joint rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare an IRFA and a FRFA of any rule subject to notice and comment requirements, unless the agency certifies that the proposed or final joint rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Treasury included this certification in section IV.C of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Commenters did not submit comments regarding Treasury's certification, and Treasury continues to believe that there will not be a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as a result of the final joint rule.

The Department of the Treasury hereby certifies that this final joint rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based on the fact that this rule is limited to establishing data standards to promote interoperability of financial regulatory data across the Agencies. The rule will not impose costs on small businesses other than the time it may take to read and understand the regulations.

Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act requires Federal banking agencies to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. 110 The Federal banking agencies invited comments regarding the use of plain language but did not receive any relevant comments. The Federal banking agencies sought to clearly state the provisions of this rule in a simple and straightforward manner, using plain language as much as possible.

The adoption of the common rule by the Agencies, as modified by the Agency-specific text, is set forth below:

For the reasons set forth in the common preamble and under the authority of 12 U.S.C. 5334, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency amends chapter I of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

For the reasons set forth in the common preamble, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System amends part 262 of subchapter A of chapter II of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

For the reasons set forth in the common preamble, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation amends part 304 of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

For the reasons set forth in the common preamble, the National Credit Union Administration amends chapter VII of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

For the reasons set forth in the common preamble, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau amends chapter X of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

For the reasons set forth in the common preamble, and under the authority of 12 U.S.C. 4526, the Federal Housing Finance Agency amends subchapter B of chapter XII of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

For the reasons set forth in the common preamble, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission amends 17 CFR part 140 as follows:

On October 21, 2025, the Board issued its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to codify the elimination of reputation risk from its supervisory framework. 1 Among other things, the proposed rule would also have prohibited the agency from requiring, instructing, or encouraging an institution to close an account, to refrain from providing an account, product, or service, or to modify or terminate any product or service on the basis of a person or entity's political, social, cultural, or religious views or beliefs, constitutionally protected speech, or solely on the basis of politically disfavored but lawful business activities perceived to present reputation risk. 2 The proposed rule further would restrict the NCUA from taking any supervisory action or other adverse action against a credit union, a group of credit unions, or the institution-affiliated parties of any credit union that is designed to punish or discourage an individual or group from engaging in any lawful political, social, cultural, or religious activities, constitutionally protected speech, or, for political reasons, lawful business activities that the agency or its personnel disagree with or disfavor. Interested readers may refer to the proposed rule preamble for a more detailed overview of the background on this rulemaking. The Board is now finalizing the proposal.

The Board is issuing this final rule pursuant to its authority under the Federal Credit Union (FCU) Act. Under the FCU Act, NCUA is the chartering and supervisory authority for FCUs and the federal supervisory authority for federally insured credit unions (FICUs). 3 The FCU Act grants NCUA a broad mandate to issue regulations governing both FCUs and all FICUs. Section 120 of the FCU Act is a general grant of regulatory authority and authorizes the Board to prescribe rules and regulations for the administration of the FCU Act. 4 Section 207 of the FCU Act is a specific grant of authority over share insurance coverage, conservatorships, and liquidations. 5 Section 209 of the FCU Act is a plenary grant of regulatory authority to issue rules and regulations necessary or appropriate to carry out its role as share insurer for all FICUs. 6 Accordingly, the FCU Act grants the Board broad rulemaking authority to ensure that the federally insured credit union industry and the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (Share Insurance Fund) remain safe and sound.

Based on the legal authorities set forth previously, the subjectivity of reputation risk, the limited value of reputational risk at identifying risks to safety and soundness or other statutory mandates, and the potential for distracting examiners and institutions from examining or managing core financial and operational risks, the agency now codifies the removal of reputation risk from its supervisory framework and NCUA's regulations.

The notice of proposed rulemaking preceding this rule affirmed the agency's commitment to eliminating subjective considerations from its extensive supervisory framework  7 following the issuance of Letter to Credit Unions 25-CU-05 “Elimination of Reputation Risk. 8 In response, the NCUA received 56 comments from individual FICUs, state and regional credit union organizations, credit union trade organizations, credit union consulting services providers, and individuals. 9 Approximately 21 of the comments were form letters sharing identical first paragraphs and similar supports to those made in the non-form comment letters agreeing with the Board's decision to remove reputation risk from the NCUA's supervisory program. 10

The agency received three comments opposing the NPRM. Two were non-responsive, 11 while one comment was in direct substantive opposition to the proposed rule, citing extreme weather events, a current consideration for reputation risk, as an early warning system for emerging stress on credit unions. 12

The Board believes NCUA's supervisory framework is comprehensive without speculation on whether weather-related risks will create safety and soundness issues. By removing reputation risk as a subjective component of the examination, NCUA is focusing its exams on objective risk factors, like financial indicators and trends and compliance with laws and regulations. 13 The Board is focused on the availability of existing objective frameworks for operational or transactional risks unrelated to an institution's operational condition and reorienting financial supervision toward measurable realities—credit, liquidity, and earnings risk—rather than speculation surrounding public perception.

On balance, the comments received were largely in favor of the removal of reputation risk from the NCUA's supervisory framework. The Board believes that reputational considerations are inherently subjective and rarely manifest in objective risk. The Board views objective risks as those that, based on objective facts and sound reasoning, have or could result in financial losses, an unsafe or unsound condition, or a violation of a banking or credit union-related law or regulation. Agency policies require examiners to complete exams that are tailored to focus on identifying and addressing those objective material risks.

NCUA is responsible for regulating and supervising all FICUs, including for safety and soundness principles. 14 In furtherance of these objectives, the agency's supervision should focus on concrete, material risks and more objective criteria directly related to applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. In the agency's experience, using reputation risk in its supervisory process does not further this mission.

Commenters recommended that the Board consider amending proposed 12 CFR 791.22(g) to prohibit supervisory actions motivated by the disagreement or disapproval of any agency official or employee, not merely the views of the assigned supervisor. Proposed paragraph (g) stated that the agency will not “take any supervisory action or other adverse action against an institution, a group of institutions, or the institution-affiliated parties of any institution that is designed to punish or discourage an individual or group from engaging in any lawful political, social, cultural, or religious activities, constitutionally protected speech, or, for political reasons, lawful business activities that the supervisor disagrees with or disfavors.” Some commenters requested that this prohibition be expanded to cover all agency personnel, not just supervisors. Similarly, another commenter suggested that the prohibition should be extended to prohibit any attempt to discourage lawful political or religious activity regardless of what the supervisor thinks about the activity.

The Board did not intend this provision to be read so narrowly as to only cover the views of supervisory staff as compared to the views of other agency staff. In response to the concerns expressed by commenters, and to ensure the agency's standards remain aligned with those of other financial regulators, the NCUA is changing the wording in the final rule to cover lawful political, social, cultural, or religious activities, constitutionally protected speech, or, for political reasons, lawful business activities that are disfavored by the agency or any of its personnel. This wording is to clarify that it does not matter whether the bias comes from the head of the agency or from an individual examiner, the bias is not a permissible basis for agency action.

The Board proposed to define “reputation risk” as the risk, regardless of how the risk is labeled by the institution or by the agency, that an action or activity, or combination of actions or activities, or lack of actions or activities, of an institution could negatively impact public perception of the institution for reasons unrelated to the current or future financial and operational condition of the institution. 15 The NCUA received comments on whether the definition of “reputation risk” should include the phrase “operational” in the phrase “for reasons not clearly and directly related to the financial condition of the institution.” Some commenters believed that the phrase could be used to evade the intention of the rule to allow some consideration of reputation risk, while others believe the proposed definition could create supervisory blind spots.

Several commenters recommended that the proposed definition of reputation risk be altered to remove the phrase “for reasons not clearly and directly related to the financial condition of the institution.” However, the agency believes this phrase is necessary to maintain NCUA's ability to address public concerns that directly relate to an institution's financial condition and solvency because those concerns can lead to runs or losses to the Share Insurance Fund. Unlike public concerns about an institution doing business with politically controversial people or entities, concerns about an institution's financial condition have been shown repeatedly to lead to a direct negative impact on the institution that can cause failure.

The Board believes the NCUA's supervisory framework is comprehensive without speculation on event-specific risks creating safety and soundness issues. By removing reputation risk as a subjective component of the examination, NCUA is focusing its exams on objective risk factors, like financial indicators and trends and compliance with laws and regulations. The Board acknowledges that operational risk is a significant concern for institutions. Public perception that a credit union could be susceptible to a breakdown in the provision of services due to operational issues could have a direct impact on members' willingness to do business with a credit union and thus on the institution's financial solvency.

Acknowledging the comments received, and to ensure the agency's standards remain aligned with those of other financial regulators, the Board decided to add “operational” into the final rule such that the definition of “reputation risk” will be “any risk, regardless of how the risk is labeled by the institution or regulators, that an action or activity, or combination of actions or activities, or lack of actions or activities, of an institution could negatively impact public perception of the institution for reasons not clearly and directly related to the financial or operational condition of the institution.”

“Adverse action,” as defined by the proposed rule, included the provision of negative feedback, including written feedback in a report of examination, a document of resolution, oral feedback, or an enforcement action. This definition would only apply to NCUA-initiated adverse actions. NCUA will often jointly examine federally insured, state-chartered credit unions (FISCUs) along with the state regulator. In these instances, the state regulator generally will take the lead in issuing the report of examination and any corrective action. If the state regulator elects to examine for reputation risk, NCUA examiners will not participate in these discussions or enforce any resulting supervisory actions taken by the state regulator. A commenter noted the need for close consultation and coordination with state-regulators in order to minimize the burden to FISCUs and assure mutual understanding of this rule's impact. The NCUA has communicated its prohibition on examining for reputation risk and related concepts both publicly, including with state supervisory authorities, and internally. 16

Furthermore, adverse action encompassed any NCUA-led action of any agency employee, including any communication characterized as informal or preliminary. A downgrade (or contribution to a downgrade) of any supervisory rating, including a rating assigned under NCUA's CAMELS ratings system, 17 also would constitute an “adverse action” under the proposed rule. Further, an approval or denial of a filing, or an imposition of a discretionary supervisory action under prompt corrective action, on the basis of “reputation risk” would constitute an “adverse action” under the proposed rule, except where federal law requires consideration of reputation-related criteria. This includes any burdensome requirements placed on an approval, the introduction of additional approval requirements, or any other heightened requirements or emphasis on an activity or change.

The agency also included a general “catch-all” for any other actions, including approval or denial of applications, waivers, and other agency actions or decisions for any party, that could impact the party. This catch-all is meant to include actions such as decisions on applications for waivers, applications to engage in certain business activities for which supervisory permission is required, or other regulatory decisions affecting institutions. The Board adopts these definitions without change.

The Board proposed, “doing business with” in the rule to be construed broadly and to include both business relationships with credit union members, accountholders, and with third-party service providers. It is also intended to include the relationship of an institution with organizations or individuals that the institution is providing with charitable donations or services. This term is intended to include both existing business relationships and prospective business relations. It is worth noting that one commenter suggested clarifying that this prohibition applies to Credit Union Service Organizations (CUSOs). The NCUA conducts reviews of CUSOs in accordance with 12 CFR part 712. 18 The Board believes the expanded definition of reputation risk and prohibitions of 12 CFR 791.22 communicate that the prohibition on the consideration of reputation risk applies to all agency personnel and to the examination of their service providers. 19 Thus, the intended scope of the rule is broad. However, to avoid doubt, the Board further clarifies that adverse actions against CUSOs on the basis of reputation risk, and examination for or consideration of reputation risk, as defined herein, are all prohibited for all agency personnel and service providers. The term “institution-affiliated party” was proposed to be identical with the definition at 12 U.S.C. 1786(r). Commenters accepted this definition; however, several commented that a distinction should be drawn between using the supervisory process to conclude a reputation risk exists and a supervisor's expectation that a credit union itself evaluates the potential for reputation risk and make informed decisions as to how to manage those risks. One suggested the NCUA continue to affirm credit unions must have the flexibility to enter and exit relationships as their member-owners see fit. The Board affirms that credit unions retain the ability to act as their member-owners see fit, provided the person (or institution-affiliated party) is not prohibited or the action doesn`t otherwise violate a law or regulation, and adopts this definition without change.

Finally, as noted in the proposed rule, regulations codified in 12 CFR part 717 refer to reputation risk concerning certain identity theft prevention programs required by the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003. However, by statute, guidelines and regulations for these programs must occur jointly across certain federal agencies, so no conforming amendment is being made for 12 CFR part 717 at this time. Any changes will be addressed in a separate, joint rulemaking in the future. Until that separate, joint rulemaking occurs, the NCUA expects to exercise discretion in enforcing 12 CFR part 717 by using agency resources to assess compliance without regard to reputation risk.

The Board believes the prohibitions included in this rulemaking are comprehensive and as specified in this final rule, is making minor modifications to the proposed definitions as referenced in the above summary comment response. This final rule does not impose any additional expectations or requirements on credit unions. This rulemaking establishes an internal agency policy. The Board now publishes this final rule to codify the elimination of reputation risk from the NCUA's supervisory framework, having explained above the regulatory text changes made in consideration of the public input received following publication of the proposal on October 21, 2025.

Pursuant to Executive Order 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”), a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and therefore subject to review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the Executive Order. 20 Executive Order 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) supplements and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing contemporary regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. 21

As previously discussed, to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the supervisory framework, the NCUA is establishing a regulation codifying the removal of reputation risk from its examination and supervision programs.

NCUA currently supervises 2,740 FCUs and 1,630 federally insured, state-chartered credit unions (collectively referred to as FICUs). (16) Because all FICUs are subject to supervision by NCUA, this rule affects all 4,370 institutions.

Because the rule aims to remove the influence of the agency's reputation risk assessments on institutions' member and business relationships, NCUA concludes that the rule will potentially affect all FICUs' current and future members and business partners. It will also affect any other institutions over which the NCUA has or may be granted supervisory authority.

On September 25, 2025, the NCUA issued Letter to Credit Unions 25-CU-05 wherein the agency notified supervised institutions that it was ceasing to use reputation risk in the examination and supervisory process. 22 The NCUA also sent a memo to staff on that same day, instructing staff that they may no longer base supervisory concerns on reputation risk. NCUA employees were notified that they may not refer to or engage in discussions about reputation risk or similar concepts as part of examinations and supervision contacts or other regulatory or supervisory actions (such as waivers, application decisions, or enforcement actions) for a credit union or credit union service organization. The agency is in the process of removing reputation risk from its regulations, policies, manuals, and training materials. Therefore, the NCUA has already discontinued the use of reputation risk in its supervision program as of September 25, 2025.

This final rule creates a formal, legal mandate to remove reputation risk from NCUA's supervision framework. Effectively, there is no additional burden, and therefore no associated compliance costs.

This regulation prohibiting the use of reputation risk in the examination and supervision program removes uncertainty and the potential for misuse, which inherently benefits FICUs. The removal of reputation risk ensures greater consistency and objectivity in supervisory decisions, increasing the predictability for regulated institutions to understand and manage regulators' supervisory expectations. The rule further benefits credit unions and their members by formally eliminating actual or perceived reputation risk-related regulatory restrictions and constraints on member services that would otherwise be permissible.

Other than the inherent benefits described above, the NCUA cannot quantify the number of institutions, or the associated costs, where an institution was criticized for activities because of reputation risk. Nor does the NCUA have the information necessary to quantify the number of institutions that might make changes to their operations based on this change.

This final rule was drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563. OIRA, within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), has determined that this final rule is a “significant regulatory action” as defined by section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”) requires that any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations. 23 This final rule is considered a deregulatory action under Executive Order 14192.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act  24 generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency makes such a certification, it shall publish the certification at the time of publication of either the proposed rule or the final rule, along with a statement providing the factual basis for such certification. 25 For purposes of this analysis, NCUA considers small credit unions to be those having under $100 million in assets. 26 The Board fully considered the potential economic impacts of the regulatory amendments on small credit unions. This final rule creates a formal, legal mandate to remove reputation risk from NCUA's supervision framework. Effectively, there is no additional burden, and therefore no associated compliance costs. Accordingly, NCUA certifies the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit unions.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) generally provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and not withstanding any other provision of law, a person is not required to respond to a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The PRA applies to rulemaking in which an agency creates a new or amends existing information collection requirements. For purposes of the PRA, an information collection requirement may take the form of a reporting, recordkeeping, or a third-party disclosure requirement. As stated in the proposal, the NCUA determined this rule does not create any information collection or revise any existing collection of information and invited comment on any PRA implications. Having not received public comments to indicate otherwise, NCUA maintains that there are no OMB Control Numbers that exist or require revision with respect to this final rule that amends the Code of Federal Regulations.

Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. 27 NCUA, an agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order to adhere to fundamental federalism principles. This rule will affect how NCUA examiners cite or use certain risks in the supervisory process, including for federally insured, state-chartered credit unions. But the rule will not constrain how state regulators apply these same concepts or otherwise change the relationship between NCUA and the state regulators. The rulemaking will therefore not have direct effect on the states, the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

NCUA has determined that this final rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999. 28 While the changes in NCUA's supervision of institutions could expand access to services, the effect would be indirect and not easily quantifiable.

Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, also known as the Congressional Review Act (CRA) generally provides for congressional review of agency rules. 29 NCUA must submit a report to Congress and the Comptroller General when it issues a final rule, as defined by the CRA. 30 An agency rule, in addition to being subject to congressional oversight, may also be subject to a delayed effective date if the rule is a “major rule.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), has determined that this rule is not a “major rule” within the meaning of the relevant sections of the CRA. Specifically, the rule will not (i) have an aggregate economic impact greater than or equal to $100 million, (ii) produce an increase in prices/costs for consumers or other industry stakeholders/regulators, or (iii) adversely affect domestic competition or the ability of U.S. enterprises to compete in foreign markets. NCUA also will file appropriate reports with Congress and the Comptroller General so this rule may be reviewed.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the NCUA Board amends 12 CFR parts 702 and 791 as follows:

This Commission is adopting technical amendments to FOCUS Report Part IIA to: (a) remove an incorrect cross-reference to “15 U.S.C. 78:f(a)” and replace it with “15 U.S.C. 78ff(a)”; (b) remove an extraneous and incorrect reference to sub-line E. in line 19 in the Liabilities sub-section of the Statement of Financial Condition; (c) reverse an inadvertent switch of line items 1770 and 1780;  1 (d) remove an extra end parentheses that does not have a matching beginning parentheses; (e) re-label line item 4338 as line item 4238 for consistency with the line item number assigned to the same response field in Form X-17A-5 Part II; (f) remove an incorrect reference to “$2,500 capital category as per Rule 15c3-1” and replace it with “Limited business (mutual funds and/or variable annuities only)”;  2 and (g) correct incorrect references related to Exchange Act Rule 15c3-3.

We are adopting these technical amendments under the authority set forth in sections 17(a) and 23(a) of the Exchange Act.

For reasons set forth in the preamble, title 17, chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

As part of the implementation of the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Public Law 104-131, the Railroad Retirement Board (Board) added Part 356 to its regulations to provide for adjustment of civil monetary penalties provided by law within the Board's jurisdiction. At that time, based on the best information available to the Board, it was determined that adjustments should be published for penalties under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729-33. The False Claims Act provides that any person who knowingly submits, or causes to submit, false claims to the government is liable for three times the government's damages plus a penalty that is adjusted for inflation. However, the False Claims Act is not administered by the Board. Instead, the Department of Justice has jurisdiction to set and adjust civil monetary penalties under the False Claims Act. See Table 1 to 28 CFR 85.5.

The Board has never attempted to independently impose civil penalties under the False Claims Act. Instead, the Board refers such cases to the Department of Justice through the Board's Office of Inspector General. Following the enactment of section 701 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114-74, sec. 701 (Nov. 2, 2015)), entitled the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, the Board amended Part 356 to provide for inflationary adjustments to penalties under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 and the False Claims Act. 81 FR 26127 (May 2, 2016). After those amendments were published, the Department of Justice Civil Division contacted the Board to resolve any conflict between the Department's jurisdiction over the False Claims Act and Part 356. After reviewing the relevant legal authorities, the Board agreed with the Department that jurisdiction to adjust civil penalties under the False Claims Act belonged to the Department and Part 356 should be amended to remove references to penalties under the False Claims Act.

Because the Board agrees with the Department that jurisdiction to adjust civil penalties under the False Claims Act belongs to the Department, repeal of the relevant section of Part 356 is directed by Executive Order 14219, Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's “Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative (Feb. 19, 2025). Additionally, because the Board does not independently impose civil penalties under the False Claims Act and the Department of Justice has existing regulations at Table 1 to 28 CFR 85.5 that implement these civil penalties, this removal will not affect any potential cases, will not modify the Board's actual practice in referring such cases to the Department of Justice, and will not increase or decrease any individual's actual liability for civil penalties under the False Claims Act. Accordingly, the Board removes 20 CFR 356.3 in its entirety.

The Board also amends 20 CFR 356.2 to update the reference to the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986. In section 5203 of the Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025, Congress made substantial amendments to the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986, including changing its short title to the Administrative False Claims Act. Public Law 118-159, sec. 5203 (Dec. 23, 2024). The Board comprehensively revised its implementing regulations for the Administrative False Claims Act in 20 CFR part 355 on June 16, 2025. 90 FR 25144 (Jun. 16, 2025). The amendment to § 356.2 aligns the civil monetary penalty inflation adjustment provision with the rest of the implementing regulations in Part 355. As stated in § 356.2(e), the Board will continue to publish the maximum penalty which may be assessed under Part 355 through a Federal Register notice on or before January 15 of each calendar year.

Finally, the Board amends § 356.1 to remove obsolete language that described the one-time catch-up adjustment in civil penalty amounts required by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015. 28 U.S.C. 2461 note. This one-time adjustment was completed in May 2016 and took effect for claims or statements made on or after August 1, 2016.

This direct final rule is being issued without prior public notice or opportunity for public comments. The Board does not anticipate this rule will generate adverse comment, and the effective date of the rule is conditional on the non-receipt of adverse comments. If the Board receives significant adverse comments prior to the effective date of this direct final rule, the Board will publish a timely notification in the Federal Register to withdraw the rule.

The Board, with the Office of Management and Budget, has determined that this is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, no regulatory impact analysis is required.

The Board certifies that this direct final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it affects only individuals.

This direct final rule imposes no reporting or recordkeeping requirements subject to Office of Management and Budget clearance.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Railroad Retirement Board amends 20 CFR part 356 as follows:

On February 6, 2025, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 14192 “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” (90 FR 9065), which directed agencies to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens. On July 1, 2025, MSHA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled, “Improving and Eliminating Regulations; Blacksmith Shops” in the Federal Register (90 FR 28400). In the NPRM, MSHA proposed to remove the requirements in 30 CFR 57.4532, Blacksmith shops, because the safety requirements in the section are not necessary since blacksmith shops are not currently being used at surface areas of underground MNM mines and will not be used in the future because it's an outdated technology.

MSHA received three comments on the NPRM during the public comment period. Two commenters requested that the comment period be extended to 60 days. One commenter supported MSHA's proposal. MSHA received no comments opposed to the changes discussed in the NPRM.

In this final rule, unchanged from the proposal, MSHA is removing § 57.4532 in its entirety. This section outlines the requirements for blacksmith shops located at surface areas of underground MNM mines. Active blacksmith shops are no longer located at surface areas of underground MNM mines. Removing these requirements will streamline part 57 by removing an outdated section that is no longer applicable and will not reduce the protections afforded to miners. This will result in improved clarity of MSHA's standards for MNM miners and mine operators.

MSHA received two comments requesting an extension of the comment period. One commenter stated a 30-day comment period did not provide ample time for review, research, and development of meaningful comments, and requested a 60-day extension. The same commenter stated support for any effort that enhances health and safety protections for miners; however, they noted the Agency could ensure this rule becomes a success by allowing additional time for comments. Another commenter stated that they agreed the period for public comments should be extended to 60 days.

MSHA reviewed the comments and determined it was not necessary to extend the comment period. Removing the requirements for blacksmith shops will not reduce the protections currently afforded to miners. Active blacksmith shops are no longer located at surface areas of underground MNM mines, making § 57.4532 outdated. MSHA determined this rule is not a significant regulatory action because it does not meet any of the four “significant regulatory action” criteria under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. The changes are non-substantive; therefore, extending the comment period was unnecessary.

MSHA received one comment in support of the proposal. The commenter supported removal of the outdated requirements, noting that the proposal would not result in a reduction of safety protections for miners.

MSHA agrees with the commenter and believes that removing these requirements does not impose any safety or health hazards on miners since the practice of using blacksmith shops at surface areas of underground MNM mines is outdated. Therefore, MSHA is removing § 57.4532 in its entirety and reserving the section number, as proposed.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits; (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.

E.O. 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), requires agencies to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, reduce uncertainty, and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. E.O. 13563 directs agencies to propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs; the regulation is tailored to impose the least burden on society, consistent with achieving the regulatory objectives; and in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, the agency has selected those approaches that maximize net benefits.

E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.

Removing the requirements concerning blacksmith shops at surface areas of underground MNM mines will not impose new costs on MNM mine operators because active blacksmith shops are no longer located at surface areas of underground MNM mines. Removing outdated requirements that are no longer applicable will not reduce the protections afforded to miners; instead, it will streamline current requirements and improve the clarity of MSHA's standards for MNM miners and mine operators.

Under section 6(a) of E.O. 12866, the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determines whether a regulatory action is significant and whether agencies are required to submit the regulatory action to OIRA for review. Under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, a “significant regulatory action” is a regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities (also referred to as economically significant);

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the E.O.

This final rule is determined to not constitute a “significant regulatory action” because it does not meet any of the four “significant regulatory action” criteria under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this final rule was not submitted to OIRA for review under E.O. 12866.

No alternatives were considered for this final deregulatory action.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, requires an agency to consider the impact of their rulemakings on small entities. E.O. 13272, “Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking” 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), requires Federal agencies to assess the economic impacts of rules on small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and small organizations, collectively referred to as small entities.

MSHA reviewed this final rule, which eliminates burdensome regulations, under the provisions of the RFA. MSHA concludes that this final rule will not have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” MSHA will transmit this certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) provides for the Federal Government's collection, use, and dissemination of information. The goals of the Paperwork Reduction Act include minimizing paperwork and reporting burdens and ensuring the maximum possible utility from the information that is collected under 5 CFR part 1320. The Paperwork Reduction Act requires Federal agencies to obtain approval from OMB before requesting or requiring “a collection of information” from the public.

This final rule imposes no new information collection or recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, OMB clearance is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

E.O. 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999), imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. The E.O. requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The E.O. also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.

MSHA has examined this final rule and has determined that it 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.

With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. Regarding the review required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General.

Section 3(c) of E.O. 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. MSHA has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this final rule meets the relevant standards of E.O. 12988.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires Federal agencies to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)). The UMRA also requires Federal agencies to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect them.

MSHA examined this final rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that it does not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate, nor is it expected to require expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. As a result, the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), requires each Federal agency to consider the environmental effects of regulatory actions and to prepare an environmental impact statement on Agency actions that would significantly affect the quality of the environment, unless the action is considered categorically excluded under 29 CFR 11.10. MSHA has reviewed the final rule in accordance with NEPA requirements and the Department of Labor's NEPA procedures (29 CFR part 11). As a result of this review, MSHA has determined that this final rule will not impact air, water, or soil quality, plant or animal life, the use of land or other aspects of the human environment. Therefore, MSHA has not conducted an environmental assessment nor provided an environmental impact statement.

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This final rule will not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, MSHA has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

Pursuant to E.O. 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), MSHA has determined that this final rule will not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under information quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002). MSHA has reviewed this final rule and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in the OMB guidelines.

E.O. 13175, “Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments” 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000), requires agencies to consult with tribal officials when developing policies that may have “tribal implications.” This final rule does not have “tribal implications” because it will not “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.” Accordingly, under E.O. 13175, no further Agency action or analysis is required.

E.O. 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires agencies to publish a statement of energy effects when a rule has a significant energy action that adversely affects energy supply, distribution, or use. MSHA has reviewed this final rule for its energy effects. For the energy analysis, this final rule will not exceed the relevant criteria for adverse impact.

MSHA has examined this final rule and has determined that it is consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O. 14154, “Unleashing American Energy” 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025); E.O. 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation” 90 FR 9065 (Feb. 6, 2025); E.O. 14267, “Reducing Anti-Competitive Regulatory Barriers” 90 FR 15629 (Apr. 9, 2025); and the Presidential Memorandum, “Delivering Emergency Price Relief for American Families and Defeating the Cost-of-Living Crisis” 90 FR 8245 (Jan. 28, 2025). This final rule is an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, MSHA will report to Congress on the promulgation of this rule before its effective date. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, and under the authority of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, as amended, MSHA amends chapter I of title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

On February 6, 2025, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 14192 “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” (90 FR 9065), which directed agencies to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens. On July 1, 2025, MSHA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled, “Improving and Eliminating Regulations; Diesel Particulate Matter Emission Limits in Underground Coal Mines” in the Federal Register (90 FR 28418). In the NPRM, MSHA proposed to remove existing requirements from 30 CFR part 72. MSHA identified §§ 72.500(a), 72.501(a), and 72.501(b) for removal because they contain outdated effective dates that are no longer relevant. Removing these requirements will not reduce protections afforded to miners because the requirements are no longer applicable to underground coal mines.

MSHA received two comments on the NPRM during the public comment period. One commenter requested a 60-day extension of the public comment period and another commenter supported MSHA's proposal. MSHA received no comments opposed to the changes discussed in the NPRM.

Existing paragraph (a) of § 72.500 and existing paragraphs (a) and (b) of § 72.501 list outdated effective dates for DPM emission limits for permissible diesel-powered equipment and non-permissible heavy-duty diesel-powered equipment in underground coal mines.

In this final rule, unchanged from the proposed rule, MSHA amends § 72.500 by reserving existing paragraph (a) and revising paragraph (b) to remove the compliance date. Paragraph (b) contains the current DPM emission limit for permissible diesel-powered equipment in underground coal mines and remains unchanged.

In this final rule, unchanged from the proposed rule, MSHA amends § 72.501 by reserving existing paragraphs (a) and (b). MSHA also revises paragraph (c) to remove the compliance date. Paragraph (c) contains the current DPM emission limit for non-permissible heavy duty diesel-powered equipment, generators and compressors in underground coal mines and remains unchanged.

Removing these requirements will not reduce protections afforded to miners because they are outdated and the current emission limits will remain. As a result of removing §§ 72.500(a), 72.501(a), and 72.501(b), MSHA also makes a conforming amendment to § 72.503(e) by removing references to §§ 72.500(a) and 72.501(a). Section 72.503(e) defined the term “introduced” for equipment brought into the mine inventory and remains unchanged. These actions reflect MSHA's experience and ongoing review of existing regulations to ensure they remain necessary, effective, and aligned with current technologies and mining practices.

MSHA received two comments on the proposal. One commenter requested a 60-day extension of the public comment period to properly review, research, and develop a meaningful comment. The Agency reviewed the comments and determined it was not necessary to extend the public comment period. Removing the requirements for DPM in underground coal mines will not reduce protections afforded to miners. MSHA is making non-substantive changes to the DPM standards in underground coal mines to remove outdated requirements that have no safety, burden, or cost implications. MSHA determined this rule is not a significant regulatory action because it does not meet any of the four “significant regulatory action” criteria under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. The changes are non-substantive; therefore, an extension of the public comment period was unnecessary.

MSHA received one comment in support of the proposal to remove the outdated effective dates for DPM emission limits for permissible diesel-powered equipment and non-permissible heavy-duty diesel-powered equipment in underground coal mines. The commenter agreed that the proposal would streamline the current requirements for underground coal mine operators while maintaining the same level of protection for miners who work with such equipment. Therefore, MSHA finalizes the rule as proposed.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits; (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.

E.O. 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), requires agencies to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, reduce uncertainty, and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.

E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. E.O. 13563 directs agencies to propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs; the regulation is tailored to impose the least burden on society, consistent with achieving the regulatory objectives; and in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, the agency has selected those approaches that maximize net benefits.

Removing the requirements concerning DPM emission limits will not impose new costs on underground coal mine operators because they are outdated and the current emission limits are still in the regulations. Removing the requirements will not reduce the protections currently afforded to miners; instead, it will streamline current requirements and improve the clarity of MSHA's standards for underground coal miners and mine operators.

Under section 6(a) of E.O. 12866, the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determines whether a regulatory action is significant and whether agencies are required to submit the regulatory action to OIRA for review. Under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, a “significant regulatory action” is a regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities (also referred to as economically significant);

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the E.O.

This final rule is determined to not constitute a “significant regulatory action” because it does not meet any of the four “significant regulatory action” criteria under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this final rule was not submitted to OIRA for review under E.O. 12866.

No alternatives were considered for this final deregulatory action.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, requires an agency to consider the impact of their rulemakings on small entities. E.O. 13272, “Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking” 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), requires Federal agencies to assess the economic impacts of rules on small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and small organizations, collectively referred to as small entities.

MSHA has reviewed this final rule, which eliminates regulatory complexity, under the provisions of the RFA. MSHA concludes that this final rule will not have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” MSHA will transmit this certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) provides for the Federal Government's collection, use, and dissemination of information. The goals of the Paperwork Reduction Act include minimizing paperwork and reporting burdens and ensuring the maximum possible utility from the information that is collected under 5 CFR part 1320. The Paperwork Reduction Act requires Federal agencies to obtain approval from OMB before requesting or requiring “a collection of information” from the public.

This final rule imposes no new information collection or recordkeeping requirements. The recordkeeping requirements for DPM exposure are fully covered in a currently approved information collection request, OMB Control Number 1219-0124 “Health Standards for Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure (Underground Coal Mines).” This final rule removes the outdated, interim permissible exposure limits of DPM with no safety, burden, or cost implications. Therefore, there is no change to this information collection request. Accordingly, OMB clearance is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

E.O. 13132, “Federalism” 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999), imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. The E.O. requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The E.O. also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.

MSHA has examined this final rule and has determined that it 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.

With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. Regarding the review required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General.

Section 3(c) of E.O. 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. MSHA has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this final rule meets the relevant standards of E.O. 12988.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)). The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect them.

MSHA examined this final rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that it does not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate, nor is it expected to require expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. As a result, the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), requires each Federal agency to consider the environmental effects of regulatory actions and to prepare an environmental impact statement on Agency actions that would significantly affect the quality of the environment; unless the action is considered categorically excluded under 29 CFR 11.10. MSHA has reviewed the final rule in accordance with NEPA requirements and the Department of Labor's NEPA procedures (29 CFR part 11). As a result of this review, MSHA has determined that this final rule will not impact air, water, or soil quality, plant or animal life, the use of land or other aspects of the human environment. Therefore, MSHA has not conducted an environmental assessment nor provided an environmental impact statement.

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This final rule will not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, MSHA has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

Pursuant to E.O. 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), MSHA has determined that this final rule will not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under information quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002). MSHA has reviewed this final rule and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in the OMB guidelines.

E.O. 13175, “Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments” 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000), requires agencies to consult with tribal officials when developing policies that may have “tribal implications.” This final rule does not have “tribal implications” because it will not “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.” Accordingly, under E.O. 13175, no further Agency action or analysis is required.

E.O. 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires agencies to publish a statement of energy effects when a rule has a significant energy action that adversely affects energy supply, distribution, or use. MSHA has reviewed this final rule for its energy effects. For the energy analysis, this final rule will not exceed the relevant criteria for adverse impact.

MSHA has examined this final rule and has determined that it is consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O. 14154, “Unleashing American Energy” 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025); E.O. 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation” 90 FR 9065 (Feb. 6, 2025); E.O. 14267, “Reducing Anti-Competitive Regulatory Barriers” 90 FR 15629 (Apr. 9, 2025); and the Presidential Memorandum, “Delivering Emergency Price Relief for American Families and Defeating the Cost-of-Living Crisis” 90 FR 8245 (Jan. 28, 2025). This final rule is an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, MSHA will report to Congress on the promulgation of this rule before its effective date. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, and under the authority of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, as amended, MSHA amends chapter I of title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

On February 6, 2025, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation” (90 FR 9065), which directed agencies to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens. On July 1, 2025, MSHA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled, “Use of Permissible Flame Safety Lamps in Underground Coal Mines” (90 FR 28421). In the NPRM, MSHA proposed to remove flame safety lamps from the list of permissible electric face equipment in paragraph (d)(4) of 30 CFR 75.506, Electric face equipment; requirements for permissibility, because flame safety lamps have been replaced by electric cap lamps and portable methane and multi-gas detectors and monitors in underground coal mines.

MSHA received two comments on the NPRM during the public comment period. One comment requested a 60-day extension of the public comment period. The other commenter supported MSHA's proposal. MSHA received no comments opposing the proposed changes in the NPRM.

In this final rule, unchanged from the proposed rule, MSHA is amending § 75.506 to remove paragraph (d)(4).

MSHA received one comment requesting an extension of the comment period. The commenter stated a 30-day comment period did not provide ample time for review, research, and development of meaningful comments, and requested a 60-day extension. The same commenter stated support for any effort that enhances health and safety protections for miners; however, they noted the Agency could ensure this rule becomes a success by allowing additional time for comments.

MSHA considered the comment extension request and determined it was not necessary to extend the comment period. Removing flame safety lamps from the list of permissible electric face equipment does not reduce protections currently afforded to miners. Flame safety lamps were developed in the mid-19th century to provide illumination for miners using a specialized lamp with an enclosed flame that could safely be used in underground coal mines. Miners also used flame safety lamps to detect the presence of gases such as methane and low oxygen levels in the mine atmosphere by observing changes in the shape and color of the lamp's flame. Flame safety lamps have since been replaced by electric cap lamps and portable methane and multi-gas detectors and monitors. As a result, flame safety lamps are outdated technology making § 75.506(d)(4) unnecessary. MSHA determined this rule is not a significant regulatory action because it does not meet any of the four “significant regulatory action” criteria under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. The changes are non-substantive; therefore, extending the comment period was unnecessary.

MSHA received one comment in support of the proposal. The commenter supported removing flame safety lamps from the list of permissible electric face equipment that can be operated in underground coal mines. The commenter also stated that the proposed removal of § 75.506(d)(4) would maintain the same level of protection for miners because it removes outdated technology that is no longer used in underground coal mines.

MSHA agrees with the commenter and believes that removing flame safety lamps from the list of permissible electric face equipment does not impose any safety or health hazards on miners since flame safety lamps are no longer used in underground coal mines.

Therefore, MSHA is removing flame safety lamps from the list of permissible electric face equipment that can be operated in underground coal mines by removing and reserving paragraph (d)(4) from § 75.506, as proposed.

E.O. 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits; (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.

E.O. 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), requires agencies to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, reduce uncertainty, and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. E.O. 13563 directs agencies to propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs; the regulation is tailored to impose the least burden on society, consistent with achieving the regulatory objectives; and in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, the agency has selected those approaches that maximize net benefits.

E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.

Removing flame safety lamps from the list of permissible electric face equipment will not impose new costs on underground coal mine operators because flame safety lamps are no longer used in underground coal mines and have been replaced by electric cap lamps and portable methane and multi-gas detectors and monitors. Removing the requirements for outdated technology that is no longer used in underground coal mines will not reduce the protections currently afforded to miners; instead, it will streamline current requirements and improve the clarity of MSHA's standards for underground coal miners and mine operators.

Under section 6(a) of E.O. 12866, the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determines whether a regulatory action is significant and whether Agencies are required to submit the regulatory action to OIRA for review. Under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, a “significant regulatory action” is a regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities (also referred to as economically significant);

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the E.O.

This final rule is determined to not constitute a “significant regulatory action” because it does not meet any of the four “significant regulatory action” criteria under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this final rule was not submitted to OIRA for review under E.O. 12866.

No alternatives were considered for this final deregulatory action.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, requires an agency to consider the impact of their rulemakings on small entities. E.O. 13272, “Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking” 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), requires Federal agencies to assess the economic impacts of rules on small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and small organizations, collectively referred to as small entities.

MSHA has reviewed this final rule, which eliminates regulatory complexity, under the provisions of the RFA. MSHA concludes that this final rule will not have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” MSHA will transmit this certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) provides for the Federal Government's collection, use, and dissemination of information. The goals of the Paperwork Reduction Act include minimizing paperwork and reporting burdens and ensuring the maximum possible utility from the information that is collected under 5 CFR part 1320. The Paperwork Reduction Act requires Federal agencies to obtain approval from OMB before requesting or requiring “a collection of information” from the public.

This final rule imposes no new information collection or recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, OMB clearance is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

E.O. 13132, “Federalism” 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999), imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. The E.O. requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The E.O. also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.

MSHA has examined this final rule and has determined that it 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.

With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. Regarding the review required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General.

Section 3(c) of E.O. 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. MSHA has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this final rule meets the relevant standards of E.O. 12988.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)). The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect them.

MSHA examined this final rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that the rule does not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate, nor does it require expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. As a result, the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), requires each Federal agency to consider the environmental effects of regulatory actions and to prepare an environmental impact statement on Agency actions that would significantly affect the quality of the environment; unless the action is considered categorically excluded under 29 CFR 11.10. MSHA has reviewed the final rule in accordance with NEPA requirements and the Department of Labor's NEPA procedures (29 CFR part 11). As a result of this review, MSHA has determined that this final rule will not impact air, water, or soil quality, plant or animal life, the use of land or other aspects of the human environment. Therefore, MSHA has not conducted an environmental assessment nor provided an environmental impact statement.

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This final rule will not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, MSHA has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

Pursuant to E.O. 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), MSHA has determined that this final rule will not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under information quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002). MSHA has reviewed this final rule and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in the OMB guidelines.

E.O. 13175, “Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments” 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000), requires agencies to consult with tribal officials when developing policies that may have “tribal implications.” This final rule does not have “tribal implications” because it will not “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.” Accordingly, under E.O. 13175, no further Agency action or analysis is required.

E.O. 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires agencies to publish a statement of energy effects when a rule has a significant energy action that adversely affects energy supply, distribution, or use. MSHA has reviewed this final rule for its energy effects. For the energy analysis, this final rule will not exceed the relevant criteria for adverse impact.

MSHA has examined this final rule and has determined that it is consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O. 14154, “Unleashing American Energy” 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025); E.O. 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation” 90 FR 9065 (Feb. 6, 2025); E.O. 14267, “Reducing Anti-Competitive Regulatory Barriers” 90 FR 15629 (Apr. 9, 2025); and the Presidential Memorandum, “Delivering Emergency Price Relief for American Families and Defeating the Cost-of-Living Crisis” 90 FR 8245 (Jan. 28, 2025). This final rule is an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, MSHA will report to Congress on the promulgation of this rule before its effective date. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, and under the authority of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, as amended, MSHA is amending chapter I of title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

On February 6, 2025, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 14192 “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation” (90 FR 9065), which directed agencies to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens. On July 1, 2025, MSHA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled, “Improving and Eliminating Regulations; Conveyor Belts in Underground Coal Mines” (90 FR 28424). In the NPRM, MSHA proposed to remove outdated effective dates and requirements in 30 CFR 75.1108, Approved conveyor belts.

MSHA received two comments on the NPRM during the public comment period. One comment requested a 60-day extension of the public comment period. The other comment supported MSHA's proposal. MSHA received no comments opposing the proposed changes in the NPRM.

In this final rule, unchanged from the proposal, MSHA is removing the existing provisions in paragraphs (a) and (b) of § 75.1108, which list outdated flame-resistance requirements for approval of conveyor belts in underground coal mines. Paragraph (c) contains the current flame-resistance requirements for all conveyor belts to be approved under 30 CFR part 14 and remains unchanged.

MSHA received one comment requesting an extension of the comment period. The commenter stated a 30-day comment period did not provide ample time for review, research, and development of meaningful comments, and requested a 60-day extension. The same commenter stated support for any effort that enhances health and safety protections for miners; however, they noted the Agency could ensure this rule becomes a success by allowing additional time for comments.

The Agency considered the comment extension request and determined it was not necessary to extend the comment period. MSHA is making non-substantive changes that remove outdated requirements for approval of conveyor belts in § 75.1108(a) and (b) which have not been applicable in underground coal mines since December 31, 2018.

The second commenter supported the proposal, stating that removing outdated requirements for the approval process for conveyor belts used in underground coal mines would streamline the current requirements for underground coal operators while maintaining the same level of protection for miners who work with such equipment.

MSHA agrees with the commenter and is removing the outdated requirements in § 75.1108(a) and (b). Specifically, as in the proposed rule, the Agency is removing existing paragraphs (a) and (b) and revising the language of existing paragraph (c) to remove the no longer necessary compliance date of December 31, 2018. Revised paragraph (c) contains the current requirements for the approval process for the use of conveyor belts in underground coal mines. Removing these provisions does not reduce protections afforded to miners. Also, MSHA is reserving paragraphs (a) and (b) to maintain the reference to paragraph (c) for the conveyor belt approval requirements to avoid confusion for miners and mine operators.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits; (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.

E.O. 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), requires agencies to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, reduce uncertainty, and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. E.O. 13563 directs agencies to propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs; the regulation is tailored to impose the least burden on society, consistent with achieving the regulatory objectives; and in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, the agency has selected those approaches that maximize net benefits.

E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.

Removing the flame-resistance requirements for the approval of conveyor belts will not impose new costs on underground coal mine operators because the outdated requirements have not been applicable since December 31, 2018. Removing the requirements will not reduce the protections currently afforded to miners who work with conveyor belts; instead, it will streamline current requirements and improve the clarity of MSHA's standards for underground coal miners and mine operators.

Under section 6(a) of E.O. 12866, the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determines whether a regulatory action is significant and whether agencies are required to submit the regulatory action to OIRA for review. Under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, a “significant regulatory action” is a regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities (also referred to as economically significant);

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the E.O.

This final rule is determined to not constitute a “significant regulatory action” because it does not meet any of the four “significant regulatory action” criteria under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this final rule was not submitted to OIRA for review under E.O. 12866.

No alternatives were considered for this final deregulatory action.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, requires an agency to consider the impact of their rulemakings on small entities. E.O. 13272, “Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), requires Federal agencies to assess the economic impacts of rules on small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and small organizations, collectively referred to as small entities.

MSHA reviewed this final rule, which eliminates regulatory complexity, under the provisions of the RFA. MSHA concludes that this final proposed rule will not have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” MSHA will transmit this certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) provides for the Federal Government's collection, use, and dissemination of information. The goals of the Paperwork Reduction Act include minimizing paperwork and reporting burdens and ensuring the maximum possible utility from the information that is collected under 5 CFR part 1320. The Paperwork Reduction Act requires Federal agencies to obtain approval from OMB before requesting or requiring “a collection of information” from the public.

This final rule imposes no new information collection or recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, OMB clearance is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

E.O. 13132, “Federalism” 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999), imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. The E.O. requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The E.O. also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.

MSHA has examined this final rule and has determined that it 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.

With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. Regarding the review required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General.

Section 3(c) of E.O. 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. MSHA has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this final rule meets the relevant standards of E.O. 12988.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires Federal agencies to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)). The UMRA also requires Federal agencies to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect them.

MSHA examined this final rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that it does not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate, nor is it expected to require expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. As a result, the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), requires each Federal agency to consider the environmental effects of regulatory actions and to prepare an environmental impact statement on agency actions that would significantly affect the quality of the environment, unless the action is considered categorically excluded under 29 CFR 11.10. MSHA reviewed the final rule in accordance with NEPA requirements and the Department of Labor's NEPA procedures (29 CFR part 11). As a result of this review, MSHA has determined that this final rule will not have a significant impact on air, water, or soil quality, plant or animal life, the use of land or other aspects of the human environment. Therefore, MSHA has not conducted an environmental assessment nor provided an environmental impact statement.

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This final rule will not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, MSHA has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

Pursuant to E.O. 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), MSHA has determined that this final rule will not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under information quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002). MSHA has reviewed this final rule and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in the OMB guidelines.

E.O. 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000), requires agencies to consult with tribal officials when developing policies that may have “tribal implications.” This final rule does not have “tribal implications” because it does not “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.” Accordingly, under E.O. 13175, no further agency action or analysis is required.

E.O. 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires agencies to publish a statement of energy effects when a rule has a significant energy action that adversely affects energy supply, distribution, or use. MSHA has reviewed this final rule for its energy effects. For the energy analysis, this final rule will not exceed the relevant criteria for adverse impact.

MSHA has examined this final rule and has determined that it is consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O. 14154, “Unleashing American Energy” 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025); E.O. 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation” 90 FR 9065 (Feb. 6, 2025), E.O. 14267, “Reducing Anti-Competitive Regulatory Barriers” 90 FR 15629 (Apr. 9, 2025); and the Presidential Memorandum, “Delivering Emergency Price Relief for American Families and Defeating the Cost-of-Living Crisis” 90 FR 8245 (Jan. 28, 2025). This final rule is an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, MSHA will report to Congress on the promulgation of this rule before its effective date. The report will state that is has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, and under the authority of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, as amended, MSHA amends chapter I of title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

The Coast Guard will enforce the following regulated areas in the Captain of the Port Detroit Zone listed in Table 1 to 33 CFR 100.911:

• Event (4): Motor City Mile Swimming Event (Detroit, MI) — enforced from 7:00 a.m. through 9:00 a.m. on July 10, 2026.

• Event (7): St. Clair River Classic Power Boat Race (St. Clair MI) — enforced from 10:00 a.m. through 7:00 p.m. on July 26, 2026.

• Event (12): Michigan Championships Swimming Event (Detroit MI) — enforced from 7:00 a.m. through 9:00 a.m. on September 6, 2026.

In accordance with the requirements of § 100.911, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within these regulated areas during the enforcement periods is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard patrol commander (PATCOM). Those seeking permission to enter the regulated areas may request permission from the PATCOM. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate within the regulated area must comply with all directions given to them by the Coast Guard PATCOM. All geographic coordinates in Table 1 to § 100.911 are North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. If the Captain of the Port determines that any of these special local regulations need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this document, he or she may suspend such enforcement and notify the public of the suspension via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

An organization notified the Coast Guard that from 4 a.m. through 10 a.m. on July 19, 2026, they will sponsor a swim event. The Coast Guard received a request under 33 CFR 100.15 from the Ironman World Triathlon Corporation for a Marine Event Permit to host a swim event on a portion of Sandusky Bay in Sandusky, OH. The swim event will include approximately 2400 participants and 65 spectator craft.

The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) is issuing this special local regulation (SLR) under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041. The COTP has determined that potential hazards associated with the swim event include number of participants, and limited participant visibility. The purpose of this rulemaking is to protect event participants, non-participants, and transiting vessels before, during, and after the scheduled event.

Because of these potential hazards, the Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior notice and comment. As is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. We must establish this SLR by July 19, 2026, to protect personnel and vessels. Therefore, we do not have enough time to solicit and respond to comments.

For the same reason, the Coast Guard finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

This rule establishes a temporary SLR from 4 a.m. through 10 a.m. on July 19, 2026. The special local regulation will cover all navigable waters of Sandusky Bay extending 400 yards from shore from Jackson St. Pier to the Shelby Street Boat Launch. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP or their designated representative.

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

The regulatory flexibility analysis provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to rules that are not subject to notice and comment. Because the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived the notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's flexibility analysis provisions do not apply here.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Small businesses may send comments to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards by calling 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.

This rule is a special local regulation. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

The Coast Guard will enforce a special local regulation and multiple safety zones for annual events in the Captain of the Port (COTP) Eastern Great Lakes Zone listed in 33 CFR 100.901 and 33 CFR 165.939 for the following dates and times:

• Table 1 to § 100.901, the following event:

○ Event (2), Christmas in July (Henderson Bay, NY)—from 3:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on July 25, 2026, in Henderson Bay.

• Table 1 to § 165.939, the following events:

○ Event (G)(13): Boldt Castle 4th of July Fireworks (Heart Island, NY)—from 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2026, on the St. Lawrence River.

○ Event (G)(15): French Festival Fireworks (Cape Vincent, NY)—from 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 11, 2026, on the St. Lawrence River.

○ Event (G)(16): Lyme Community Days (Chaumont, NY)—from 9:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on July 25, 2026, in Chaumont Bay.

○ Event (G)(18): Can-Am Festival (Sackets Harbor, NY)—from 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 18, 2026, in Black River Bay.

○ Event (G)(20): Celebrate Baldwinsville Fireworks (Baldwinsville, NY)—from 9:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on July 12, 2026, on the Seneca River.

○ Event (G)(26): Tom Graves Memorial Fireworks (Port Bay, NY)—from 9:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. on July 3, 2026, in Port Bay.

○ Event (G)(27): Oswego Harborfest (Oswego, NY)—from 12:00 p.m. to 06:00 p.m. on July 24, 2026, in Oswego Harbor.

○ Event (G)(28): City of Oswego, NY 4th of July Display (Oswego, NY)—from 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 5, 2026, in Lake Ontario.

○ Event (G)(33): Christmas in July Fireworks (Henderson Harbor, NY)—from 9:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 25, 2026, in Henderson Harbor.

This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the events. Under the provisions of §  100.901(a) and §  165.939(a)(4), vessels desiring to transit the regulated area may do so only with prior approval of the COTP on-scene representative or Patrol Commander and when so directed by that officer. Vessels will be operated at a no wake speed to reduce the wake to a minimum, and in a manner which will not endanger participants in the event or any other craft.

In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement period via the Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. If the COTP Eastern Great Lakes determines that the safety zone need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, he may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the respective limited access area.

The Coast Guard received notification that fireworks will be launched from a barge on the Ohio River near Newport, KY. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Ohio Valley has determined that potential hazards associated with fireworks are a safety concern for anyone within a half mile of the fireworks display.

Because of these potential hazards, the Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior notice and comment. As is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The Coast Guard was notified of this event on June 4, 2026, but we must establish this safety zone by July 3, 2026, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment. Therefore, we do not have enough time to solicit and respond to comments.

For the same reason, the Coast Guard finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

This rule establishes a safety zone from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 3, 2026. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Ohio River, from mile marker (MM) 469.5 to MM 470.5 in Newport, Kentucky. Vessels and persons will not be allowed to enter the zone during this time, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port.

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

The regulatory flexibility analysis provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to rules that are not subject to notice and comment. Because the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived the notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's flexibility analysis provisions do not apply here.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards by calling 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.

This rule is a safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulation in the Table to § 33 CFR 165.786 item 6.2 for the Annual Swim Around Key West regulated area from 6:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on June 27, 2026. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the Southeast Coast Guard District, table to § 165.786, specifies the location of the regulated area for the Annual Swim Around Key West. During the enforcement period, as reflected in § 165.786(a), if you are the operator of a vessel in the regulated area you must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.

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

The Coast Guard received notification that fireworks will be launched from a point on land over Erie Canal, in North Tonawanda, NY. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Eastern Great Lakes has determined that potential hazards associated with fireworks are a safety concern for anyone within a 210-foot radius of the fireworks launch site. Therefore, the COTP is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034, which is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone.

Because of these potential hazards, the Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior notice and comment. As is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The Coast Guard was notified of this event on June 10, 2026, but we must establish this safety zone by July 3, 2026 to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment. Therefore, we do not have enough time to solicit and respond to comments.

For the same reason, the Coast Guard finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

This rule establishes a safety zone from 9:45 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. on July 3, 2026. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters in Erie Canal within a 210-foot radius of the launch position at 43°01′17.8″ N, 78°52′40.9″ W. Vessels and persons will not be allowed to enter the zone during this time, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port.

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

The regulatory flexibility analysis provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to rules that are not subject to notice and comment. Because the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived the notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's flexibility analysis provisions do not apply here.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards by calling 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.

This rule is a safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

The Coast Guard received notification that Duke Energy will be conducting aerial power line replacements within the Ohio River near North Bend, OH. Hazards from this project include but are not limited to deployment of heavy machinery, and various other activities which create hazards for workers and the public. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Ohio Valley has determined that potential hazards associated with power line replacements are a safety concern for anyone within the work area. Therefore, the COTP is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034, which is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone.

Because of these potential hazards, the Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior notice and comment. As is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Additionally, the Coast Guard was notified of this event on June 15, 2026, but we must establish this safety zone by July 13, 2026, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment. Therefore, we do not have enough time to solicit and respond to comments.

For the same reasons, the Coast Guard finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

This rule establishes a safety zone from July 13, 2026, through July 19, 2026. The rule will be enforced from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. on each day from July 13, 2026, through July 19, 2026, or until operations are complete. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Ohio River, from mile marker (MM) 490 to MM 500 in North Bend, Ohio. Vessels and persons will not be allowed to enter the zone during this time, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port.

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

The regulatory flexibility analysis provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to rules that are not subject to notice and comment. Because the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived the notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's flexibility analysis provisions do not apply here.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards by calling 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.

This rule is a safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

The Coast Guard received notification that fireworks will be launched from a point on land over Bell Slip, in the Outer Harbor of Buffalo, NY. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Eastern Great Lakes has determined that potential hazards associated with fireworks are a safety concern for anyone within a 280-foot radius of the fireworks launch site.

Because of these potential hazards, the Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior notice and comment. As is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The Coast Guard must establish this safety zone by July 3, 2026, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment. Therefore, we do not have enough time to solicit and respond to comments.

For the same reason, the Coast Guard finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

This rule establishes a safety zone from 9:45 p.m. to 11:15 p.m. on July 3, 2026. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters in Bell Slip within a 280-foot radius of the launch position at 42°51′34.0″ N, 78°52′29.8″ W. Vessels and persons will not be allowed to enter the zone during this time, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port.

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

The regulatory flexibility analysis provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to rules that are not subject to notice and comment. Because the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived the notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's flexibility analysis provisions do not apply here.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards by calling 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.

This rule is a safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

The Coast Guard received notification that fireworks will be launched from land in the vicinity of the Solstice Steps in Lakewood, OH. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Eastern Great Lakes has determined that potential hazards associated with fireworks are a safety concern for anyone within a 420 foot radius of the fireworks display.

Therefore, the COTP is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034, which is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone.

Because of these potential hazards, the Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior notice and comment. As is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The Coast Guard was notified of this event on May 28, 2026, but we must establish this safety zone by July 4, 2026, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment. Therefore, there is insufficient time to solicit and respond to comments.

For the same reason, the Coast Guard finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

This rule establishes a safety zone from 9:30 p.m. through 11 p.m. on July 4, 2026. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of Lake Erie within a 420 foot radius of approximate position: 41°29′50.2″ N 81°47′51.6″ W. Vessels and persons will not be allowed to enter the zone during this time, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port.

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

The regulatory flexibility analysis provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to rules that are not subject to notice and comment. Because the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived the notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's flexibility analysis provisions do not apply here.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards by calling 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.

This rule is a safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) establish or increase size, of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

On January 19, 2026, an organization notified the Coast Guard that it will be launching fireworks 8 p.m. until 11 p.m. on August 8, 2026. The fireworks will be launched from a barge approximately 250 yards northwest of Ranier Beach Park in Ranier, MN. On May 5, 2026, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Safety Zone; Rainy Lake, City of Ranier, MN (91 FR 24151). In that NPRM, we stated why we issued the NPRM and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this firework display.

Under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034, the COTP has determined that this rule is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards associated with the firework display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or their designated representative.

During the comment period that ended on June 4, 2026, we received zero comments.

There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

This rule establishes a safety zone from 8 p.m. until 11 p.m. on August 8, 2026. The safety zone covers all navigable waters within 200 yards of the fireworks barge. No vessel or person is permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or their designated representative.

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

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Coast Guard certifies that, although some small entities may intend to transit the safety zone above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this regulated area. This regulation will only impact a small area for a few hours. The enforcement period is during a time when vessel traffic is normally low. In addition, the Coast Guard will issue a Local Notice to Mariners, which will allow small entities to adjust their transit plans, and the rule allows vessels to request permission to enter the regulated area from the COTP.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards by calling 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.

This rule is a safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

The Coast Guard received notification that fireworks will be launched from a barge on Lake Erie near Put-In-Bay, OH. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Detroit has determined that potential hazards associated with fireworks are a safety concern for anyone within a 375-yard radius of the fireworks barge. Therefore, the COTP is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034, which is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone.

Because of these potential hazards, the Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior notice and comment. As is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. We must establish this safety zone by August 2, 2026, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment. Therefore, we do not have enough time to solicit and respond to comments.

For the same reason, the Coast Guard finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

This rule establishes a safety zone on August 2, 2026. If, due to weather conditions, the day and time of enforcement differ from what is stated in this temporary final rule, the revised day and time of enforcement will be announced to the public in advance. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of Lake Erie within a 375-yard radius of the fireworks barge near Put-in-Bay, OH, in location 41°39′32.32″ N, 082°48′53.93″ W. Vessels and persons will not be allowed to enter the zone during this time, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port.

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

The regulatory flexibility analysis provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to rules that are not subject to notice and comment. Because the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived the notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's flexibility analysis provisions do not apply here.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards by calling 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.

This rule is a safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

The Coast Guard received notification of downed powerlines on the Ohio River near Madison, IN at mile marker 560.0. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Ohio Valley has determined that potential hazards associated with the powerlines are a safety concern for all persons and vessels within a mile of the downed powerlines. These hazards include potential for electrical shock and the presence of utility workers and equipment. Therefore, the COTP is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034, which is needed to protect life, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone.

Because of these potential hazards, the Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior notice and comment. As is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because we must establish this safety zone immediately to prevent vessels and persons from coming into contact with the down powerline. The Coast Guard was notified of this event on June 18, 2026, and we must immediately establish this safety zone to protect life, vessels, and the marine environment. Therefore, we do not have enough time to solicit and respond to comments.

For the same reason, the Coast Guard finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

This rule establishes an emergency safety zone from June 18, 2026 through June 25, 2026. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters on the Ohio River from mile marker 559.0 to 561.0 Vessels and persons will not be allowed to enter the zone during this time, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port. This zone may be cancelled earlier if the power line repairs are completed before June 25, 2026.

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

The regulatory flexibility analysis provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to rules that are not subject to notice and comment. Because the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived the notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's flexibility analysis provisions do not apply here.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards by calling 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.

This rule is an emergency safety zone lasting 24 hours a day for 07 days that will prohibit entry within a two-mile stretch of the Ohio River. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(d) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

This is a summary of the Commission's document, (Public Notice), in MB Docket No. 26-20, FCC 26-37, adopted on May 26, 2026, and released on May 28, 2026. The full text of this document is available at the following internet address: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-37A1.pdf or the Commission's ECFS web page at https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format) by sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or calling the Commission's Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0503.

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” Accordingly, the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) concerning the possible impact of the rule and policy changes contained in this Public Notice on small entities. The FRFA is set forth in Appendix B of the Public Notice.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis. This document contains no new or modified information collection requirements.

Congressional Review Act. The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, concurs, that this rule is “non-major” under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will send a copy of the Public Notice to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

1. The Commission recently directed the Media Bureau (Bureau) to open the first-ever filing window for applications for new noncommercial educational (NCE) reserved band FM translator station construction permits and sought comment on establishing eligibility restrictions and a limit on the number of applications that each applicant may file in the upcoming window. This document adopts the proposed general ten-application cap and the requirement that each applicant be the licensee or permittee of an existing NCE FM station, a noncommercial AM radio broadcast station, or an LPFM station (primary station), which the proposed FM translator will rebroadcast.

2. The Commission has employed application caps or eligibility restrictions in prior reserved band full service NCE FM windows and non-reserved band FM translator windows to promote efficiency, curb speculative applications, and expedite the processing of applications and expansion of new service while preserving spectrum and future licensing opportunities. Specifically, in the NCE context, the Commission has established by public notice a limit on the number of NCE applications filed by an applicant in a filing window. In both 2007 and 2021, before the full service NCE FM station filing windows opened, the Commission sought comment on an application cap and subsequently established a limit of ten NCE FM new station applications filed by an applicant during each filing window. In each window, this application limit helped restrict the number of mutually exclusive applications, and allowed the Commission to expeditiously process and grant thousands of applications to a wide range of local and diverse applicants, therefore promoting the rapid expansion of new NCE FM service throughout the country.

3. The Commission has also imposed eligibility restrictions and limits in prior FM translator filing windows to be consistent with the mandates of section 5 of the Local Community Radio Act of 2010 (LCRA), which require the Commission to ensure that licensing opportunities are available for all secondary services and that translator licensing procedures do not foreclose or unduly limit future LPFM licensing. The restrictions and procedures adopted for prior FM translator filing windows, including Auction 99 and Auction 100, were designed to strike a balance between the stated goals of the specific proceeding and the overall goal of preserving spectrum for secondary services.

4. In the recent Cap Comment Notice, 91 FR 9528 (Feb. 26, 2026), the Commission tentatively concluded that it should also establish eligibility restrictions and an application cap for the upcoming NCE reserved band FM translator filing window. Specifically, consistent with the Commission's mandate under section 5 of the LCRA and to promote efficiency in this window, the Commission tentatively concluded that a general ten-application cap is a reasonable limit. Further, in accordance with the LPFM cross-ownership restrictions contained in § 73.860 of the Commission's rules, the Commission tentatively proposed to separately impose a four-application cap for Tribal LPFM applicants and a two-application cap for all other LPFM applicants. Finally, in order to further constrain speculative applications and to ensure this window provides additional flexibility to existing broadcasters, the Commission tentatively concluded that imposing a requirement that each applicant be the licensee or permittee of an existing NCE FM or noncommercial AM radio broadcast station or LPFM station (primary station), which the proposed FM translator will rebroadcast, will further these goals. The Commission received several comments, replies, and ex parte filings in response to the Cap Comment Notice. Although the commenters uniformly agree that some limits are advisable, they are not in agreement on what specific cap and restrictions would be most appropriate and beneficial.

5. Application Limit. The Commission adopts its proposal from the Cap Comment Notice to establish a general limit of ten applications per applicant in the upcoming window for new NCE reserved band FM translator station construction permits. The Commission finds that a ten-application cap, which was supported by the vast majority of the commenters addressing the limit, will best provide interested parties with a meaningful opportunity to file for and obtain new NCE reserved band FM translator licenses, while still preserving spectrum for future secondary services, consistent with the LCRA, deter speculative filings and procedural delays, and permit the expeditious processing of applications filed in the window. Moreover, the ten-application cap, employed in both the 2007 and 2021 NCE FM filing windows, has proven in practice to be very effective. Specifically, in these windows, the ten-application limit helped restrict the number of mutually exclusive applications, discouraged mass filings by speculators, and facilitated the expeditious processing and grant of thousands of applications to a vast range of legitimate local and diverse applicants.

6. The Commission concludes that a higher application limit of 30 applications, as recommended by Magrill and Cedar Cove, would not serve its goals as well as the ten-application cap the Commission adopts herein, as the potential benefits to a few applicants would be outweighed by the harm to all applicants from additional complications and processing delays. The Commission acknowledges Magrill and Cedar Cove's laudable claims that a higher cap could potentially increase service to underserved, small communities and rural areas. The Commission finds, however, that these proposals for an increased cap, which were not endorsed by any other commenters, and opposed by REC and LPFM-AG, have the significant drawback of increasing the potential for more and larger MX groups, which could lead to processing delays and inhibit the expeditious initiation of new service to the public. The Commission also finds that implementing either Magrill's or Cedar Cove's 30-application cap tiered approach would be cumbersome, create logistical and administrative challenges, and thus further complicate and delay processing and initiation of new NCE reserved band FM translator service.

7. Finally, in accordance with the § 73.860 LPFM cross-ownership restrictions, the Commission adopts its proposal to separately impose a four-application cap for Tribal LPFM applicants and a two-application cap for all other LPFM applicants. The Commission finds that Cedar Cove's recommendation to limit all LPFM applicants to one application in the window will unnecessarily curtail an LPFM applicant's ability to identify a usable reserved band channel and expand its service, while LPFM-AG's proposed higher cap of four applications for all LPFM applicants, and Schober's proposal of unlimited applications for all Tribal LPFM applicants, are logistically complicated, unfair to full service applicants, and contrary to the Commission's well established LPFM ownership restrictions.

8. Eligibility Restrictions. The Commission adopts its proposal from the Cap Comment Notice, supported by numerous commenters, to require that each applicant be the licensee or permittee of an existing NCE FM or noncommercial AM radio broadcast station or LPFM station (primary station), which the proposed FM translator will rebroadcast. The Commission agrees with REC and K-LOVE/HMG that this eligibility restriction is “necessary to prevent abuse,” will ensure “opportunities for applicants will be fair,” and will constrain gamesmanship and speculative applications. As NRB emphasizes, “[t]ying translator authorizations to a primary station provides a clear and workable standard that aligns with the Commission's longstanding commitment to localism and community service. It ensures that spectrum is allocated to broadcasters with an established record of serving their listeners, rather than to entities seeking to acquire spectrum for speculative purposes.” In contrast, de Caro's proposal to extend participation to applicants who are not currently authorized permittees or licensees would defeat this goal.

9. The Commission agrees with commenters that this eligibility restriction would be ineffectual without a holding period. As REC and LPFM-AG explain, there “needs to be a safeguard in place” to prevent speculation and gamesmanship, such as “immediate flipping, paper reshuffling of primaries, or rapid untethering of translators shortly after grant or license.” While LPFM-AG recommends a one-year holding period, and Schober proposes a permanent holding period, the Commission finds REC's suggested four-year period strikes the correct balance and is sufficient to deter license speculators, while not unduly burdening the licensee. Moreover, similar four-year holding periods have been effective in preventing gamesmanship in the NCE FM full service context and prior FM translator filing windows. Accordingly, from the time that the Commission grants a construction permit in the upcoming filing window until the time when the facility has achieved four years of on-air operations rebroadcasting the primary station identified on the authorization, the permittee/licensee (1) must maintain, and cannot change, the primary station to be rebroadcast by the FM translator, and (2) cannot assign or transfer its FM translator authorization to a different entity unless it is in conjunction with the assignment or transfer of the primary station to that same entity.

10. Finally, the Commission finds additional eligibility restrictions are unnecessary to achieve the Commission's goals of giving legitimate interested parties the opportunity to apply for NCE reserved band FM translator outlets, while still preserving secondary service spectrum, curbing abuse, and promoting efficiency. The Commission declines to adopt EIC's suggested restrictions based on existing authorizations and income, a proposal adamantly opposed by several commenters. The Commission agrees with these commenters that EIC's narrow restrictions would be arbitrary, contrary to the public interest, and burdensome. Specifically, the Commission finds that a restriction based on the number of full power primary stations and FM translator stations an applicant holds would unduly penalize and exclude established broadcasters and “preclude the filing of applications by the very licensees where the public would be served by these new translators.” Further, a restriction based on annual gross income would require the collection of information currently unavailable to the Commission, creating delays and an additional burden on both applicants and Bureau staff that will not further the Commission's goals of this proceeding ( i.e., promote efficiency in this window, constrain speculative applications, and ensure this window provides additional flexibility to existing broadcasters). An income-based restriction could also, as K-LOVE/HMG notes, potentially “dissuade robust participation from licensees as diverse as state universities, non-profits, and religious broadcasters with revenue streams wholly unrelated to their broadcast business, undermining the public interest goals of the filing window.”

11. Eligibility Restriction and Application Limits. Accordingly, after reviewing and considering the comments in this proceeding, the Commission adopts and codifies the proposed eligibility restriction and application limits: In the 2026 new NCE reserved band FM translator station construction permit filing window: (1) each applicant must be the licensee or permittee of an existing NCE FM or noncommercial AM radio broadcast station or LPFM station (primary station) that the proposed FM translator station will rebroadcast; (2) each applicant entity may file no more than a total of ten applications nationally, except that (i) each Tribal LPFM applicant entity that is subject to § 73.860(c) may file no more than a total of four applications nationally, and (ii) each other LPFM applicant entity that is subject to § 73.860(b) may file no more than a total of two applications nationally; and (3) a party to an application may hold attributable interests, as defined in § 73.7000, in no more than the maximum applications permitted under this rule. If it is determined that any applicant entity filed more than the maximum applications permitted under this rule, or any party to an application has an attributable interest in more than the maximum permitted, the Media Bureau will retain the applications that were filed first—based on application receipt data—and dismiss all other applications that exceed the limit. Each station authorization granted in the 2026 new NCE reserved band FM translator station construction permit filing window shall be subject to a holding period. From grant of the construction permit until the time when the facility has achieved four years of on-air operations rebroadcasting the primary station identified on the authorization, the permittee/licensee: (1) must maintain, and cannot change, the primary station to be rebroadcast by the FM translator, and (2) cannot assign or transfer the FM translator authorization to a different entity unless it is in conjunction with the assignment or transfer of the primary station to that same entity.

12. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) incorporated an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) in the FCC Seeks Comment on Proposed Application Limit for New Noncommercial Educational Reserved Band FM Translator Station Applications in Upcoming 2026 Filing Window, Public Notice ( Cap Comment Notice ), released in February 2026. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the Cap Comment Notice, including comment on the IRFA. No comments were filed addressing the IRFA; however, the Commission discusses relevant comments and related proposals that may impact small entities below. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA and it (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register .

13. Need for, and Objectives of, the Rules. In the document, the Commission establishes that in the upcoming 2026 noncommercial educational (NCE) reserved band FM translator filing window: (1) each applicant must be the licensee or permittee of an existing NCE FM or noncommercial AM radio broadcast station or low power FM (LPFM) station (primary station) that the proposed FM translator station will rebroadcast; (2) each applicant entity may file no more than a total of ten applications nationally, except that Tribal LPFM applicants are limited to four applications and all other LPFM applicants to two applications nationally; and (3) a party to an application may hold attributable interests in no more than the maximum applications permitted under the Commission's rules (rules). In addition, the Commission has determined that, absent eligibility restrictions and a limit on the number of applications that an entity may file in the filing window described in the document, some applicants may file a large number of speculative applications, including applications that are mutually exclusive with each other. Accordingly, the Commission has determined that a general limit of ten applications for NCE reserved band FM translator station construction permits in the filing window, as well as imposing a requirement that each applicant be the licensee or permittee of an existing NCE FM or noncommercial AM radio broadcast station or LPFM station (primary station) that the proposed FM translator will rebroadcast, are appropriate procedural safeguards.

14. The Commission also adopts a holding period for construction permits granted in the upcoming filing window, and the subsequent licenses, mandating that from grant of the permit until the facility has achieved four years of on-air operations rebroadcasting the primary station identified on the authorization, the permittee/licensee (1) must maintain, and cannot change, the primary station to be rebroadcast by the FM translator, and (2) cannot assign or transfer its FM translator authorization to a different entity unless it is in conjunction with the assignment or transfer of the primary station to that same entity.

15. Lastly, the Commission concludes that an application limit, eligibility restrictions, and four-year holding period will deter speculation, permit the expeditious processing of the NCE reserved band FM translator applications filed in the window, and provide interested applicants with a meaningful opportunity to file for and obtain new NCE reserved band FM translator station licenses while still preserving spectrum for future secondary services. The Commission believes that the application limit, eligibility restrictions, and four-year holding period will benefit small entities, as defined below.

16. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA. In response to the Cap Comment Notice, the Commission received comments and replies from broadcast industry stakeholders who debated the proposed application limits, eligibility restrictions, and related issues. Though no comments were filed directly addressing the IRFA, a number of comments were submitted regarding proposals that may impact small entities. The majority of commenters addressing the application limit endorse the Commission's proposed 10-application cap. Kyle Magrill (Magrill) and Cedar Cove Broadcasting, Inc. (Cedar Cove) each recommend a larger 30-application limit. REC Networks (REC) and Low Power FM Advocacy Group (LPFM-AG) each oppose Cedar Cove's proposal. Edward A. Schober (Schober) urges the Commission to exempt applicants from the cap “if all the applications, and the principal community of the primary station are within the same minor insular outlying area, provided that the applicant has no applications outside the minor outlying area. (USVI, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, etc.).”

17. REC supports the four-application cap for Tribal LPFM applicants and two-application cap for all other LPFM applicants proposed in the Cap Comment Notice. Cedar Cove recommends that the Commission limit all LPFM applicants to only one application in the filing window. REC and LPFM-AG each oppose Cedar Cove's proposal. LPFM-AG conversely argues that the “the window is too narrow to be meaningful for many LPFM applicants,” and the Commission should therefore increase the limit to four applications for all LPFM applicants. Prometheus Radio Project agrees with LPFM-AG's recommendation to increase the application limit for all LPFM applicants. Finally, Schober proposes that the Commission allow unlimited translator applications for Tribal and public safety LPFM applicants.

18. Several commenters endorse the Commission's proposal to require that each applicant be the licensee or permittee of an existing primary station, which the proposed FM translator will rebroadcast. Only one commenter, Charles de Caro, opposes the restriction. The Educational Information Corporation (EIC) supports the primary station eligibility restriction, but advocates for several additional restrictions based on the number of existing authorizations and annual gross income. Four separate commenters oppose EIC's proposed restrictions.

19. To prevent speculation and gamesmanship, REC recommends imposing a four-year holding period on construction permits granted in this filing window. Common Frequency, Inc., supports REC's proposal, but recommends that “in maintaining the primary station rebroadcast designation, the Commission should be able to grant narrow waivers in the local public interest for certain changes.” LPFM-AG opposes a four-year holding period and instead advocates for a one-year holding period to address the risk of “immediate flipping, paper shuffling of primaries, or rapid untethering of translators shortly after grant or license.” Schober recommends a “permanent freeze” on assignments and primary station changes. The Commission's response to these comments and proposals is discussed below. Finally, some commenters request that the Commission make material changes to several rules before opening the window. These recommendations, irrespective of their merits, fall outside the scope of this proceeding, and therefore the Commission will not consider them here.

20. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for the Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy, and also provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.

21. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules Will Apply. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the adopted rules. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. The SBA establishes small business size standards that agencies are required to use when promulgating regulations relating to small businesses; agencies may establish alternative size standards for use in such programs, but must consult and obtain approval from SBA before doing so.

22. The Commission's actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission therefore describes three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected by its actions. In general, a small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 34.75 million businesses. Next, “small organizations” are not-for-profit enterprises that are independently owned and operated and not dominant their field. While the Commission does not have data regarding the number of non-profits that meet that criteria, over 99 percent of nonprofits have fewer than 500 employees. Finally, “small governmental jurisdictions” are defined as cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with populations of less than fifty thousand. Based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, the Commission estimates that at least 48,724 out of 90,835 local government jurisdictions have a population of less than 50,000.

23. The rules adopted in the document will apply to small entities in the industries identified in the chart below by their six-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and corresponding SBA size standard. Where available, the Commission also provides additional information regarding the number of potentially affected entities in the industries identified below.

24. Description of Economic Impact and Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities. The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of adopted rules on small entities, as well as projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record.

25. The document adopts eligibility restrictions, a four-year holding period, and a limit on the number of applications each applicant may file in the upcoming filing window. The Commission finds that none of the changes adopted in the document will result in an increase in the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of broadcast stations or applicants for NCE reserved band FM translator authorizations. Applicants will be current licensees or permittees of an existing NCE FM or noncommercial AM radio broadcast station or LPFM station and should be familiar with the Commission's application process, thereby reducing the need to hire other professionals to comply with this process. Small entity applicants are required to comply with application requirements, including submitting no more than a total of ten applications nationally. Small Tribal LPFM applicants may file no more than four applications nationally, and other LPFM applicants subject to § 73.860(b) of the Commission's rules may file no more than a total of two applications nationally. In addition, applicants may hold attributable interests in no more than the maximum applications permitted as defined in § 73.7000 of the Commission's rules, and must comply with the four-year holding period as discussed above.

26. Discussion of Steps Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered. The RFA requires an agency to provide “a description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities . . . including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected.

27. As discussed above, commenters offered various alternatives to the application caps and eligibility restrictions proposed in the document. Regarding the adopted ten-application cap, which was supported by the majority of commenters addressing the limit, the Commission finds that the 30-application limit proposals by Magrill and Cedar Cove would not serve its goals as well as the ten-application limit. While the Commission acknowledges their laudable claims that a higher cap could increase service to underserved and rural areas, these increased cap proposals, which were not endorsed by any other commenters and opposed by REC and LPFM-AG, have the significant drawback of increasing the potential for more and larger mutually exclusive (MX) groups, which could lead to processing delays. Implementing a 30-application approach would also create administrative challenges, further delaying the initiation of new radio service to the public.

28. The Commission also rejects proposed alternatives to the adopted four-application cap for Tribal LPFM applicants and a two-application cap for all other LPFM applicants. The Commission finds that Cedar Cove's recommendation to limit all LPFM applicants to one application would unnecessarily restrict an applicant's ability to identify a usable reserved-band channel and expand service. Furthermore, LPFM-AG's proposed four-application cap for all LPFM applicants and Schober's proposal for unlimited applications for all Tribal LPFM applicants are logistically complicated, unfair to full-service applicants, and contrary to the Commission's well-established LPFM ownership restrictions.

29. The Commission also considers additional applicant eligibility restrictions in the document, but ultimately adopts the restrictions proposed in the Cap Comment Notice. For example, the Commission declines to adopt EIC's suggested restrictions based on the number of an applicant's existing authorizations and income, which several commenters adamantly opposed. The Commission agrees that these narrow restrictions would be arbitrary, burdensome, and contrary to the public interest.

30. In the document, the Commission also considers various holding period proposals. The Commission agrees with REC and LPFM-AG that there “needs to be a safeguard in place” to prevent speculation and gamesmanship and that a temporary restriction on primary station changes and assignments/transfers will curb the risk of “immediate flipping, paper reshuffling of primaries, or rapid untethering of translators shortly after grant or license.” The Commission finds that REC's four-year holding period proposal strikes the correct balance and is sufficient to deter license speculators, while not unduly burdening the licensee.

31. Report to Congress. The Commission will send a copy of the document, including this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the document, including this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for the SBA Office of Advocacy and will publish a copy of the document and this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (or summaries thereof) in the Federal Register .

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 74 as follows:

This final rule is a change to reporting requirements that revises and standardizes the time limit for all trawl C/Ps to assign each haul to a management program in the logbook. NMFS published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on October 2, 2025 (90 FR 47716). The comment period on the proposed rule ended on November 3, 2025. NMFS received six comment letters and considered all comments submitted on or before November 3, 2025 in the development of this rule. A summary of the comments and NMFS's responses are provided in the Comments and Responses section of the preamble. All public comment letters submitted during the comment period may be obtained at: https://www.regulations.gov/document/NOAA-NMFS-2024-0154-0003. A detailed review of the rationale for these regulations is provided in the preamble to the proposed rule (90 FR 47716).

NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone under the GOA FMP and under the BSAI FMP. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared and recommended these FMPs under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations governing U.S. fisheries and implementing the FMPs for groundfish of the GOA and BSAI appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679. This action is implemented under Magnuson-Stevens Act section 305(d) and is necessary to carry out section 3.9.1 of both the BSAI FMP and GOA FMP, which describe the Council's recommended approach to recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Section 3.9.1 of the BSAI FMP requires C/P vessel operators to submit certain information within a time period specified in regulations and authorizes NMFS, in consultation with the Council, to establish such recordkeeping and reporting regulations that are necessary and appropriate to determine catch, production, effort, price, and other information necessary for conservation and management of the fisheries. Under the FMPs, NMFS may amend these regulations as necessary to accomplish the goals and objectives of the recordkeeping and reporting provisions. On April 8, 2019, the Council recommended the regulatory provisions that this action implements. This action modifies recordkeeping and reporting requirements that are necessary to attribute catch to specific fishery management programs implemented under the BSAI and GOA FMPs.

In 2024, 30 trawl C/Ps fished for groundfish in the exclusive economic zone off Alaska, participating in the Amendment 80 Program, American Fisheries Act (AFA) Program, Central GOA Rockfish Program (Rockfish Program), Aleutian Islands Pollock (AIP) Program, open access fisheries, and the CDQ Program. This rule applies to all trawl C/P fishing activity under the GOA and BSAI groundfish FMPs.

Recordkeeping and reporting requirements necessary to attribute catch to specific fishery management programs are specified at 50 CFR 679.5 and summarized in section 2.1.1 of the Analysis (See ADDRESSES ). Logbook requirements for trawl C/Ps have evolved over time, beginning with the use of a paper Daily Cumulative Production Logbook (DCPL), followed by development and use of a NMFS-approved electronic logbook (ELB) (§ 679.5(f)). If actively fishing, the operator of a trawl C/P using a NMFS-approved ELB must enter all information into its NMFS-approved ELB that is required to be entered into a DCPL (§ 679.5(c)(4) and (c)(6)), subject to the same recording time limits for DCPLs (§ 679.5(f)(2)(iii)(B)( 1 )). In this preamble, the term “logbook” means both the DCPL and ELB. Data recorded in C/P logbooks include information useful to fishery managers such as gear type, catch by haul, and assignment of a management program (including CDQ Program) to each completed haul. Certain information must be recorded by the operator of a C/P using trawl gear at various times during vessel operations as specified in regulations at § 679.5(c)(4)(ii)(B). Trawl C/P operations with associated reporting requirements include: deployment and retrieval of trawl gear, completion of weighing all catch in a haul, and end-of-day reporting of information about the previous day's processing and production. This final rule does not modify regulations governing the required reporting method. This final rule modifies only § 679.5(c)(4)(ii)(B)( 1 ) and ( 2 ).

Under the regulations at § 679.5(c)(4)(ii)(B)( 1 ) and ( 2 ) prior to this action, hauls assigned to the CDQ management program and hauls assigned to other management programs had two different time limits for recording the management program code in the logbook. Hauls needed to be assigned to a management program within 2 hours of completion of gear retrieval if they were not assigned to the CDQ program, versus within 2 hours of completion of weighing all catch in the haul if they were assigned to a CDQ program. This was an unnecessary discrepancy in the reporting requirements that created potential confusion.

This final rule revises § 679.5(c)(4)(ii)(B)( 1 ) and ( 2 ) to state that a trawl C/P haul must be assigned to a management program (without regard to whether it is CDQ or non-CDQ) no later than 2 hours after all catch in the haul has been weighed. This action eliminates the discrepancy between the time allowed for recording the management program for CDQ Program hauls, as opposed to non-CDQ program hauls. The timing discrepancy created potential confusion for trawl C/P vessel operators participating in both CDQ Program and non-CDQ program fishing on the same fishing trip, and did not allow trawl C/Ps adequate time to assess haul species composition before assigning a haul to a non-CDQ program. In summary, this final rule: (1) modifies when a management program must be reported in the logbook for each trawl C/P haul; and (2) aligns the timing requirements for reporting each haul to a management program across all management programs.

Specifically, this final rule revises § 679.5(c)(4)(ii)(B) to allow trawl C/P operators to assign hauls to any management program in the GOA and BSAI management areas under the same time limit. Language on when a haul must be designated to a non-CDQ management program is removed from § 679.5(c)(4)(ii)(B)( 1 ). Language is removed from § 679.5(c)(4)(ii)(B)( 2 ) regarding CDQ number, as it is duplicative given that § 679.5(a)(1)(iii) requires that the CDQ number be recorded where harvest under the CDQ program occurs. Language is added to § 679.5(c)(4)(ii)(B)( 2 ) applying a single haul designation recording time limit for all management programs. With these changes, the timing of when a non-CDQ management program must be reported increased from within 2 hours after completion of gear retrieval to within 2 hours after completion of weighing all catch in the haul.

NMFS did not make changes to the regulatory text in this final rule from the regulatory text in the proposed rule.

NMFS received six comment letters during the public comment period on the proposed rule (90 FR 47716, October 2, 2025). Commenters included one individual, one organization, and four anonymous submissions. Below, NMFS summarizes and responds to 13 unique relevant comments.

Comment 1: This program is a positive step toward regulatory clarity and data integrity. By standardizing the haul designation reporting deadline for all management programs, NMFS can create a consistent, logical reporting process. This rule gives vessel operators the necessary time to accurately assess a haul's composition before making a designation, which is crucial for precise quota management. Aligning the reporting requirements across all of the management programs will hopefully enhance compliance and better the management for the fisheries.

Response: NMFS acknowledges this comment. This rule simplifies reporting requirements for all affected trawl C/P entities by aligning and standardizing the reporting time limits for hauls assigned to all management programs.

Comment 2: While the change may appear technical, it directly affects when and how captains and crew record and transmit operational data that feed NMFS's observer, electronic monitoring (EM), and catch accounting systems.

Response: NMFS disagrees. This rule does not change how trawl C/P vessel operators submit data in the logbook and eLandings. These operators will continue to enter required information in the logbook and eLandings (§ 679.5(f)(1)(iv)). This rule merely simplifies reporting requirements for all affected trawl C/P vessel operators by aligning and standardizing the reporting time limits for assigning trawl hauls to a management program ( i.e., without regard to whether it is CDQ or non-CDQ). Therefore, catch reporting systems used by trawl C/P vessel operators will not need to be changed to comply with the timing change implemented by this rule.

Nor will this timing change affect observer data collection, although the North Pacific Observer Sampling Manual has been updated to note the change in timing for when a vessel operator is required to assign each haul to a management program. Observers will continue to gather information from the logbook and report it to NMFS for catch accounting purposes; this timing change aligns the availability of the management program designation with other catch data points that are recorded for each haul. Likewise, this reporting timing change will not affect existing EM systems or data flows.

Comment 3: The use of the phrase “all catch” in the regulation would enable vessels to weigh some, but not all, catch in order to prolong the delay from hauling to management program assignment, which would increase the potential for inaccuracies and haul mixing.

Response: NMFS disagrees. NMFS continues to prohibit haul mixing under existing catch weighing regulations. This rule does not modify catch weighing or catch handling regulations. Additional time for recording of non-CDQ management programs is not expected to have substantial impacts on vessel operations or fishery conservation and management. Other required information is to be entered by 2400 hours, A.l.t., each day to record the previous day's information (§ 679.5(c)(4)(ii)(B)), and all relevant data will be captured through existing reporting requirements. Typical handling of each haul includes some period of delay to facilitate handling and processing, but excessive delay is unlikely given that it would reduce fish quality, and thus marketability and profits. Therefore, NMFS does not expect changes to how trawl C/P operators weigh catch and, as a result, also does not expect an increase in haul mixing or inaccuracies.

Comment 4: NMFS must comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) by either: placing in the docket the factual basis supporting any certification under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; or, if such a basis is absent or insufficient, preparing and publishing an Initial/Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA/FRFA) that evaluates direct compliance costs on small catcher vessels and other small entities, considers significant alternatives, and, where applicable, conducting SBREFA outreach (5 U.S.C. 603-604, 605, 609).

Response: NMFS provided the factual basis for certification under the RFA in the Classification section of the proposed rule (90 FR 47716, October 2, 2025). In that certification, NMFS explained that this rule is a minor change intended to allow trawl C/P vessel operators fishing for both CDQ and non-CDQ programs more time to adequately assess species composition of hauls before assigning each haul to a management program.

This rule applies only to C/P vessels and does not affect recordkeeping and reporting requirements for catcher vessels. There are 30 C/P vessels impacted by this rule. Of those 30 vessels, only one is considered a small entity. Impacts from this rule are beneficial.

This rule simplifies reporting requirements for all affected trawl C/P entities by aligning and standardizing the reporting time limits for trawl hauls assigned to all management programs ( i.e., without regard to whether it is CDQ or non-CDQ). Current regulations require vessel operators to assign hauls to a CDQ Program within 2 hours after weighing all catch, in contrast to 2 hours after gear retrieval for all other management programs. This rule applies the timing for the CDQ Program to all management programs. Therefore, this action was certified at the proposed rule stage to not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA and no initial regulatory flexibility analysis has been conducted. The Analysis prepared for this action provides additional information on the potential for economic impacts (see ADDRESSES ).

This final rule will be effective 30-days after publication in the Federal Register to provide time for regulated entities to comply. Furthermore, NMFS notifies regulated entities of changes to reporting requirements and will conduct outreach prior to the effective date of this rule (See DATES ).

Comment 5: NMFS certified no significant economic impacts without providing the underlying data and analysis ( e.g., number of small entities, expected per-haul incremental time, transition costs, variance in impacts between catcher vessels and larger platforms).

Response: NMFS provided the data and analysis, including the number of directly regulated small entities, in the certification under the RFA in the Classification section of the proposed rule (90 FR 47716, October 2, 2025) and in the Analysis (see ADDRESSES ). Please refer to the response for comment 4.

This final rule standardizes management program reporting time limits, thereby increasing the time period for assigning non-CDQ hauls to a management program and providing increased flexibility to all directly regulated entities. Therefore, this rule will not increase costs for directly regulated entities. Further, while this rule changes when a trawl C/P vessel operator assigns a non-CDQ haul, it makes no other changes to the reporting requirements, and therefore does not impact any vessel operations. This rule does not regulate catcher vessels.

Comment 6: Many catcher vessels and shore-based businesses involved in Alaska groundfish trawl operations qualify as small entities under Small Business Administration size standards. NMFS should consider revising the count of small entities affected and consider alternatives that minimize burden.

Response: This final rule regulates trawl C/Ps and does not regulate catcher vessels or shore-based businesses. NMFS estimates the number of directly regulated small entities based on the annual earnings threshold of $11.0 million established on January 26, 2016 (81 FR 4469). Based on Section 4.4 of the Analysis, only 1 of the 34 directly-regulated entities is a small entity, and no directly-regulated entities are expected to be adversely impacted by the rule. The estimated per-haul administrative burden does not change with this rule. This rule does not place any new regulatory burden on directly-regulated entities, and only provides more time for affected trawl C/Ps to complete assignment of non-CDQ hauls to a management program (since CDQ-designated hauls already had the additional time for reporting). Therefore, this rule was properly certified under the RFA in the Classification section of the proposed rule (90 FR 47716, October 2, 2025), and a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required.

Comment 7: Provide a reasonable delayed compliance date or safe harbor of at least 180 days to confirm system readiness to allow vessels, shoreside partners, and vendors to update logbooks, EM/observer workflows, software, training, and compliance protocols without enforcement risk.

Response: This final rule will become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register , providing adequate time to notify affected vessels (see DATES ). Please refer to the response to comment 2. This rule does not require a change or update to the logbook, nor to EM/observer workflows or software for directly regulated entities, which are limited to trawl C/Ps fishing groundfish in the GOA and BSAI management areas. The North Pacific Observer Program updated the North Pacific Observer Sampling Manual to note the timing change, although observer duties and data collection onboard a trawl C/P will not change under this rule, regardless of which management program a trawl C/P haul is assigned to. NMFS has notified the public and affected entities of this change. This includes posting the final rule on https://www.regulations.gov/document/NOAA-NMFS-2024-0154-0003, a summary and link to the final rule and analysis on the NMFS Alaska Region website, and direct notification to regulated entities. Note that this final rule gives trawl C/P vessel operators more time to assign a haul to a management program and there are no compliance issues if the operator assigns a haul earlier than 2 hours after completion of weighing the haul.

Comment 8: We request NMFS consider aligning the compliance date with the start of the next fishing year to simplify training and system updates.

Response: The final rule becomes effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register (see DATES ). This timing provides NMFS 30 days to notify the directly regulated entities and conduct outreach about these changes. Since this rule does not place any new regulatory burden on groundfish fishery participants, and indeed gives trawl C/P vessel operators more time in which to report non-CDQ hauls, and does not change the required reporting method, implementation does not need to wait until the beginning of the next fishing year. There are no system updates necessary to implement this timing change. Please refer to the response to comment 7 regarding outreach and implementation of this rule.

Comment 9: Provide clear guidance to impacted entities to assist with compliance and enforcement discretion to provide a grace period for inadvertent errors during the transition. NMFS should publish detailed guidance, including examples of when a “haul” must be designated under the new timing, how to reconcile entries across logbooks, EM/observer systems, and catch accounting.

Response: Upon publication of this final rule in the Federal Register , NMFS will notify directly-regulated entities to aid and assist impacted entities with this transition. The logbook and observer data reconciliation process will remain unchanged after implementation of this rule. Although the time from gear retrieval to weighing of catch varies, the order of operations generally remains the same, including reporting. For example, if a vessel retrieved a haul at 6:00 a.m., combined aging and weighing of the catch took 16 hours (vessels commonly allow catch to age before weighing and processing), and catch weighing was completed at 10:00 p.m., then under this rule, the haul must be assigned to a management program by 12:00 a.m. (midnight). Since this rule is less restrictive than the status quo, if a trawl C/P vessel operator followed their usual practice on assigning a haul to a non-CDQ program within 2 hours of gear retrieval, they will still be within the new timing requirement implemented in this final rule. Therefore, no new compliance issues should arise from this additional timing flexibility.

Comment 10: NMFS should reevaluate and correct its Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) determinations by explaining how the change in the timing of haul designation does or does not alter the time, manner, and frequency of existing collections of information. If it does alter any of those elements or the associated burden, NMFS should submit a revision to the applicable Office of Management and Budget (OMB)-approved information collections, publish the required 60-day and 30-day PRA notices, and delay the rule's compliance date until OMB approval is obtained (44 U.S.C. 3507; 5 CFR 1320.5, 1320.8).

Response: This rule revises existing requirements for the collection of information for OMB Control Number 0648-0515 (Alaska Interagency Reporting System). This final rule changes the timing for reporting a management program in the logbook and does not place any new regulatory burden on groundfish fishery participants. Further information is included under the “Collection-of-Information Requirements” section below. Frequency of reporting will still be once per haul, and there is no change to the required logbook format or reporting mechanism. This rule aligns the timing of haul reporting requirements to allow trawl C/P vessel operators fishing for CDQ and non-CDQ programs on the same trip to better assess species composition before assigning a haul to a management program.

Comment 11: Changing the timing of when the vessel operator records a fishery management program in the logbook raises significant concerns including the accuracy of the burden estimate, specifically that the change in threshold for reporting from gear retrieval to the completion of weighing all catch is variable and not reported in the logbook.

Response: This final rule does not place any new regulatory burden on groundfish fishery participants. Instead, this final rule shifts the timing of when a management program is recorded for a haul and increases consistency and flexibility for C/P trawl vessel operators by aligning the reporting time limit across all fishery management programs to within 2 hours after completion of weighing all catch in the haul. Trawl C/P vessel operators already follow the timing in this final rule for assigning a haul to the CDQ Program. This final rule aligns the reporting timing of haul designation for all management programs. While completion of catch weighing time is variable and not reported, CDQ-designated hauls already follow this reporting timeline ( i.e., 2 hours after completion of weighing of all catch), and NMFS is unaware of this presenting any problems in data compilation or estimation. Please also refer to the response to comment 3.

Comment 12: NMFS's Alaska fisheries reporting tools include multiple integrated instruments ( e.g., the logbook, observer and EM sampling records, and landing/catch accounting submissions). If any of these instruments or their instructions must be revised to match the new haul timing, a PRA revision is required.

Response: This final rule does not require revision of the logbook, nor of observer and EM sampling records or landing/catch accounting submissions. The rule change is being noted in the North Pacific Observer Sampling Manual simply to ensure observers are aware of this change. This final rule revises the existing requirements for the collection-of-information for OMB Control Number 0648-0515 (Alaska Interagency Electronic Reporting System). Collection of information through vessel logbooks and through the Observer Program remain unchanged by this final rule and are approved by OMB in collections 0648-0213 (Alaska Region Logbook and Activity Family of Forms) and 0648-0318 (North Pacific Observer Program).

Comment 13: If the preamble states there are no new or revised collections, that determination appears incomplete given the rule's core change to the timing of haul designation. NMFS should clarify and/or consider the accuracy of the burden estimate and any changes in the timing or reporting from gear retrieval to completion of weighing and, if necessary, revise the rule's PRA treatment.

Response: Please refer to the response to comment 10. This rule does not change data required to be submitted in the logbook or the number of respondents or responses for the logbook, and is not expected to change the logbook's time or cost burden. Thus, no change is made to the estimated reporting or cost burdens for the logbook.

NMFS is issuing this rule pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Following previous actions taken by the Council and transmitted to NMFS under section 304(b), the FMP authorizes NMFS to take this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the GOA and BSAI FMPs and other applicable laws.

This final rule has been determined to be significant for the purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.

This final rule is considered an E.O.14192 deregulatory action because this rule increases flexibility for trawl C/P vessel operators fishing for groundfish.

NMFS has determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes; therefore, consultation with Tribal officials under E.O. 13175 is not required, and the requirements of section (5)(b) and (c) of E.O. 13175 also do not apply. A Tribal summary impact statement under section (5)(b)(2)(B) and section (5)(c)(2) of E.O. 13175 is not required and has not been prepared.

An RIR was prepared to assess costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives. A copy of this Analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). NMFS is recommending the regulatory revisions in this final rule based on those measures that maximized net benefits to the Nation.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. NMFS has responded to three comments received regarding this certification under the “Impacts on Small Entities” heading in the Comments and Responses section of this preamble. These comments did not raise substantive issues with the factual basis supporting certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required, and none was prepared.

This final rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to review and approval by OMB under the PRA. This rule changes the existing requirements for the collection of information for OMB Control Number 0648-0515 (Alaska Interagency Electronic Reporting System).

This information collection is revised because this final rule changes the reporting time limit for when the operator of a C/P using trawl gear must report a non-CDQ management program to within 2 hours after completion of weighing all catch in the haul. This rule does not change the data required to be submitted in the logbook. The timing change does not change the number of respondents or responses for this logbook and is not expected to change the logbook's time or cost burdens. Therefore, no change is made to the estimated reporting or cost burdens for the C/P logbook.

Public reporting burden per individual response for the C/P logbook is estimated to average 15 minutes, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

We invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be submitted on the following website: https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by using the search function and entering either the title of the collection or the OMB Control Number 0648-0515.

Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

For reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 679 as follows: