Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2026-2047 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2026-2047. Address questions about NRC dockets to Helen Chang, telephone: 301-415-3228, email: Helen.Chang@nrc.gov. For technical questions contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

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

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

The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website ( https://www.regulations.gov ). Please include Docket ID NRC-2026-2047 in your comment submission.

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

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

Because the NRC considers this action to be non-controversial, the NRC is publishing this proposed rule concurrently with a direct final rule in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register . The direct final rule will become effective on September 14, 2026. However, if the NRC receives any significant adverse comment by July 31, 2026, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws the direct final rule. If the direct final rule is withdrawn, the NRC will address the comments in a subsequent final rule. In general, absent significant modifications to the proposed revisions requiring republication, the NRC will not initiate a second comment period on this action in the event the direct final rule is withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For a more detailed discussion of the proposed rule changes and associated analyses, see the direct final rule published in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register .

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

To implement this mandate, the Commission approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule that added a new subpart K in part 72 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) entitled “General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites” (55 FR 29181; July 18, 1990). This rule also established a new subpart L in 10 CFR part 72 entitled “Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Casks,” which contains procedures and criteria for obtaining NRC approval of spent fuel storage cask designs. The NRC subsequently issued a final rule on November 21, 2008 (73 FR 70587), that approved the NAC MAGNASTOR® System design and added it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in § 72.214 as Certificate of Compliance No. 1031.

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

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

NRC has examined this proposed rule and has determined that it is consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O. 14154, “Unleashing American Energy,” E.O. 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” E.O. 14215 “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies,” and E.O. 14300, “Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.” This proposed rule is not considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.

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

The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal rulemaking website at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2026-2047. In addition, the Federal rulemaking website allows members of the public to receive alerts when changes or additions occur in a docket folder. To subscribe: (1) navigate to the docket folder (NRC-2026-2047); (2) click the “Subscribe” link; and (3) enter an email address and click on the “Subscribe” link.

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments using a method listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2026-4666; Project Identifier AD-2025-01677-R” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may revise this proposal because of those comments.

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

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Binod Singh, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA received a report that couplings part number (P/N) 369H5660 were found with mechanical damage to the root fillets, spline faces, and the major diameter on Model 369D, 369E, 369F, 369FF, 369H, and 500N helicopters. It was also reported that a new vendor improperly manufactured coupling P/N 369H5660, with a total of 148 shipped to customers between June 3, 2020, and May 1, 2022. The manufacturer reported that 86 affected couplings have been recovered, with the remaining 62 affected couplings at unknown locations.

This condition, if not addressed, could result in fatigue cracks that grow from the damaged root fillets and spline faces, which could lead to failure of the coupling with consequent loss of power to the main rotor blades and possible emergency autorotational landing.

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

The FAA reviewed MD Helicopters Service Bulletin SB369H-264R1 for Model 369H helicopters, SB369D-230R1 for Model 369D helicopters, SB369E-130R1 for Model 369E helicopters, SB369F-121R1 for Model 369F and 369FF helicopters, and SB500N-067R1 for Model 500N helicopters, dated May 26, 2023 (co-published as one document). This material specifies procedures for a one-time visual inspection of the couplings for mechanical damage or cracks of the splines and, if necessary, replacement of the couplings.

This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information already described.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 568 helicopters of U.S. registry.

The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any replacement that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of helicopters that might need this replacement:

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

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

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

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

This proposed rule would amend 14 CFR part 65 by changing a mechanic inspection authorization (IA) into an inspection rating (IR). Currently, FAA certificated mechanics who hold airframe and powerplant (A&P) ratings and meet certain additional eligibility requirements may seek an IA, which provides additional privileges as set forth in § 65.95. The IA eligibility and renewal requirements would be largely retained and incorporated into the new IR requirements with some revision. Section IV.B of the preamble provides a table outlining the relocated provisions for ease of reference. The privileges and limitations of the new IR would align with those of the current IA. As explained in section III.B. of the preamble, this proposal intends to reduce both individual and administrative costs and harmonize the IA with the other ratings available on a mechanic certificate and would not make any substantive changes to a current IA's job duties or responsibilities.

FAA proposes to replace the IA with a new IR. Currently, an IA expires and requires renewal in March of each odd-numbered year, requiring IA holders to submit a renewal package to the responsible Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) or International Field Office (IFO) for review. The renewal package consists of a completed FAA Form 8610-1, Mechanic's Application for Inspection Authorization, documentary evidence to support that the applicant still meets the initial eligibility requirements of § 65.91(c)(1) through (4), and evidence to show that the applicant completed one of the activities listed in § 65.93(a)(1) through (5) for each of the years of the two-year inspection authorization period. An Aviation Safety Inspector (ASI) or Aviation Safety Technician (AST) reviews the package and if approved, will issue a renewal letter to the IA holder indicating the new expiration date. This renewal process creates an unnecessary repetitive administrative burden and cost to FAA and mechanics, as discussed in section III.B of the preamble. This proposal would eliminate the expiration date, as the IR would be treated like the A&P ratings, which do not expire.

Instead of the onerous renewal process, this rule proposes to convert the annual activity requirements to renew an IA (currently set forth in § 65.93 (a)(1) through (5)) into recent experience requirements. All five of the activity options to renew an IA would be retained as activity options to meet recent experience requirements; no new options would be added. Therefore, to exercise the privileges of the IR, FAA proposes to require a person to meet the recent experience activity within the previous 12 calendar months. Maintaining the same eligibility requirements from the IA to the IR and converting the IA renewal requirements into IR recent experience requirements would ensure there is no increased risk to the National Airspace System (NAS). 1 In place of the renewal process and in light of the proposed conversion from renewal requirements to recent experience requirements, FAA proposes that inspection-rated mechanics keep records demonstrating recent experience for the previous 24 calendar months. To note, mechanics with IAs already maintain these records to present evidence at the time of IA renewal; under this proposal, they would no longer have to complete renewal paperwork every two years but still would be required to maintain their records independently for the previous 24 calendar months.

Currently, when a certificated mechanic with an IA does not meet the renewal requirements, there is no process to reinstate their IA privileges. Once an IA expires, a mechanic must reapply for a new IA, which includes resubmitting the application and supporting documentation and retaking the written examination. FAA proposes to add methods for certificated mechanics with an inspection rating to reestablish inspection privileges if they fail to meet the recent experience requirements within the previous 12 calendar months and can no longer exercise the privileges of the IR. Certificated mechanics with an IR could reestablish inspection privileges by either attending eight hours of acceptable training or successfully passing an oral test given by an ASI, provided they continue to meet eligibility requirements.

Finally, FAA proposes to convert the existing IA testing standards into formalized Airman Certification Standards (ACS) for the mechanic certificate IR, aligning with the training and testing framework for a mechanic certificate with an airframe rating, a powerplant rating, or both. FAA proposes to incorporate these standards by reference, as explained in section IV.A.4 of the preamble.

Mechanics who hold an IA (to be replaced with an IR) would realize a net savings of $1.01 million over 10 years, discounted, and FAA would realize a net savings of $4.44 million over 10 years, discounted. These savings would result from reduced paperwork costs for mechanics with an IA replaced by an IR who would no longer need to fill out renewal forms and reduced time to FAA that would no longer need to process the renewals. The net savings include a minimal one-time cost of approximately $0.22 million, discounted. This one-time cost covers the cost to the mechanics to submit a simple online form requesting a replacement mechanic certificate with an IR and to FAA for processing and sending out the replacement mechanic certificate with an IR.

There are other revisions in the proposed rule that would not have an impact on the existing industry practices and would not result in any costs or benefits. Adjustments to knowledge requirements of this proposed rule would not impact the baseline as the written test is already required under the IA. These revisions reorganize the regulatory text to explain the tests required. In addition, the addition of IR specific privileges and limitations language would not affect the existing industry practices.

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

This rulemaking is issued under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, 44701(a)(2)(A) and (a)(5), General Requirements. Under that section, FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to promote safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations and setting minimum standards in the interest of safety for inspecting, servicing, and overhauling aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appliances, and for other practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air commerce and national security. It is also issued under subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44703, Airmen Certificates, which requires the Administrator to prescribe regulations for the issuance of airman certificates when the Administrator finds, after investigation, that an individual is qualified for and physically able to perform the duties related to the position authorized by the certificate. This regulation is within the scope of that authority.

Part 65, subpart D sets forth the requirements for a mechanic certificate and associated ratings ( i.e., A&P). While not a rating under § 65.73, certificated mechanics may be eligible to receive an IA, which grants privileges beyond those associated with the mechanic certificate and its A&P ratings. A certificated mechanic with an airframe rating may approve for return to service an airframe, or any related part, after the mechanic has performed, supervised, or inspected its maintenance or alteration (excluding major repairs and major alterations) with the exception of § 65.85(b). 2 In addition, an airframe rated mechanic may perform the 100-hour inspection on an airframe or any related part or appliance as required by part 91 and approve it for return to service. Similarly, a certificated mechanic with a powerplant rating may approve for return to service a powerplant, or propeller, or any related part after the mechanic has performed, supervised, or inspected its maintenance or alteration (excluding major repairs and major alterations) with the exception of § 65.87(b). 3 Also, a powerplant rated mechanic may perform the 100-hour inspection on a powerplant or propeller, or any part thereof, as required by part 91 and approve it for return to service. A certificated mechanic with an airframe rating, powerplant rating, or both may exercise the privilege of their rating immediately after being issued a mechanic certificate under part 65 for the rating sought. However, an A&P mechanic must adhere to additional requirements to be eligible to apply for an IA.

The requirements for the IA are more rigorous than those of the ratings currently issued with a mechanic certificate because the privileges of the IA are associated with a higher risk to safety to the flying public. IA holders have the ultimate responsibility of ensuring that major repairs and major alterations have been performed properly and safely. Unlike mechanics with only A&P ratings, IA holders are able to approve aircraft or parts for return to service after major repairs and major alterations. 4 While A&P rated mechanics are able to perform major repairs and major alterations, an IA holder is required to inspect their work to ensure it was performed to an acceptable level and approve the aircraft or part for return to service. In addition, IA holders may perform the aircraft annual inspection required by 14 CFR 91.409(a)(1), which mechanics with only A&P ratings may not perform. This annual inspection is a thorough examination of all aircraft systems and components to ensure the aircraft remains airworthy and meets all safety standards.

Currently, § 65.91(c) prescribes the IA applicant eligibility requirements. To be eligible for an IA, a certificated mechanic must currently have effective A&P ratings, in effect for at least three years, and have been actively engaged in exercising their certificate for at least the two-year period immediately preceding the application for authorization. In addition, an IA applicant must have a fixed base of operations where they can be located during a normal work week, with the equipment, facilities, and inspection data available to inspect airframes, powerplants, propellers, or any related appliance properly. If a mechanic meets the eligibility requirements described above, they must then pass a written test to obtain the IA. 5

To exercise the privileges of the IA, the IA holder's mechanic certificate (and both A&P ratings) must be currently effective. In addition, an IA itself expires on March 31 of each odd-numbered year; therefore, IA holders must renew their IA, specifically, in March of each odd-numbered year. 6 To renew an IA, an IA holder must provide evidence of completion of one of the annual activities listed in § 65.93(a) for each year of the IA period. If an IA holder fails to renew their IA before the March 31 expiration date, there is no process to reinstate the expired IA; the IA holder must re-apply and meet the requirements of original issuance. Section IV.A.7. of this preamble further discusses the renewal methods, process, limitations, and resulting administrative burden to both industry and FAA that this rulemaking seeks to address.

FAA's process for issuing and renewing IAs in this manner has remained largely unchanged since the early 1960s. The preamble provides the relevant regulatory history of IAs in section III.A. and briefly discusses a related recent rulemaking that removed expiration dates from airman certificates, similar to this proposal, in section III.C.

The Civil Aeronautics Board originally codified the A&P ratings in § 24.43 of the Civil Air Regulations, which permitted a mechanic with both A&P ratings to have an IA. 7 These regulations prescribed the eligibility and privileges for an IA, marking the formal beginning of the IA process. Over time, as the aviation industry and regulatory environment evolved, FAA issued further amendments and clarifications to the IA renewal process, including recodification to part 65 in 1962, 8 but largely maintained the IA eligibility and renewal framework. For example, a 1977 final rule clarified in § 65.91(c)(1) that an applicant for an IA must hold a currently effective mechanic certificate with currently effective A&P ratings that have been continuously effective for no less than three-years. 9

In addition, the 1977 final rule, in part, withdrew a proposed record keeping requirement that would have required IA holders to maintain current records of all inspections they performed. 10 Proposed § 65.94 would have required IA holders to keep a record of every aircraft that they have inspected for a period of two years, including the registration number, name, and address of the registered owner, make and model of the aircraft, the kind of inspection performed, the date, and if the aircraft was returned to service. 11 FAA acknowledged that most IA holders already maintain personal records of work completed to satisfy the annual renewal requirements. While the majority of the commenters favored the proposal, some contended that the proposed regulation would create an undue economic burden for IA holders and the records kept would not be beneficial. 12 Therefore, FAA decided to further evaluate the impact and withdrew the proposal.

FAA revisited the issuance and renewal of IAs in a 1985 final rule due to unintended effects upon an FAA enforcement short-term suspension, effectively rendering a person's IA revoked for three years upon short-term suspension of the underlying certificate, rating, or both for a minor offense. 13 The 1985 final rule revised § 65.91(c)(1) to remove the continuous effectivity requirement with a requirement that the certificate and ratings each must be currently effective and have been in effect for a total of at least three years. FAA reasoned these revisions to § 65.91(c)(1) would provide a more equitable renewal process and a more flexible and fair enforcement program while maintaining satisfactory certification standards.

For almost three decades, IA regulations remained unchanged. However, in 2007 as an outgrowth of discussions between FAA and industry representatives, including the Professional Aviation Maintenance Association, FAA published a direct final rule amending the renewal period for IAs from March 31 of each year to March 31 of every odd-numbered year. 14 Much like this proposal, the overall goal of the 2007 direct final rule was to reduce the administrative costs and burdens associated with the IA renewal process without affecting safety because changing the renewal duration from each year to every odd-numbered year did not change the requirement to complete annual currency activities listed in § 65.93(a)(1)-(5).

In 2010, FAA sought to clarify the term “actively engaged,” as used in § 65.91(c)(2), for the purposes of processing IA applications and renewals. 15 FAA proposed to define “actively engaged” as exercising the privileges of A&P ratings on a mechanic certificate in the maintenance of civil aircraft. The 2010 notice sought to remedy confusion and inconsistent interpretation over the meaning of “actively engaged” among Aviation Safety Inspectors (ASIs) and aircraft maintenance personnel by providing a definition in FAA Order 8900.1. In addition, both the notice and the eventual adoption of policy responding to comments provided a number of examples and guidance, including consideration of the difference between full time, part time, and occasional engagement. 16

As stated in the aforementioned history, FAA has not engaged in a substantive regulatory review of IA holders in almost three decades. Since that time, FAA and industry have enjoyed advances in technology and processes, which FAA finds to be conducive in streamlining procedural regulations for IA holders at this time. This section of the preamble first discusses the identified need for the proposals to the IA and proposed conversion to an IR.

When an initial IA application is approved under § 65.91, FAA distributes an IA card (FAA Form 8310-5), which includes the mechanic's name, certificate number, and the IA expiration date. As discussed further in this section, currently, an IA expires every March 31 of each odd-numbered year; this expiration and renewal process incurs substantial costs to both FAA and individual mechanics. IA holders must renew their IAs in March of each odd-numbered year either via the online Integrated Airman Certification and Rating Application (IACRA) or directly with a FSDO or an IFO. To renew an IA, an IA holder must fill out a Mechanic's Application for Inspection Authorization, FAA Form 8610-1, and provide evidence of completion of one of the annual activities listed in § 65.93(a) for each year of the prior 2-year period that they continue to meet the initial eligibility requirements of § 65.91(c)(1) through (4). The FSDO or IFO personnel must review the application, verify the IA holder has completed the renewal activities, and issue a renewal letter with the new expiration date. Currently, no process exists for reinstatement of an expired IA. If an IA holder fails to renew their authorization prior to the expiration date, the IA is discontinued, and the IA holder must reapply for the IA and meet all the same requirements for original issuance.

In June 2022, FAA conducted research on innovative ways of accomplishing on-demand work to free up resources for more safety critical work. The research identified the IA renewal process as a task that could be eliminated to reduce unnecessary, repetitive on-demand work for both industry and FAA with no adverse impact on safety. On-demand work describes time-sensitive tasks an employee can expect to encounter, of which the quantity and scope cannot be prepared for in advance. Applications for IA renewals align with this definition. Upon receipt of a physical or digital IA renewal application, FAA personnel investigate and process the application in a timely manner. However, FAA personnel cannot anticipate the time needed to process an IA issuance or renewal application due to potential errors or the need for a more in-depth investigation. Though FAA currently conducts IA renewals in March of each odd-numbered year, FAA personnel cannot anticipate the workload because IA holders can submit renewal applications to any FSDO or IFO, regardless of their geographic location.

FAA estimates that approximately 21,500 renewal applications would be processed in every odd-numbered year at a total cost of approximately $5.66 million over the next 10 years at a seven percent present value. 17 In the 2023 renewal cycle, FAA processed 21,042 IA renewal applications. 18 The IA renewal process is burdensome and costly to both FAA and mechanics, who must complete renewal paperwork every two years.

Therefore, FAA has determined that other procedural avenues exist to ensure IA holders' continuing proficiency and experience (as subsequently explained) while reducing the burden on government and industry resources. Upon further analysis of the IA regulations during the pendency of pre-rulemaking activity, FAA has also determined that replacing the IA with the IR would align the inspection privileges with those of the airframe rating, powerplant rating, or both, on a mechanic certificate, enabling streamlined regulations and expectations in part 65, subpart D—Mechanics. These proposed changes would be deregulatory since they would reduce the economic and resource burdens linked to complying with the existing regulations for both industry and FAA.

This rulemaking is not unprecedented as FAA has recently taken similar actions to remove administrative burdens and convert renewal requirements into a rolling recent experience requirement framework. On October 1, 2024, FAA published the Removal of Expiration Date on a Flight Instructor Certificate: Additional Qualification Requirements to Train Initial Flight Instructor Applicants; and Other Provisions final rule. 19 This rule removed the expiration date on flight instructor certificates to align with other airman certificate ratings, converted renewal requirements to recent experience requirements, provided an additional recent experience activity option, and added a refresher course option to reinstate the privileges of a flight instructor certificate upon certain lapses in recent experience.

Subpart D of part 65 contains the eligibility and certification requirements for persons seeking a mechanic certificate or rating. Specifically, § 65.71 sets forth the basic eligibility requirements for a person seeking a mechanic certificate with ratings as defined in § 65.73: an airframe rating, a powerplant rating, or both. To obtain each rating, a person must complete knowledge, experience, and skill requirements as set forth in §§ 65.75, 65.77, and 65.79, respectfully, and will then be authorized to carry out the privileges and limitations set forth in §§ 65.81 (general), 65.85 (airframe), and 65.87 (powerplant), respectfully. A certificate/rating holder must also meet those recent experience requirements set forth in § 65.83.

After a person receives a mechanic certificate with both A&P ratings, each of which is currently effective and has been in effect for a total of at least three years, 20 that person may pursue an IA. An IA allows a person to (1) inspect and approve for return to service any aircraft or related part or appliance (except any aircraft maintained in accordance with a continuous airworthiness program under part 121) after a major repair or major alteration to it in accordance with part 43, if the work was done in accordance with technical data approved by the Administrator, and (2) perform an annual, or perform or supervise a progressive inspection according to §§ 43.13 and 43.15. 21

However, an IA is not a rating. While § 1.1 defines a rating as a part of a certificate that sets forth special conditions, privileges, and limitations, currently, under § 65.73, there are only two defined ratings issued with the mechanic certificate: airframe and powerplant. Conversely, the IA is not recognized as a rating (specifically called an “authorization”) and maintains separate requirements provided in §§ 65.91 through 65.95. However, FAA finds that the bestowed privileges and limitations, regulatory requirements, and general application of the IA lends itself to meeting the definition of a rating, with certain revisions to the relevant regulations. Therefore, FAA proposes to replace the IA with an IR, first by adding “Inspection” to § 65.73(a) as one of the ratings issued with a mechanic certificate as new § 65.73(a)(3).

FAA proposes to apply current IA conditions, limitations, and privileges to the proposed IR, thereby maintaining an equivalent level of safety within the NAS while streamlining the privileges in part 65, subpart D as ratings rather than a mix of ratings and authorization. This would necessitate a reorganization of the relevant regulation sections to separate the requirements of the IR from the A&P rating requirements, discussed in the following sections of the preamble in detail.

If this proposed rule becomes effective, it would require a transition period for mechanics that have an IA to convert their IA into an IR. FAA emphasizes that holders of an IA before a final rulemaking action will not be placed at a disadvantage during the pendency of transition (compared to persons who can immediately apply for an IR after any final rule adoption) or subject to a rapid transition period unnecessarily. Rather, FAA proposes to add § 65.73(c) to allow certificated mechanics that have a valid IA when (and if) the proposed IR rule becomes effective to exercise the privileges of the IR with their issued-IA for up to 24 months from the effective date, provided that they comply with the limitations and recent experience requirements of proposed §§ 65.81(b) and 65.83(b). 22 In other words, on the effective date of the rule, IA holders would be able to continue exercising inspection privileges without interruption and would not need to take immediate action to continue exercising inspection privileges so long as they (i) had a valid IA on the effective date; (ii) continue to hold a mechanic certificate with A&P ratings; (iii) have a fixed base of operations; and (iv) have the necessary equipment, facilities, and inspection data to inspect properly. 23 IA holders would also need to comply with the recent experience requirements of proposed § 65.83(b), but they would have a 6-month grace period from the final rule's effective date to comply, as discussed in section IV.A.7.ii of the preamble. This new provision would only be necessary for 24 months after the effective date of the final rule, as IA holders would be required to obtain a replacement certificate with the IR to continue exercising IR privileges, as discussed in the following paragraph. Therefore, FAA proposes amendatory language that would remove this provision after 24 months.

The IA holder would have a fixed time within which to replace their physical IA with a mechanic certificate with an IR with FAA. Therefore, FAA proposes to add § 65.73(d) to state that certificated mechanics that have a valid IA on the effective date of the final rule are entitled to a replacement mechanic certificate with the IR. 24 In addition, to exercise the privileges of the IR beyond 24 months from the effective date of the final rule, the mechanic would be required to request and obtain a replacement mechanic certificate with an IR. Replacement of the certificates would be at no charge to the mechanic. FAA Airman Registry currently maintains a system allowing a certificate holder to request a replacement mechanic certificate online; mechanics would use this same system to request a new mechanic certificate with an IR. 25

FAA would allow holders of an IA up to 24 months to exercise the privileges of an IR prior to obtaining the replacement mechanic certificate with an IR. The proposed 24-month period mirrors the current IA period between renewals. This would allow sufficient time for IA holders to complete the replacement process at their convenience; it would be at the IA holder's discretion as to when in the 24 months the person requests replacement. In addition, this would not be an additional burden from the IA renewal time period, as under the current regulations the IA holder would have to submit their renewal request within 24 months. In addition, spreading the replacement process out over 24 months would lessen the burden placed on FAA personnel who would be processing and issuing the replacement certificates. During this period, the mechanic would still have to meet the recent experience requirements of § 65.83(b) to exercise the IR privileges regardless of if they have obtained the replacement certificate, as discussed in section IV.A.6 of the preamble. This would ensure there is no safety risk in allowing 24 months to obtain the replacement certificate.

Proposed § 65.73(e) would direct the next steps if a person does not obtain a replacement mechanic certificate with an IR within 24 months of the effective date of the rule. After the 24-month time period, a person that does not obtain a replacement would be restricted from exercising the privileges of an IR. However, they would have the ability to regain these privileges without needing to go through a new application process. There would be no time limit to request a replacement certificate; a person with a valid IA on the effective date of the rule would be able to request a replacement mechanic certificate with an IR even after 24 months had passed. The difference between a new application process and the process set forth in proposed § 65.73(e) is that these re-applicants would not have to take the written test again. The written test is a computer-based fifty question multiple-choice test. The applicant is provided with a computer testing supplement to use during the test that contains excerpts from regulations, type certificate data sheets, airworthiness directives, advisory circulars, etc., that is used as a reference in answering the questions. The test is designed to ensure that the applicant possesses the baseline ability to locate, read, interpret, and apply data. FAA finds that a lapse in recency of experience would not affect this baseline ability and, therefore, it would be unnecessary for a mechanic who previously held an IA to take another written test when attempting to re-apply for their privileges (which would be via an IR).

To regain IR privileges, the person would be required to obtain the replacement certificate and comply with the limitations and recent experience requirements in proposed §§ 65.81(b) and 65.83(b). To comply with the limitations and recent experience requirements, the person must still hold a mechanic certificate with effective A&P ratings, have a fixed base of operations, have all of the necessary equipment, facilities, and data necessary to perform the work, have been actively engaged in maintaining aircraft for the two year period leading up to exercising the privileges, and either complete an eight hour refresher training course or successfully complete an oral test from an FAA inspector. Because a person would have to meet the aforementioned limitations and recent experience requirements in order to exercise the privileges of the IR, FAA does not find it necessary to impose further prerequisites on a person's ability to request a certificate with the converted IR.

Therefore, FAA finds that there are sufficient safeguards to allow a person who has a valid IA at the time this rule becomes effective to obtain a replacement certificate with an IR and regain their IR privileges at any point in time without having to reapply fully. FAA invites public comment on this determination. Specifically, FAA seeks comments on whether FAA should establish additional requirements or limitations for a person to exchange an IA for a mechanic certificate with an IR and regain inspection privileges.

Currently, under § 65.89, each person who holds a mechanic certificate must keep it in the immediate area where they normally perform work and present it for inspection upon request of certain authorized individuals. Similarly, under current § 65.95(b), whenever an IA holder is exercising the privileges of the IA, they must keep it available for inspection and present it to certain authorized people. With this proposal to change an IA to an IR, the display requirement for the IR would be covered by § 65.89 and § 65.95(b) would no longer be necessary. Therefore, FAA proposes to eliminate § 65.95(b).

However, FAA recognizes that due to the 24-month period that IA holders have to replace their existing IA with a new mechanic certificate with an IR, there would be a period that the display requirement in § 65.89 would not require the IA holder to make the IA available for inspection and presentation if FAA completely eliminated § 65.95(b). For that reason, FAA proposes to create two subparagraphs under § 65.89. The current requirements of § 65.89 would become § 65.89(a) and remain unchanged. The proposal would also create § 65.89(b), which would require those individuals that have not yet replaced their IA with a new mechanic certificate with an IR to, upon request, present documentary evidence to the same authorized individuals as in current § 65.95(b) to show that they are eligible to exercise the privileges of the IR. This new provision would only be necessary for 24 months after the effective date of the final rule, as all mechanics must then be required to obtain a replacement certificate with the IR to continue exercising IR privileges, as previously discussed. Therefore, FAA proposes amendatory language that would remove this provision after 24 months.

Currently, the denial, suspension, or revocation of an IA is appealable to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). 26 Denials, suspensions, or revocations of the ratings on a mechanic certificate are also appealable to the NTSB. 27 Therefore, the conversion of the IA to the IR would not change the appeal rights for a denial, revocation, or suspension of inspection privileges.

FAA acknowledges that a 2011 notice of policy in the Federal Register incorrectly stated that the issuance or renewal of an IA was not a certificate action, and therefore FAA did not have a formal appeal process. 28 Rather, it stated that an action on an IA application could be addressed through the Aviation Safety Consistency and Standardization Initiative. FAA finds this statement is incorrect; an action on an IA application is appealable to the NTSB. 29 FAA is issuing a Federal Register notice of policy correction to address this incorrect information along with this NPRM. 30 A copy of the notice of policy correction is available for review in the docket of this rulemaking.

Section 65.71 sets forth the eligibility requirements for applicants seeking a mechanic certificate and associated ratings. To be eligible for a mechanic certificate, a person must be at least 18 years old, be able to read, write, speak, and understand the English language, 31 have passed all prescribed tests within a period of 24 months, and comply with the sections of subpart D that apply to the rating sought. Section 65.71(b) requires mechanics who apply for additional ratings to meet the requirements in § 65.77 (Experience requirements), and within a period of 24 months, pass the tests prescribed by §§ 65.75 (Knowledge requirements) and 65.79 (Skill requirements) for the additional rating sought.

Similarly, § 65.91(c)(1) through (5) prescribe eligibility requirements for the IA. Currently, under § 65.91, an IA applicant completes an application (FAA Form 8610-1), which is reviewed by an ASI, to determine if all eligibility requirements have been met. As further explained in this section, four of these five eligibility requirements for an IA would be retained, revised, and integrated into revised § 65.71 as IR eligibility requirements in this rulemaking. The fifth, the written test requirement in current § 65.91(c)(5), would be integrated into current § 65.75, which already sets forth the knowledge requirements for a mechanic certificate and associated ratings. In changing the IA to an IR, FAA proposes to reorganize the requirements of § 65.71 to integrate IR eligibility requirements in with other ratings. As the IR has additional eligibility requirements beyond the A&P ratings, FAA generally proposes to reorganize the section so A&P requirements would be under paragraph (a) and IR requirements would be under paragraph (b).

The eligibility requirements as currently provided by § 65.71 apply to applicants for a mechanic certificate with an airframe or powerplant rating, or both. 32 These requirements would be retained and redesignated under proposed § 65.71(a), with minor non-substantive revisions. FAA proposes to add an “Airframe or Powerplant Rating” heading to paragraph (a) for clarity and add “airframe or powerplant” before any references to ratings in this paragraph. With the proposed addition of a paragraph (a) header, each current paragraph would be redesignated one paragraph level lower ( e.g., current § 65.71(a)(1) would become § 65.71(a)(1)(i), § 65.71(a)(2) would become § 65.71(a)(2)(ii), etc.). Current §§ 65.71(a)(3) and 65.71(b) detail the amount of time that an applicant has to pass all of the required tests for a mechanic certificate with associated ratings, and for an additional rating, respectively. Section 65.71(a)(3) states that an applicant has 24 months, whereas § 65.71(b) states 24 calendar months. FAA has consistently drawn a distinction between months and calendar months. 33 Calendar months allow for a date in the future that corresponds to the last date of the month. For example, 24 calendar months from March 5, 2025, would be March 31, 2027. The practical application historically for the requirements in § 65.71 has been to use calendar months. Therefore, FAA proposes to specify “calendar” months in proposed § 65.71(a)(1)(iii) (which is currently § 65.71(a)(3)) for consistency with the language that is currently in § 65.71(b).

FAA proposes to place the IR eligibility requirements under paragraph (b), which would be revised to add an “Inspection Rating” heading. The IR eligibility requirements would largely consist of the current requirements for the IA. Specifically, the IA eligibility requirements currently in § 65.91(c)(1)-(4) would be relocated to § 65.71(b)(1)-(4), respectively, with minor revisions subsequently discussed.

Section 65.91(c)(1) currently states that, to be eligible for an IA, an applicant must hold a currently effective mechanic certificate with both an airframe rating and a powerplant rating, each of which is currently effective and has been in effect for a total of at least three years. This would be relocated from current § 65.91(c)(1) to § 65.71(b)(1) with non-substantive revisions. This IA eligibility requirement would be retained, but the language would be modified to indicate that an IR applicant must hold a currently effective mechanic certificate with an airframe rating and a powerplant rating that is currently effective in accordance with § 65.15(a) of this part, and has been in effect for a total of at least three years. 34 This modification is necessary to define what “currently effective” means. A mechanic certificate is currently effective if it has not been surrendered, suspended, or revoked, as provided in § 65.15(a).

Section 65.91(c)(2) currently requires that an IA applicant has been actively engaged  35 for at least the two-year period before the date of application in maintaining aircraft certificated and maintained in accordance with Chapter I of title 14. This requirement would be relocated from § 65.91(c)(2) to § 65.71(b)(2). FAA proposes changing the requirement from two years to 24 calendar months to align with the way time periods are specified with the other mechanic certificate ratings. In addition, FAA proposes a non-substantive revision to improve readability.

Section 65.91(c)(3) currently requires IA applicants to have a fixed base of operations where they may be located in person or by telephone during a normal working week (to note, the regulation does not require that the location be the place the person will exercise the IA). This requirement would be relocated from § 65.91(c)(3) to § 65.71(b)(3).

Section 65.91(c)(4) currently requires an IA applicant to have available the equipment, facilities, and inspection data necessary to inspect airframes, powerplants, propellers, or any related part or appliance properly. This would be amended for grammatical accuracy and relocated from § 65.91(c)(4) to § 65.71(b)(4).

Currently, under § 65.91(c)(5), an IA applicant must pass a written test on the ability to inspect according to safety standards for returning aircraft to service after major repairs and major alterations and annual and progressive inspections performed under part 43. This IA eligibility requirement, which would be retained for future IR new applicants, conveys testing requirements. A&P rating written testing requirements are located in § 65.75, Knowledge Requirements, rather than in § 65.71. As such, FAA proposes to integrate the IA written testing requirements from § 65.91(c)(5) as IR knowledge requirements under § 65.75(b), which would harmonize the rating eligibility framework under part 65, subpart D. Section IV.A.3 of this preamble further discusses proposed changes to § 65.75 and the IR written test. Passing the associated written test would remain an eligibility requirement for IR applicants under § 65.75(b). Therefore, FAA is proposing to add § 65.71(b)(5) to specify that IR applicants must comply with the sections of this subpart that apply to the rating sought (mirroring the standing requirement in § 65.71(a)(4) for airframe or powerplant ratings, proposed as new § 65.71(a)(1)(iv)).

To account for these relocations, the docket to this NPRM contains a proposed revision to the IA application (FAA Form 8610-1) consistent with these proposed changes. FAA notes that, currently, § 65.11 sets forth the requirements for application and issue of certificates and ratings. The current requirement for an IA application to be in a form in manner prescribed by the Administrator in § 65.91(a) would be rendered redundant, as the IR application requirement would be covered by § 65.11. Therefore, FAA proposes to remove § 65.91(a).

FAA's proposal would not carry forward the current § 65.91(b), which states that an applicant that meets all of the eligibility requirements for an IA is entitled to the IA. With the proposal to change the IA to an IR, this would be rendered redundant, as it would be covered by § 65.11(b), which states that an applicant who meets the requirements of part 65 is entitled to the appropriate certificate and rating.

As previously stated, § 65.75 contains knowledge requirements for applicants for a mechanic certificate and associated ratings: the required written test(s). Currently, after meeting the applicable experience requirements of § 65.77, 36 applicants for a mechanic certificate or rating must pass a written test appropriate to the rating sought, which includes the aeronautical knowledge subject areas contained in the Aviation Mechanic General, Airframe, and Powerplant Airmen Certification Standards (ACS), which is incorporated by reference via § 65.23(a)(3). Section 65.19 provides generalized retesting provisions for all tests ( i.e., written, oral, and practical) required of applicants for a certificate and rating and states that an applicant can apply for retesting 30 days after a failed test or meet the criteria outlined in § 65.19(b).

As discussed in the previous sections of this preamble, an applicant for an IA must have both an A&P rating, so an IA applicant must have previously passed the general, airframe, and powerplant written tests. Because an IA conveys additional privileges, § 65.91(c)(5) has required a separate written test in addition to the three base written tests that an IA applicant would have already passed. Pursuant to current § 65.91(c)(5), an IA applicant must pass a written test on their ability to inspect according to safety standards for approving aircraft for return to service after major repairs and major alterations and annual and progressive inspections performed under part 43 for this chapter. In changing the IA to an IR, FAA finds it necessary to maintain the separate written test for the privileges of an IR to validate inspection proficiency, as the aeronautical subject areas specific to inspection privileges are not adequately tested in the three base written tests ( i.e., general, airframe, powerplant). Because § 65.75 already contains the written test requirements for the mechanic certificate, airframe rating, and powerplant rating, FAA proposes to reorganize the requirements of § 65.75 to integrate the written test requirements for an IR. First, the knowledge test standards as currently provided in § 65.75 would be retained for the A&P ratings and reorganized under § 65.75(a); current § 65.75(a) through (d) would be redesignated as § 65.75(a)(1) through (4), and the exception reference to paragraph (c) would be replaced with a reference to paragraph (a)(3). Paragraph (a) would add introductory text to include an “Airframe or Powerplant Rating” heading to specify the provisions in proposed subparagraphs (a)(1) through (4) apply to a mechanic certificate with an airframe or powerplant rating, or both. The written test standards for the IR would be relocated, with the subsequently discussed revisions, from § 65.75(b)(2) to § 65.75(b), which would be revised to add an “Inspection Rating” heading and introductory text. FAA proposes several revisions to the current IA written test requirements, as replaced by proposed IR written test requirements.

First, FAA proposes to add a requirement that IR applicants receive an endorsement from a representative of the Administrator validating their compliance with proposed eligibility requirements in § 65.71(b)(1) through (4) before they can take the written test. Currently, only FAA ASIs are authorized to endorse IA applicants to take the written test. With the adoption of the proposed rule, this would not change for the IR endorsement. FAA Order 8900.1 contains guidance for ASIs responsible for evaluating IA applications on determining who is eligible for the IA written examination. 37 An ASI reviews the IA application (FAA Form 8610-1) for completeness and accuracy and interviews the applicant to the extent necessary to determine that the responses provided regarding the eligibility requirements in § 65.91(c) are valid. If the ASI finds the applicant meets the requirements of § 65.91, the ASI will endorse the application in Box 14, authorizing the applicant to test. After receiving the endorsement, the IA applicant must take FAA Form 8610-1 to an authorized testing center to take the IA written test. The endorsement on FAA Form 8610-1 states that it is only valid for 30 days. This is because the endorsement certifies that the applicant is actively engaged for the two years prior to the application; once 30 days pass, the ASI needs to reevaluate if this is still true. After 30 days, if the applicant has not taken the test, they must return to the FSDO or IFO to be reevaluated to ensure that they have remained actively engaged during that time. If they are still found to meet the eligibility requirements, a new FAA Form 8610-1 would be endorsed for them to test and it, too, would be valid for 30 days.

FAA's proposal in § 65.75(b)(1) to add the endorsement requirement to the IR written test requirements would reflect the form and manner IA holders currently use when applying for an IA. Therefore, FAA is not creating an additional burden for the IR written test requirement by explicitly adding this form and manner into the regulations from the IA process; an equivalent level of safety would be maintained from the current IA written test process.

In addition, FAA has developed a new Aviation Mechanic Inspection Rating Airman Certification Standard (Inspection Rating ACS) that would replace the current IA written test standards. FAA proposes to specify in § 65.75(b)(2) that applicants for an IR must pass a written test which includes the aeronautical knowledge subject areas contained in the Inspection Rating ACS. Section IV.A.4 of this preamble provides a detailed discussion of the Inspection Rating ACS and incorporation by reference.

Finally, the undesignated paragraph in current § 65.91 states that an applicant that fails the IA written test may not reapply for testing until at least 90 days after the date they failed that test. FAA proposes to retain the 90-day retesting restriction from the IA written test for the IR written test by relocating this paragraph from § 65.91 into the proposed § 65.75(b)(1). The proposed subparagraph would state that applicants can only receive an endorsement for the IR written test if they have not attempted the IR written test in the previous 90 days.

This 90-day retesting restriction for the current IA written test, and future IR written test, is and would remain different from the retesting provisions for the other mechanic certificate ratings. Under § 65.19(a), an applicant for a written, oral, or practical test for a certificate, rating, or additional rating under this part may apply for retesting 30 days after the date of the failed test. Under § 65.19(b), an applicant may retest after failure if before the 30 days have expired the applicant presents a signed statement from an airman holding the certificate and rating sought by the applicant certifying that the airman has given the applicant additional instruction in each of the subjects failed and that the airman finds the applicant ready for retesting.

FAA finds it important to maintain the 90-day retesting restriction for IR, rather than adopting the same retesting requirements as the other ratings. This requirement has been present since the creation of the IA regulations in 1956. 38 FAA supports this longer retesting restriction as appropriate because of the higher level of risk associated with the privileges and responsibilities  39 of the current IA and proposed IR. The 90-day restriction ensures and encourages enough time to allow the applicant to get enough training as necessary to be prepared for the responsibilities that come with the IR. In addition, since the applicant would still be required to remain actively engaged during that time, it would allow them to bolster their experience and learning through practical application.

Therefore, FAA finds a conforming amendment necessary to implement the 90-day restriction in alignment with proposed § 65.75(b)(1); proposed § 65.19 would specify that an applicant for an IR may not apply for retesting until 90 days after the date of the failed written test. The current text of § 65.19 would be reorganized under paragraph (a) ( i.e., current introductory text would be redesignated as § 65.19(a), current § 65.19(a) and (b) would be redesignated as § 65.19(a)(1) and (2)) with minor revisions in proposed paragraph (a) to note the new exception of paragraph (b), and paragraph (b) would be added to specify the 90-day standard for the IR.

Currently, the knowledge areas for the aforementioned written test are contained in the Learning Statement Reference Guide for Airman Knowledge Testing. 40 This guide contains subject areas outlined in Learning Statement Codes that an applicant must demonstrate proficiency in to pass the written test for the IA. However, the Learning Statement Reference Guide is not a regulatory standard for the written test.

In addition to the IA written test, there is also an oral test associated with the IA. Under current § 65.93, there are two instances where an FAA inspector may give an oral test to an IA holder. Section 65.93(a)(5) allows for an IA holder to complete an oral test as one of the options for renewal activities. Section 65.93(c) applies to IA holders who do not complete the required activities in the first year of the IA period; if a person does not complete one of the activities set forth in § 65.93(a)(1) through (5) by March 31 of the first year of the two-year IA period, the person cannot exercise IA privileges after March 31 of that first year. However, the IA holder may pass the oral test during the second year and may resume exercising the privileges of the IA.

With the proposal to replace the IA with an IR, the oral test would be retained for both of these purposes, as is discussed at length in section IV.A.7 of this preamble. Under proposed § 65.83(b)(2)(v), a mechanic with an IR may complete an oral test to maintain recency. In addition, proposed § 65.83(b)(4)(ii) would allow a mechanic with an IR to reestablish recency of experience, if lapsed.

There are currently no regulatory testing standards for the oral test. FAA Order 8900.1 provides guidance to the FSDO or IFO conducting the test to develop test questions that are tailored to part 65 IA privileges and limitations the IA holder accomplishes routinely. 41 FAA acknowledges that without regulatory testing standards, the tests created by the individual offices may vary and the testing standards are not legally enforceable. In addition, without testing standards, the IA or proposed IR applicants do not have a regulatory standard on which to base their preparation.

FAA has initiated a process to transition from the Learning Statement Reference Guide for the IR written test. In conjunction with this proposed rule, FAA has developed the Inspection Rating Airman Certification Standard (Inspection Rating ACS), which includes task-specific knowledge and risk management elements in the standards, resulting in a comprehensive presentation that integrates the knowledge standards to validate an applicant's proficiency. Specifically, the Inspection Rating ACS, which is included in the docket to this rulemaking for comment, would not be creating new standards, but rather expanding on and formalizing the existing standards from the Learning Statement Reference Guide.

FAA proposes to incorporate the new Inspection Rating ACS by reference into the written test and oral test framework and seeks comment on the proposed draft of the Inspection Rating ACS. To note, the ACS testing framework is not novel to mechanics under part 65; in 2022, FAA published the Aviation Maintenance Technician Schools interim final rule, 42 which incorporated the Aviation Mechanic General, Airframe, and Powerplant Airman Certification Standard (Mechanic ACS) into 14 CFR part 65. Further, this ACS and PTS testing framework is aligned throughout the airman training and certification regulations in title 14. In 2024, FAA adopted a final rule incorporating by reference: 30 pilot and flight instructor ACSs and Practical Test Standards (PTS) in part 61, one PTS for flight engineers in part 63, and two aircraft dispatcher and parachute rigger PTSs in part 65. 43

Incorporation by reference is a mechanism that allows Federal agencies to comply with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)  44  to publish rules in the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations by referring to material published elsewhere. 45 Material that is incorporated by reference has the same legal status as if it were published in full in the Federal Register . Because 5 U.S.C. 552(a) requires the Director of the Federal Register to approve material to be incorporated by reference, incorporation by reference is governed by the Office of the Federal Register and is promulgated in its regulations: 1 CFR part 51. Specifically, 1 CFR part 51 provides certain requirements that a regulatory incorporation by reference must contain.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51, 46 FAA would make the Inspection Rating ACS reasonably available to interested parties by providing free online public access to view on FAA Airman Certifications Standards website at: www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/acs. In addition, the Inspection Rating ACS would be available for download, free of charge, at the provided web address.

To incorporate the three part 65 ACSs and PTSs, FAA previously adopted a centralized incorporation by reference section as § 65.23 and amended the requirements in §§ 65.75 and 65.79, which require an applicant for a mechanic certificate or rating to pass a knowledge, oral and practical test, respectively. 47 The Inspection Rating ACS would align the testing framework for the new IR with the A&P ratings and the Mechanic ACS and ensure the testing standards are legally enforceable.

Therefore, FAA proposes revisions to §§ 65.23, 65.75, and 65.83. FAA proposes to amend § 65.23 to include the Inspection Rating ACS in new paragraph (a)(4). Centralizing the Mechanic ACS and the Inspection Rating ACS under this one section streamlines the regulatory text to avoid repetitive information in the regulations and utilizes the regulatory framework already in place. Subsequent part 65 sections that require compliance with these respective standards ( i.e., §§ 65.75 and 65.83) would refer to § 65.23 for identification information and the incorporation by reference language required by 1 CFR part 51. In addition, FAA proposes to revise § 65.75 to incorporate the Inspection Rating ACS in the written test requirements for the IR. The proposed revision would require applicants to pass the written test within 30 days of endorsement, as previously discussed, which would include the aeronautical knowledge subject areas contained in the Inspection Rating ACS. The database of questions for the IR written test would be derived from the subjects identified in the Inspection Rating ACS.

Similarly, FAA proposes to revise § 65.83 to incorporate the Inspection Rating ACS into the oral test recent activity requirement (proposed § 65.83(b)(2)(v)), as well as into the oral test option for a mechanic to reestablish their IR privileges if they have not met recency of experience (proposed § 65.83(b)(4)(ii)). The oral test is discussed in more detail in section IV.A.7 of the preamble.

Section 65.77 prescribes experience requirements for applicants for a mechanic certificate or added rating ( i.e., practical experience) and § 65.79 prescribes skill requirements for applicants for a mechanic certificate or rating ( i.e., oral test and practical test). The experience and skill requirements contained in these regulations are in addition to the basic eligibility requirements for a mechanic certificate and associated ratings contained in § 65.71. These requirements would continue to apply to A&P ratings, but the proposed IR would not have any additional skill or experience requirements that need to be integrated into § 65.71, as the proposed IR (and current IA) requires a mechanic to have both the A&P ratings for a minimum of three years and be actively engaged in maintaining aircraft certificated and maintained in accordance with 14 CFR for the two prior years. 48 This eligibility requirement would ensure that an applicant for an IR continues to have several years of experience to gain the knowledge to be qualified to exercise the IR privileges (identical to the current IA framework).

While the A&P ratings require an oral and practical test to demonstrate skill, there has never been an oral and practical test requirement for the IA. The oral and practical test requirement is important for mechanic applicants applying for an initial certificate and ratings to demonstrate that they possess the necessary proficiency and mechanical skills to perform the applicable maintenance on aircraft. The privileges of the current IA and proposed IR, which are performing annual and progressive inspections and inspecting major repairs and major alterations and approving them for return to service, are knowledge-based as opposed to skill-based. For example, when a major repair is accomplished on an airframe component of an aircraft, the mechanic that physically performs the work is exercising the privileges of the airframe rating on the mechanic certificate. However, a mechanic with an IA must inspect the major repair after the work is completed to ensure that it was done satisfactorily and then issue the approval for return to service. The privileges of the IA (and proposed IR) are based on locating, reading, interpreting, and applying applicable standards to inspect major work performed or to perform annual or progressive inspections. For this reason, FAA finds that the written test requirement in proposed § 65.75(b)(2) is a sufficient proficiency validation and does not propose to add an oral and practical test requirement for the IR in this rulemaking.

Therefore, as the experience and skill requirements for the proposed IR will be covered in the eligibility requirements via proposed § 65.71, no additional experience or skill requirements need to be incorporated in §§ 65.77 and 65.79. Accordingly, FAA is proposing to amend the introductory text §§ 65.77 and 65.79 to specify that these requirements only apply to applicants for a mechanic certificate with airframe or powerplant rating, or both, or for an additional airframe or powerplant rating.

Section 65.81 prescribes the general privileges and limitations for certificated mechanics. These general privileges and limitations are applicable regardless of the specific rating(s) the mechanic has associated with the certificate. As applicable to the specific ratings, § 65.85 sets forth the privileges for the airframe rating, § 65.87 sets forth the privileges for the powerplant rating, and § 65.95 sets forth the IA privileges and limitations. Section 65.92 (Inspection Authorization: Duration) also contains IA limitations. FAA proposes to integrate the IA limitations as IR-specific limitations into current § 65.81 without substantive change. FAA proposes to create a new section for IR-specific privileges, § 65.88, where IA privileges would be revised and relocated. This would align the IR privileges and limitations regulatory framework with the other ratings available on the mechanic certificate.

The current general privileges and limitations listed in § 65.81 would continue to apply to the mechanic certificate. First, the section title for § 65.81 would be updated from “General privileges and limitations” to “Privileges and limitations,” as the section would contain some IR-specific limitations. In addition, FAA proposes to add a “General Privileges and Limitations” heading in paragraph (a) (indicating revised paragraph (a) applies to the mechanic certificate in general) and relocate the current text of § 65.81(a) and (b) as paragraphs (a)(1) and (2). Minor revisions would be made to update the paragraph and subparagraph designations consistent with the reorganization. 49

Because current paragraph (b) would become new paragraph (a)(2), FAA proposes to add a new paragraph (b) under the heading “Inspection Rating Limitations” that would provide the limitations associated with the proposed IR. These limitations would be relocated from the current IA limitations in §§ 65.92 and 65.95, with revisions subsequently discussed.

Currently, § 65.92(a) states that an IA expires on March 31 of every odd-numbered year and an IA holder may only exercise privileges of the IA while holding a currently effective mechanic certificate with both a currently effective airframe rating and powerplant rating. As discussed in section I.A of the preamble, FAA proposes to remove the expiration date, so the duration limitation in § 65.92(a) would be removed. However, the proposed IR would still require a mechanic to have a currently effective airframe rating and powerplant rating ( i.e., the second sentence of current § 65.92(a)), as these prerequisites remain essential to ensuring a base level of experience and skill before exercising inspection privileges. Therefore, this limitation would be relocated to § 65.81(b)(1). The language would be revised to state the A&P ratings must be effective in accordance with § 65.15(a) to define clearly what “currently effective” means. A mechanic certificate or rating is currently effective as long as it has not been surrendered, suspended, or revoked, as provided in § 65.15(a).

Currently, § 65.92(b) sets forth the circumstances under which an inspection authorization ceases to be effective. Section 65.92(b)(1) states that an IA ceases to be effective whenever the authorization is surrendered, suspended, or revoked. In replacing the IA with the IR, this limitation is now covered by § 65.15(a). Therefore, FAA proposes to remove § 65.92(b)(1). Section 65.92(b)(2) states that an IA ceases to be effective when the holder no longer has a fixed base of operation. Section 65.92(b)(3) states that an IA ceases to be effective when an IA holder no longer has the equipment, facilities, and inspection data required by § 65.91(c)(3) and (4). 50 These provisions would still apply to the proposed IR, as these are initial eligibility requirements set forth by § 65.91(c)(3) and (4) (proposed as § 65.71(b)(3) and (4)) integrated into a rolling eligibility requirement. Therefore, FAA proposes to relocate § 65.92(b)(2) and (3) as streamlined text in § 65.81(b)(2); this provision would require that a certificated mechanic with an IR may not exercise the privileges of the rating if they do not meet the requirements of § 65.71(b)(3) and (4), thereby citing the direct rolling eligibility requirement instead of restating the requirement in multiple subparagraphs. In sum, this limitation would require a mechanic to continue to have a fixed base of operations and have available the equipment, facilities, and inspection data necessary to perform inspections properly to continue exercising IR privileges.

Section 65.95(c) contains an additional IA limitation. If an IA holder changes their fixed base of operation, they may not exercise the privileges of the IA until they have notified the responsible flight standards office or international field office for the area in which the new base is located, in writing, of the change. This limitation would be retained for the IR. FAA proposes to remove § 65.95(c) and relocate it to § 65.81(b)(3) with minor editorial revisions.

Finally, § 65.95(a) sets forth the privileges of an IA, enumerating that the holder of an inspection authorization may: (1) inspect and approve for return to service any aircraft or related part or appliance (except any aircraft maintained in accordance with a continuous airworthiness program under part 121) after a major repair or major alteration to it in accordance with part 43, if the work was done in accordance with technical data approved by the Administrator; and (2) perform an annual, or perform or supervise a progressive inspection according to §§ 43.13 and 43.15. These privileges would be retained with minor revision for the proposed IR. FAA proposes to relocate § 65.95(a) to proposed § 65.88. A new section with specific IR privileges would align with the other mechanic certificate rating privileges, which are each located in their own section ( i.e., §§ 65.85 and 65.87).

Currently, § 65.95(a)(1) excludes inspection authorization privileges from applying to aircraft that are maintained in accordance with a continuous airworthiness program (CAMP) under part 121, which governs the operating requirements for domestic, flag, and supplemental operations. However, FAA finds it necessary to exclude certain aircraft in other parts, specifically those aircraft maintained in accordance with a CAMP under 14 CFR part 91, 121, 129, or 135. 51 Personnel performing maintenance and approvals for return to service on aircraft that are maintained under a CAMP that go beyond the scope of the privileges of the IA, as well as the proposed IR, must meet specific requirements. The current regulations in parts 91, 121, 129, and 135 include limitations on who can perform maintenance and approvals for return to service on aircraft maintained under a CAMP. Specifically, aircraft maintained under a CAMP may only be approved for return to service by maintenance personnel that are trained and authorized for that program and working under the direct supervision of the air operator, pursuant to §§ 91.1413, 121.368, 129.14(b)(3), and 135.426. This is not a new general limitation on the inspection privileges. Therefore, proposed § 65.88(a) (which is current § 65.91(a)(1)) would be revised to add parts 91, 129, and 135 into the privilege's exception, which would align the IR privileges with the current inspection limitations for aircraft maintained under CAMP in each respective part.

Currently, § 65.95(a)(2) states that an IA holder may perform an annual, or perform or supervise a progressive inspection in accordance with §§ 43.13 and 43.15. In replacing the IA with an IR, a certificated mechanic with an IR would retain these privileges. Therefore, FAA proposes to relocate § 65.95(a)(2) to new § 65.88(b) with a minor editorial revision.

Section 65.83 sets forth recent experience requirements for certificated mechanics with an airframe rating, powerplant rating, or both. Currently, under § 65.83, to continue exercising the privileges of the certificate and rating, a mechanic must, within the previous 24 months, be found able to do the work by the Administrator or meet one of the four experience requirements provided in § 65.83(b) for at least six months. 52 Conversely, an IA does not have recent experience requirements. Rather, § 65.93 requires IA holders to renew their certificate by continuing to meet the eligibility requirements and completing renewal activities each year of the two-year IA period.

In sum, this proposal would convert the current IA renewal requirements to IR recent experience requirements (mirroring recent experience requirements for the A&P ratings), which would eliminate the unnecessary administrative burden associated with the renewal process. Changing the IA to an IR would reduce administrative burdens without degrading safety because the current renewal requirements to validate ongoing proficiency would remain in effect, but as recent experience requirements, which FAA would require inspection rated mechanics to continue to meet to exercise their privileges. As further discussed, the proposal would require mechanics with an IR to keep records to demonstrate that they have met at least the previous 24 calendar months of recent experience to retain IR privileges in lieu of submission of an FAA form evidencing activity completion every two years.

FAA recognizes that there may appear to be a decrease in the level of safety by eliminating the requirement for renewal every two years; however, FAA generally views this as a procedural revision rather than a substantive revision pertaining to ongoing proficiency and experience requirements. Currently, IA holder oversight is assigned to either a FSDO or IFO, depending on the geographic location of the IA holder's fixed base of operations. Within the FSDO or IFO, an ASI is assigned to each individual IA holder. It is the responsibility of the assigned ASI to provide oversight of the IA holder, which includes surveillance (spot inspections, site visits, etc.), monitoring, providing support, enforcement activities, etc. FAA does not intend to change the current system of oversight in place for IA holders with the proposal to replace the IA with the IR. Maintaining this system of oversight, along with the recordkeeping requirement, would not result in a decrease in the level of safety.

FAA considered two alternative actions to reduce the administrative burden related to the IA renewal process in the transition to an IR. The first alternative was to leave the general framework of renewal as it is ( i.e., require a certificated mechanic with an IR to submit evidence of an activity per year during the month of March of each odd-numbered year). As this option ignores the administrative burdens and cost associated with the IR renewal for both FAA and individual mechanics, FAA declined to use this alternative. FAA is committed to decreasing administrative burden, as well as FAA and individual costs, when possible, where there is no adverse impact on safety.

The second alternative would have retained the renewal requirements, but allowed additional flexibility by permitting a certificated mechanic with an IR to renew their IR outside the month of March expiration date. This alternative would require FAA to determine a different renewal schedule. For example, instead of requiring IA renewals in March of every odd-numbered year, IR renewals could be submitted every two years based on the quarter and a defining characteristic—for example, the mechanic's last name ( e.g., quarter 1 renewal period (Jan-Mar)—Last Names A-J would submit renewals, etc.). Though this alternative provides a remedy for the influx of renewals submitted in a single month, it does not address the administrative costs associated with processing renewal applications and issuing renewal letters every two years. It also does not address the individual mechanics' costs of submitting the renewal paperwork every two years. Instead, the burden of these on-demand work tasks would simply be dispersed throughout the year. As this alternative would not result in a reduction of administrative burdens and costs, FAA declined to elect this alternative.

FAA's general proposal to replace the IA with an IR would align all of the privileges available to an FAA-certificated mechanic as ratings under the mechanic certificate. Mechanic certificate ratings currently issued under part 65 do not have expiration dates or renewal requirements, 53 therefore, eliminating the expiration requirements and converting the renewal requirements to recency of experience requirements would provide consistency in how FAA administers mechanic privileges on a mechanic certificate.

FAA proposes to reorganize current § 65.83 to integrate the IA renewal requirements as new IR recent experience requirements. The current recent experience requirements would still apply to mechanics with A&P ratings and would be retained and reorganized under § 65.83(a) under the heading of “Airframe or Powerplant Rating” without any substantive changes. Minor edits would be made to update the paragraph and subparagraph designations consistent with the reorganization ( e.g., proposed § 65.83(a)(iv)). The proposed IR recent experience requirements would be integrated under paragraph (b) under the heading of “Inspection Rating.”

Section 65.93(a) states that, to be eligible for an IA renewal for a two-year period, an applicant must show that they still meet the requirements of current § 65.91(c)(1)-(4). First, as previously discussed in section IV.A.2 of the preamble, this proposal would revise and relocate the eligibility provisions of § 65.91(c)(1)-(4) to § 65.71(b)(1)-(4). To reiterate, these initial eligibility provisions require a mechanic to: currently hold an effective mechanic certificate with A&P ratings, have been actively engaged in maintaining aircraft for the two years prior to the application, maintain a fixed base of operation, and have available the necessary equipment, facilities, and inspection data. While all four of these provisions would be retained as initial eligibility requirements in proposed § 65.71(b)(1)-(4), three have also been integrated into the IR limitations in § 65.81(b) as rolling requirements, as discussed in section IV.A.6 of the preamble: holding effective airframe and powerplant ratings, maintaining a fixed base of operations, and having necessary equipment, facilities, and inspection data. This means that under the proposal, a mechanic would continuously meet these requirements to exercise the privileges of the proposed IR, therefore, they do not need to be integrated into the recent experience requirements. However, the requirement for a mechanic with an IA to be actively engaged in maintaining aircraft for the two-year period prior to the application date would not be integrated into § 65.81 (which sets forth rating limitations) because it is more appropriately categorized as a recent experience requirement. Therefore, FAA proposes to integrate the requirement into § 65.83(b)(1). This provision ensures that a mechanic has had an active role in exercising the privileges of the A&P ratings in the two years prior to exercising IR privileges.

FAA proposes to modify the language to indicate that the person must be actively engaged for the 24-calendar month period prior to when they exercise their IR privileges, rather than two years prior to the application date (as is required by eligibility requirements in proposed § 65.71(b)(2)). This modification is necessary as a person would only apply for the IR once, and they would not need to file a renewal application under this proposal. In addition, the proposal would change the language from two years to 24 calendar months to provide consistency to the time periods associated with the other mechanic ratings. Therefore, to maintain an equivalent level of safety, the actively engaged requirement would apply for a rolling period of two years prior to exercising the IR, rather than two years from the application date. For example, assuming this rule became effective in August 2026, if a certificated mechanic with an IR who meets all the other requirements wants to exercise their privilege in September 2026, they would have to have been actively engaged in maintaining aircraft since September 2024.

Section 65.93(a)(1)-(5) currently describes the renewal activity options that IA holders must complete at least one of annually to renew their IA. Currently, an IA holder must complete one of five activities annually: (1) at least one annual inspection for each 90 days that the applicant has held the current authority; (2) at least two major repairs or alterations for each 90 days the applicant has held the authority; (3) performed or supervised and approved at least one progressive inspection; (4) attended and successfully completed a refresher course of not less than eight hours of instruction; or (5) passed an oral test conducted by an FAA inspector. FAA proposes that these requirements would be largely retained and converted into recent experience requirements for the proposed IR as new § 65.83(b)(2)(i)-(v), with some revisions.

Because the proposed IR will not have a fixed period pursuant to an expiration, like the current IA, FAA proposes that these requirements be completed in the 12 calendar months prior to exercising the IR privileges to maintain the experience and validation of proficiency currently expected. FAA emphasizes this would not substantially increase the burden on a certificated mechanic with an IR as opposed to the current framework for an IA holder, as an IA holder must complete one activity in the first year and one in the second year, the person just isn't required to submit evidence of such until the second year under the current framework.

For example, under this proposal, if a certificated mechanic with an IR who meets all the other requirements wants to exercise their privileges in June 2027, they must have completed one of the recent experience activities enumerated between June 2026 and June 2027. 54 The 12 calendar month period would be a rolling look-back period from the time a certificated mechanic with an IR exercises their privileges.

First, § 65.93(a)(1) and (2) would be relocated with revision to § 65.83(b)(2)(i) and (ii). Currently, two of the activity options to renew are one annual inspection or two major repairs or major alterations for each 90 days the applicant has held the IA. Under the current regulations, these can be done at any time throughout the year. For example, if a mechanic has an IA for a year, they can meet the renewal activity requirements for the year by doing four annual inspections within December of the year; one inspection does not have to be done every 90 consecutive days. Similarly, two major repairs or major alterations do not have to be done every 90 consecutive days; all eight could be done in the last month of the year. Since the IR would not expire or have a fixed period, the recent experience requirements of § 65.83(b)(i) and (ii) would be modified to require at least four annual inspections in the previous 12 calendar months or any combination of eight major repairs or major alterations in the previous 12 calendar months. This maintains the same number of inspections or major repairs and major alterations in a 12-calendar month period to exercise the proposed IR privileges as required to renew the IA.

FAA's proposal would modify § 65.83(b)(ii) to add “any combination of” eight major repairs or major alteration This is necessary to clarify that a mechanic does not have to perform either eight major repairs or eight major alterations, but rather, may complete any combination to a total of eight. For example, three major repairs and five major alterations would satisfy the recent experience requirement of § 65.83(b)(ii). While the current requirements in § 65.93(a)(2) do not contain this language, FAA has issued a legal interpretation stating that a combination of major repairs and major alternations may be used. 55 Therefore, this proposal is not changing any requirements from the IA to the IR, but rather formalizing the current requirements, as clarified in legal interpretation, into regulation.

Next, § 65.93(a)(3) and (4) would be relocated to § 65.83(b)(2)(iii) and (iv). These two sections would set forth the two activity options of progressive inspection and an 8-hour refresher course. The progressive inspection and refresher course activities are relocated without revision.

Finally, § 65.93(a)(5) would be relocated to § 65.83(b)(2)(v) with revision. Currently, an IA holder can complete an oral test conducted by an FAA inspector to determine that the applicant's knowledge of applicable regulations and standards is current. As discussed in section IV.A.4 of the preamble, there is no current regulatory standard for the oral test; rather, FAA provides guidance to inspectors as to the conduct of the test. The requirements for the oral test would be modified to state that the oral test would include the aeronautical knowledge subject areas contained in the Inspection Rating ACS, which would be incorporated by reference in proposed § 65.23 to determine that the applicant's knowledge of applicable regulations and standards is current. The oral test in proposed § 65.83(2)(v), should a mechanic with IR choose that activity, would continue to be administered by the FSDO or IFO, but all questions for the oral test would be developed from the Inspection Rating ACS. This revision would ensure the oral test is standardized and those taking the test are aware of the specific subject areas enumerated in the ACS ( i.e., what they are subject to demonstrating knowledge on).

Notably, the retesting provisions of § 65.19 do not apply to the oral test as they do to the written test as described in section IV.A.3. of the preamble. Section 65.19 is only applicable to tests for a certificate or rating. The purpose of both the current IA oral test and the IR oral test in FAA's proposal is to determine that the applicant's knowledge of applicable regulations and standards is current after the person already holds the IA. The oral test does not have specific retesting provisions because the intent is to provide the ASI giving the test flexibility in determining appropriate follow-up activities after a failed test. For example, if the test consists of 20 questions, the applicant would need to answer 14 of them correctly to meet the seventy percent minimum passing score. If they only answered 13 of them correctly, missing a passing score by one question, it might be appropriate for the ASI to offer a retest with a different set of questions. Alternatively, if the applicant only answered 5 of the questions correctly, the ASI might believe that indicates a significant lack of qualifications on the part of the IR holder and find it necessary to initiate a reexamination under 49 U.S.C. 44709 to determine whether the individual is competent or qualified to hold the rating.

Given the transition from expiration and renewal to recent experience requirements, FAA acknowledges two scenarios where a person would need an exception from the first year of recent experience requirements. First, if a person has just received their IR, the person would have just passed the written test to obtain the IR, demonstrating proficiency to exercise the IR privileges. In addition, by virtue of just receiving their IR, the person could not meet the recent experience requirements in the 12 calendar months prior to the original IR issuance, as the person did not have the privileges to perform annual inspections, major repairs or alterations, or perform or supervise and approve progressive inspections. Further, the requirement for a refresher course or oral test would be redundant in the first 12 calendar months, as a certificated mechanic with a newly issued IR would have recently passed the written test as required in proposed § 65.75(b). Therefore, proposed § 65.83(b)(3) would except a newly rated person from meeting the recent experience requirements during the 12 calendar months following the original issuance of their IR. For example, if a person receives their IR in March 2026, they would not have to meet the experience requirements for the next 12 calendar months and they would be able to exercise the privileges of the IR through March 2027. However, beginning in April 2027, to continue exercising the privileges of the IR, they would need to have completed one of the recent experience activities during the previous 12 calendar months. The proposed language would also clarify that obtaining a replacement mechanic certificate with an inspection rating under proposed § 65.73(d) or (e) (which is required for a person holding a valid IA at the time of the effective date of this rule if they want to continue exercising inspection privileges) is not considered an original issuance of the IR, as the aforementioned considerations would not apply to a person who may already conduct inspection privileges.

Second, FAA acknowledges the unique timeline considerations characterized by the transition of an authorization with an expiration date to a rating with no expiration date and recent experience requirements. Without relief, the timing of the final rule may mean a person with a valid IA is compliant under the current rules, but they would not be compliant with the proposed regulations if they became final. For example, all IA holders renewed their IA in March 2025. To fulfill the current renewal activity requirements for the first year, suppose an IA holder completes a refresher course in June 2025. The IA holder then plans to complete their renewal activity in February 2027 for the second year of the IA period. If this final rule became effective in August 2026 and the mechanic wanted to exercise IR privileges in September 2026, they would look back one year to September 2025. In this example, if the only renewal activity the IA holder completed was the June 2025 refresher course, they would not be in compliance with the newly effective § 65.83(b)(2) and could not exercise the IR privileges. This results in a scenario where the mechanic with an IA could be compliant under the current rules, but they would become non-compliant with the recent activity requirements on the date the new rules would be effective.

FAA acknowledges this outcome would be unfair to current IA holders who would be compliant under the current rules, but would become non-compliant on the effective date of a future final rule. Therefore, in proposed § 65.83(b)(7), FAA proposes a six-month grace period for a certificated mechanic with a valid IA on the effective date of the proposed rule to become compliant with the recent experience requirements for the IR. FAA intends for this six-month grace period to alleviate the immediate burden of complying with the new requirements when a mechanic has a valid IA on the effective date of the rule. During this six-month period, a mechanic who had a valid IA on the effective date of the rule could exercise the IR privileges without meeting the requirements of proposed § 65.83(b)(2).

FAA determined that the six-month grace period is an adequate amount of time for a mechanic to complete one of the required recent experience activities if they have not done so in the prior 12 calendar months. FAA acknowledges that each individual mechanic's circumstances are different, and for some it may take several months to satisfy the annual inspection or major repair and major alteration activities. However, there are acceptable IA (which with this proposal would become IR) refresher trainings that are available year-round, many of which are available on demand, which can be completed to satisfy the recent activity requirement. Many of the refresher training courses are offered at no cost. FAA maintains a master list of courses that have been reviewed and accepted that can be found at: www.faasafety.gov/gslac/ALC/lib_categoryview.aspx?categoryId=27. In addition, FAA.safety.gov offers online courses that can be taken for IA (with the adoption of FAA's proposal would become IR) refresher credit. Therefore, due to the availability of refresher courses, six months provides sufficient time for a mechanic to find and schedule a refresher course to meet the recent experience requirements.

In addition, FAA finds that there would be no added risk in allowing the one-time grace period. Under the current regulations, it is possible for an IA holder to go beyond twelve months without an activity and remain current. For example, an IA holder could complete their required first year activity in June of 2025 and then not complete the required second year activity until March of 2027. In this example, the IA holder would be in compliance the entire time, however, there would have been twenty-one months between activities. Therefore, in most circumstances, a six-month grace period would not allow for a greater amount of time between required activities than currently allowed in the regulations. FAA emphasizes that, if finalized, the final rule will give due consideration to the timeline of the final rule and current expiration date requirements. In addition, FAA seeks comment on additional methods that would facilitate a seamless transition from IA to IR.

Importantly, § 65.83(b)(7) could be removed six months after the effective date of the rule (if adopted), as all mechanics with a valid IA would have to be compliant with the recent experience requirements at that time. Amendatory instructions would remove this provision six months after the effective date of the final rule, as well as remove the reference to paragraph (b)(7) from § 65.83(b)(2), as no longer be necessary.

Currently, if an IA expires and is not renewed, there is no way to reinstate privileges without going through the entire application process and written test again. FAA proposes to add a method by which certificated mechanics with an IR who have not completed their recent experience requirements in the prior 12 calendar months can reestablish privileges. This relieving provision would allow greater flexibility and lower cost to mechanics with an IR to reinstate privileges than the process of reapplying from the beginning, as is currently required to regain IA privileges after IA expiration, while maintaining safety as subsequently discussed.

FAA proposes to add § 65.83(b)(4), which would allow a certificated mechanic with an IR that has not completed their recent experience requirements to reinstate their privileges by attending a refresher course (proposed § 65.83(b)(4)(i)) or passing an oral test from an FAA inspector (proposed § 65.83(b)(4)(ii)). In addition, proposed § 65.83(b)(5) would permit a mechanic with an IR who completes the requirements of proposed § 65.83(b)(4) deemed as having completed the recent experience requirements of proposed § 65.83(b)(2).

For example, assuming the provisions proposed are adopted, suppose a certificated mechanic with an IR wants to exercise their IR privileges in June 2027. 56 However, the person has not completed any of the recent experience requirements from § 65.83(b)(2) in the prior 12 calendar months. To reestablish privileges, the person could either take a refresher course or an oral test. Once the person completes the course or passes the oral test, and assuming the person meets all other applicable requirements, the person can exercise IR privileges and would be deemed to have met the recent experience requirements for the next 12 calendar months.

The refresher course and the oral test are both designed to ensure current mechanic knowledge of applicable regulations and standards. In addition, as previously stated, a mechanic with an IR would be required to meet all other applicable requirements to exercise the privileges of the IR. This means that even if the mechanic has not met the IR recent experience for a considerable amount of time, even after completing the refresher course or successfully completing the oral test, they would be required to hold an effective mechanic certificate with both A&P ratings, have a fixed base of operations, have the necessary equipment, facilities, and inspection data, and have been actively engaged in maintaining aircraft for at least the two-year period before exercising the privileges of the IR.

For these reasons, FAA finds there would be no negative impact on safety and does not consider it necessary to establish a time limit for mechanics to reestablish recent experience requirements for the IR. FAA invites public comment on this determination. Specifically, FAA seeks comment on whether there are additional requirements or limitations that FAA should establish for a certificated mechanics to reestablish recent experience for the IR.

Currently, when an IA holder renews their IA, the person submits FAA Form 8610-1 and presents evidence that the person still meets the initial eligibility requirements of § 65.91(c)(1) through (4). 57 In addition, an applicant must show completion of one of the renewal activities. 58 This evidence is submitted with the renewal application and reviewed by FAA personnel before the IA is formally renewed. Therefore, under the current regulations, IA holders are functionally required to keep records to show that they have been actively engaged in the two-year period prior to the date of the application in maintaining certificated aircraft under § 61.91(c) and records to show that they have met the requirements for completing a renewal activity under § 61.93(a).

Because this proposal would eliminate the renewal process for an IA, applicants for an IR would only have to submit FAA Form 8610-1 on initial application. Certificated mechanics with an IR would not be required to submit any evidence indicating that they continue to meet the eligibility requirements or that they have completed the recent experience requirements. However, the proposed regulations would require mechanics with an IR to maintain eligibility requirements and complete the recent experience requirements. Therefore, to maintain an equivalent level of safety as the IA, FAA proposes to add a record keeping requirement to § 65.83(b)(6). FAA finds that, despite the enumerated requirement, this would be a reduced burden on future individual mechanics with IR from the current IA renewal process.

This proposal would require a certificated mechanic with an IR to maintain records to demonstrate completion of the recent experience requirements as outlined in § 65.83(b)(1)-(4) for at least two years. These would be substantially similar records to those IA holders currently maintain and submit with FAA Form 8610-1 when renewing their IA. The proposed rule would change the requirement from an active submission of evidence every two years for verification to a mechanic keeping the records and verifying compliance with the recent experience requirements themselves, allowing flexibility for the mechanic with an IR. FAA estimates that burden imposed by this proposed recordkeeping requirement would be minimal, approximately five minutes per year. Some examples of acceptable recordkeeping would be: saving a copy of a certificate of training to a computer, making a copy of a maintenance record entry for a completed annual inspection, or making an entry into a mechanic's logbook indicating a completed FAA Form 337 for a major repair.

However, an equivalent level of safety would be maintained through surveillance and monitoring. ASIs are charged with surveillance and monitoring of IA holders as part of their annual work program. These general responsibilities would not change with the proposal to replace the IA with IR and renewal requirements to recent experience requirements. FAA recognizes that, by eliminating the renewal requirement, inspection rated mechanics would no longer be submitting their evidence of activity every two years on IA renewal. However, the proposed record keeping requirement would ensure that ASIs are able to verify that mechanics have met their recent experience requirements as the records would be subject to inspection given FAA's general inspection authority and the specific authority set forth in proposed § 65.83(b)(6). Section V.E. discusses the applicability of the Paperwork Reduction Act and the burden associated with these requirements.

Of note, the proposed recordkeeping requirement is different from the recordkeeping requirement proposed in 1973 and discussed in section III.A of the preamble. The 1973 proposal would have required IA holders to keep a record of every aircraft that they had inspected for a period of two years, to include the registration number, name and address of the registered owner, make and model of the aircraft, the kind of inspection performed, the date, and if the aircraft was returned to service. 59 The recordkeeping requirement proposed in this rulemaking is significantly narrower. Certificated mechanics with an IR would only have to keep records for activities that demonstrate compliance with the proposed recent experience requirements. As previously discussed, IA holders already maintain these records and, overall, the burden for mechanics with an IR would be decreased because they would no longer need to fill out the application to renew every two years with evidence of those activities. Therefore, the concern regarding an undue economic burden, which prompted the removal of this proposed requirement from the 1977 final rule, is not applicable in this proposal. 60

Given the proposed revisions discussed in this section, FAA finds it necessary to propose removing § 65.93(b), (c), and (d). Section 65.93(b) provides an exception to required renewal activities when an IA is in effect for less than 90 days before the expiration date and provides the expectations when an IA is in effect for less than 90 days before March 31 of an even numbered year. These provisions are no longer necessary as the IR would not have an expiration date and the intent of relief for newly acquired IAs would be captured in proposed § 65.83(b)(3).

Section 65.93(c) sets forth the restrictions for an IA holder who does not complete one of the renewal activities in the first year of the IA period. As the proposed IR would no longer have a fixed period, this paragraph would be removed. Proposed § 65.83(b)(4), which was previously discussed in this section of the preamble, would provide the restrictions and requirements to reinstate privileges for certificated mechanics that do not complete their recent activity requirements.

Finally, § 65.93(d) is currently in place to align with § 61.40 to allow relief for certain qualifying people to be eligible to renew an expired IA if they were deployed overseas and unable to renew during the month of March of the odd-numbered year. With the proposal to eliminate the expiration date and renewal requirement, this relief would no longer be necessary. In addition, proposed § 65.83(b)(4) would specifically allow for mechanics to reestablish IR privileges if they are unable to meet the recent experience requirements, rather than have to start over with an initial IR application as is currently required, so no additional relief is required for those deployed overseas. Section IV.C.2 of the preamble contains a discussion of § 61.40.

FAA publication FAA-G-8082-19, Inspection Authorization Information Guide  61 currently provides general guidance for mechanics who hold an IA. It discusses the important role and responsibilities that IA holders have in air safety and the renewal requirements and process. With the proposal to replace the IA with the IR and eliminate the expiration and requirement for renewal, FAA has drafted a new AC to replace the IA information Guide. The most significant difference between the Information Guide and the AC, as drafted for this proposed rule, is the discussion of the recent experience and recordkeeping requirements that are introduced in this proposal. FAA seeks comment on the proposed draft of the AC, which is available in the docket for this rulemaking.

In addition, the proposal to eliminate the renewal requirement would necessitate revisions to FAA Form 8610-1, Mechanic's Application for Inspection Authorization (14 CFR part 65). The form is currently used for initial application and application for renewal. The revision would remove all blocks that are used for the renewal process, as well as change all references of “Inspection Authorization” to “Inspection Rating.” As the proposed IR would no longer require renewal, this application would now only be required for initial application for an IR. FAA also seeks comment on this updated application, which is available in the docket for this rulemaking.

Also, this proposal would require revisions to FAA Form 8610-6, IA Refresher Course Acceptance Request. While the form would remain the same substantively, all references to “IA” and “Inspection Authorization” would be changed to “IR and “Inspection Rating,” respectively. In addition, the regulatory reference in Section E that currently references § 65.93(a)(4) would be changed to § 65.83(b)(iv). FAA also seeks comment on this updated application, which is available in the docket for this rulemaking.

Finally, throughout the pendency of this rulemaking, FAA would also perform a quality control check of related materials to the IA, to include legal interpretations. If adopted as proposed, FAA would handle these materials as appropriate, to include rescinding or revising any legal interpretations that are no longer valid, and FAA would address these changes in the final rule.

The following table provides an overview of proposed changes to specific IA sections in part 65 (§§ 65.91, 65.92, 65.93, and 65.95): which removed paragraphs and subparagraphs would be covered by other sections, which would be integrated into other sections, and which would be removed entirely.

Part 43 prescribes certain rules governing maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and alteration. Section 43.7 prescribes requirements for persons authorized to approve aircraft, airframes, aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, or component parts for return to service after maintenance, preventative maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration. Currently, under § 43.7(b), the holder of a mechanic certificate or an IA may approve an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part for return to service as provided under part 65. As this proposal would remove the IA, any reference to an IA would need to be removed in other sections.

A mechanic with the proposed IR would be able to approve an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part for return to service. As discussed in section IV.A.6 of this preamble, the privileges of the IR are substantively unchanged from the IA. FAA would not need to replace “inspection authorization” with “inspection rating” in § 43.7(b), as the proposed IR would already be covered under the current language. The proposed IR is a rating on a mechanic certificate; therefore, a mechanic with an IR would be covered under “holder of a mechanic certificate” as currently authorized in § 43.7(b). Accordingly, certificated mechanics with the proposed IR would also be authorized under the language of § 43.7(b) despite removing “inspection authorization.” Therefore, FAA proposes to revise § 43.7(b) by removing “or an inspection authorization” to conform to the changes proposed in part 65.

Section 61.40 prescribes relief given to U.S. Military and civilian personnel assigned outside of the United States in support of U.S. Armed Forces operations, allowing these individuals additional time to renew a flight instructor certificate, establish recent flight instructor experience, take a practical test, or renew an IA. FAA proposes to revise § 61.40 by removing references to IA to conform to the changes proposed in part 65.

Section 61.40 codified Special Federal Aviation Regulations No. 100-2 to ensure military and civilian personnel deployed outside the United States have an adequate opportunity to renew an IA if they meet the criteria under § 61.40(b)(2)(i). 62 With the proposed conversion of the IA to the IR, the IR would not expire, and a provision providing adequate opportunity to renew for deployed individuals would not be necessary. In addition, proposed § 65.83(b)(4) would allow all mechanics to reestablish IR privileges at any time if they are unable to meet the recent experience requirements. 63 This provision would equally provide deployed individuals with the same opportunity to reestablish privileges under proposed § 65.83(b)(4). Therefore, the relief provided by § 61.40 would not be necessary for the proposed IR. Accordingly, FAA proposes to remove the references to IA in § 61.40(a), 61.40(a)(6), 61.40(b)(2)(i), and 61.40(b)(3).

Section 65.11 prescribes the general application requirements for certificates under part 65. Currently, § 65.11(a) states that application for a certificate and appropriate class rating, or for an additional rating, under this part must be made on a form and in a manner prescribed by the Administrator. FAA proposes to remove the word “class” from paragraph (a) because none of the ratings that are issued on airmen certificates under part 65 are class ratings as defined in § 1.1.

Class, with respect to the certification, rating, privileges and limitations of airmen, means a classification of aircraft within a category having similar operating characteristics. 64 Class is also defined with respect to the certification of aircraft as meaning a broad grouping of aircraft having similar characteristics of propulsion, flight, or landing. 65 Certifications for air traffic control operators, aircraft dispatchers, mechanics, repairmen, and parachute riggers are not class ratings; none of the ratings limit airmen under part 65 to a specific class of aircraft within a category.

FAA acknowledges that “class” is currently used in § 65.107 with regard to repairmen for light-sport aircraft. However, the MOSAIC rulemaking proposed to replace references to “class” of aircraft in § 65.107 with “category”  66 of aircraft in proposed § 65.109. 67 Under § 65.107, the references to “class” are used in the context of classes of aircraft certification, not airmen certification. FAA has determined using the term “category” in the context of airman certification as defined in § 1.1, is more appropriate because § 65.107 specifically prescribes repairman certification, ratings, privileges, and limitations. Therefore, given that airmen certificates issued under part 65 do not have class ratings, FAA proposes to remove this term from § 65.11(a).

Section 91.409 prescribes the requirements for inspections if operating under part 91; paragraph (d) describes the requirements of an aircraft owner or operator that wishes to utilize a progressive inspection program for their aircraft. Section 91.409(d)(1) states, in part, that the owner or operator must provide a certificated mechanic with an inspection authorization to supervise or conduct the progressive inspection. FAA proposes to revise § 91.409(d)(1) to change the use of “inspection authorization” to “eligible to exercise the privileges of an inspection rating” to conform to the changes proposed in part 65 and to account for those persons who will hold inspection authorizations but will not have converted their authorization to a rating after a final rule is effective. As explained in section IV.A.6 of the preamble, the IR would have the same privileges as the IA, which would be relocated from § 65.95(a)(2) to § 65.88(b). Therefore, this proposed change would simply update this section to require an owner or operator to provide a certificated mechanic holding an IR to use the progressive inspection program, consistent with the proposed conversion of the IA to an IR.

Part 147 prescribes the requirements and the general operating rules for issuing aviation maintenance technician school certificates (AMTS). Section 147.5 prescribes application requirements for AMTS certificate applicants. Currently, § 147.5(b)(2) requires an AMTS applicant to include a description of the manner in which the school's curriculum will ensure the student has the knowledge and skills necessary for attaining a mechanic certificate and associated ratings under subpart D of part 65. The proposed inspection rating is not a rating that is available to an AMTS, as the available ratings are enumerated in § 147.11 as airframe, powerplant, or airframe and powerplant. Therefore, FAA proposes to revise § 147.5(b)(2) by specifying the associated ratings as airframe or powerplant ratings (or both). FAA acknowledges that part 147 was significantly revised pursuant to section 135 of the Aircraft Certification, Safety, and Accountability Act in Public Law 116-260, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, including § 147.5. This proposed amendment is not a substantive change to the statutory requirements.

Executive Order 12866 (E.O.) (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and E.O. 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) require agencies to regulate in the “most cost-effective manner,” to make a “reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,” and to develop regulations that “impose the least burden on society.” The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined in section (3)(f) of E.O. 12866.

This proposal would eliminate the requirement that mechanics holding an IA renew their IAs in March of every odd-numbered year. FAA would replace the current mechanic certificate and IA with a new mechanic certificate with an IR, which would not require renewal and would reduce administrative burden to both FAA and mechanics. The proposal would maintain safety by retaining the same initial qualifications and converting the renewal activity requirements to recent experience requirements.

There are a few other minor revisions in the proposed rule that would not have an impact on existing industry practices. The existing industry practices are the baseline for this analysis and thus the minor proposed changes would not result in any costs or benefits. Adjustments to knowledge requirements of this proposed rule would not impact current industry practices as the written test is already required under the IA. These revisions reorganize the regulatory text to explain the tests required. In addition, the addition of IR specific privileges and limitations language would not affect the current practices. The following table summarizes the economic impact by provision change.

The following table summarizes the net cost savings to 21,264 mechanics and to FAA from reducing the paperwork requirements associated with the current two-year renewal cycle.

At a seven percent discount rate, mechanics who hold an IA would realize a net savings of $1.01 million over 10 years and FAA would realize a net savings of $4.44 million over 10 years. These savings result from reduced paperwork costs for IA holders, who would no longer need to fill out renewal forms, and reduced labor costs to FAA, which would no longer need to process the renewals. The net savings subtracts out a one-time cost of approximately $0.22 million at a seven percent discount rate. This one-time cost includes the cost to the mechanics to submit a simple online form requesting a replacement mechanic certificate with an IR and to FAA for processing and sending out the replacement mechanic certificate with an IR.

Table 3 shows the savings from eliminating the two-year IA renewal requirement relative to the baseline. In other words, Table 3 contains the eliminated estimated discounted cost for renewals that would occur without the elimination of the renewal requirement.

The analysis assumes that the final rule would be issued in December 2026. Therefore, the cost savings from elimination of the renewal requirement would begin with the renewals that would have occurred in 2027 without the proposal. The baseline renewals forecast uses the renewals data over the 14 years presented in Table 4 to forecast in the average number of biannual renewals baseline renewals that would occur without the proposal.

To estimate the cost savings of eliminating the renewal requirement, FAA assumes that mechanics with an IA would save approximately 15 minutes due to this proposal. FAA assumes mechanics with an IA have a compensation rate of $56.45 per hour, 68 including wages and benefits. Thus, FAA estimates the cost savings per renewal for IA holders of $14.11 ($56.45 multiplied by 0.25 hours). The total undiscounted cost savings for 2027 is then calculated by multiplying the cost savings per renewal for an IA holder ($14.11) by the number of renewals in 2027 (21,264), or $300,035. Table 4 shows this value discounted at three and seven percent.

FAA also assumes that a GS-13 step 5 FAA employee would spend 45 minutes processing an IA renewal application at a total compensation rate of $77.98 per hour. Thus, FAA estimates FAA cost per renewal of $58.48. 69 Similar to the total undiscounted cost savings for mechanics in 2027 calculation, the cost savings per renewal to FAA of $58.48 is multiplied by the number of renewals in 2027 (21,264) to arrive at $1,243,518. Table 4 also shows this value discounted at three and seven percent.

These cost savings are netted with one time cost of issuing a replacement mechanic certificate with IR. Table 6 shows the one-time cost of replacing the mechanic certificate with a mechanic certificate with an IR that would not require renewal under this proposal.

Though the proposal allows mechanics with IAs two years to request a replacement mechanic certificate, for simplicity, FAA assumes that all 21,264 replacement mechanic certificates with an IR would be requested in 2027. FAA estimates the cost of the physical mechanic certificate with an IR would be approximately $2.20 per certificate. 70 FAA assumes it would take a mechanic approximately five minutes to learn about and request the replacement mechanic certificate with IR. The cost estimate uses the same mechanic hourly compensation rate discussed above. Further, FAA assumes it spends five minutes of document examiner time to review the application and issue the replacement mechanic certificate with IR. The cost for this labor time is $4.69. FAA calculated its labor cost of $4.13 per mechanic certificate with IR based on an hourly compensation rate of $49.79 for a GS-10 step 5 in the 2025 locality pay tables for the rest of the U.S., including benefits equal to 36.25 percent of wages, multiplied by 0.08 hours. 71 Therefore, the total cost per renewal is $11.02. 72 The undiscounted total cost for renewal, shown in Table 6, is arrived at by multiplying the cost per renewal, $11.02, by the total renewals, 21,264, or $234,281. The discounted cost totals are also shown in Table 6.

FAA finds that mechanics who hold an IA would realize a net cost savings of $1.01 million over 10 years, discounted, and FAA would realize a net cost savings of $4.44 million over 10 years, discounted. These savings result from reduced paperwork costs for mechanics with an IA replaced by an IR who would no longer need to fill out renewal forms and reduced labor costs to FAA that would no longer need to process the renewals. The net cost savings includes a minimal one-time cost of approximately $0.22 million, discounted. This one-time cost covers the cost to the mechanics to submit a simple online form requesting a replacement mechanic certificate with an IR and to FAA for processing and sending out the replacement mechanic certificate with an IR.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121) and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-240), requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses and 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.

FAA expects that the proposed replacement of an IA that requires renewal every two years with an IR, which would not require renewal, would not have a “significant impact on a substantial number” of small entities. This proposal would save mechanics holding an IA time by eliminating the administrative process associated with the renewal requirement, which results in modest cost savings for each affected mechanic. Therefore, FAA proposes to certify that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. FAA welcomes comments on this cost assessment and proposed certification.

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.

FAA does not anticipate that this proposal would create an unnecessary obstacle to foreign commerce.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) governs the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a State, local, or Tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs without the Federal government having first provided the funds to pay those costs. FAA determined that the proposed rule would not result in the expenditure of $193,000,000 or more ($100,000,000 adjusted for inflation using the most current Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product) by State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector, in any one year.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. According to the 1995 amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

This action proposes a new one-time information collection under OMB Control Number 2120-0022 as an online form for IA holders to request a replacement mechanic certificate with an IR. This action also proposes to amend OMB Control Number 2120-0022 to reflect the elimination of the IA renewal requirement and the addition of a recent experience record-keeping requirement. After receipt of any comments, FAA will submit the proposed information collection amendments to OMB as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)).

The proposal would eliminate the requirement for mechanics with an IA to renew their IA in March of every odd-numbered year. Under current procedures, IA holders must be able to provide evidence with the renewal application that they continue to meet the initial eligibility requirements, as well as show fulfillment of the activity requirements. 73 The proposal would replace IAs with a mechanic certificate with an IR, converting the IA renewal requirement to recent experience requirements, thereby eliminating the renewal administrative process. To replace the IA with a mechanic certificate with an IR, the mechanic would fill out a one-time online form within two years of the effective date of the final rule. The mechanic would continue to maintain records of required recent experience for two years; however, they would no longer have to submit this evidence with a renewal application every two years.

As discussed in the preamble, the proposed changes would ensure safety while reducing paperwork burdens.

• 21,264 Mechanics with IAs would request replacement mechanic certificates with IRs.

• An average of 21,500 mechanics with IRs would need to maintain records for recent experience.

• Mechanic certificate with IR request would be one-time between the effective date of the final rule and 24 months after.

• Recent experience record keeping every year.

The annual burden estimate for the one-time mechanic certificate with IR request is listed in Table 6. It includes an estimated five minutes of mechanic time, five minutes of FAA document examiner time, and $2.20 materials cost per mechanic certificate with IR. The wage data used for the calculations is presented with sources in Table 5.

Table 3 presents the cost-savings from elimination of the IA renewal requirement. Table 7 presents the burden estimate for the remaining recordkeeping requirement. As detailed previously in section IV.A.7. of the preamble, the estimate assumes that mechanics with IR ratings would still spend five minutes annually on record-keeping. The estimate uses the same hourly compensation rate for mechanics used in Table 3.

FAA is soliciting comments to—

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of FAA, including whether the information would have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of FAA's estimate of the burden;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of collecting information on those who are to respond, including by using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Individuals and organizations may send comments on the information collection requirement to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this preamble by August 31, 2026. Comments also should be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer for FAA, New Executive Office Building, Room 10202, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20053.

In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. FAA has determined there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to these proposed regulations.

The Department has analyzed the environmental impacts of this notice of proposed rulemaking pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). FAA has determined this proposal rule is categorically excluded pursuant to FAA Order 1050.1G. Categorical exclusions are categories of actions FAA has determined normally do not significantly affect the quality of the human environment and therefore do not require either an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). 74 In analyzing the applicability of a categorical exclusion, FAA must also consider whether extraordinary circumstances are present that would warrant the preparation of an EA or EIS. 75 This rulemaking, which would change a mechanic inspection authorization into an inspection rating, is categorically excluded pursuant to FAA Order 1050.1G, Appendix B, Paragraph B-2.6(f), which categorically excludes issuance of regulatory documents. FAA does not anticipate any environmental impacts, and there are no extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.

FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and criteria of E.O. 13132, Federalism. FAA has determined this action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have federalism implications.

Consistent with E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 76 and FAA Order 1210.20, American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Consultation Policy and Procedures, 77 FAA ensures Federally Recognized Tribes (Tribes) are given the opportunity to provide meaningful and timely input regarding proposed Federal actions that have the potential to affect uniquely or significantly their respective Tribes. At this point, FAA has not identified any unique or significant effects, environmental or otherwise, on Tribes resulting from this proposed rule.

FAA analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). FAA has determined it would not be a “significant energy action” under the E.O. and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

E.O. 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to (1) meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or (2) prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of E.O. 13609 and has determined this action would have no effect on international regulatory cooperation.

This proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, is expected to be an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.

FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. FAA also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.

FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rule. Before acting on this proposal, FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.

Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. Any commentary FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

A copy of this NPRM, all comments received, any final rule, and all background material may be viewed online at www.regulations.gov using the docket number listed above. Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are available on the website. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from the Office of the Federal Register's website at www.federalregister.gov and the Government Publishing Office's website at www.govinfo.gov. A copy may also be found at FAA's Regulations and Policies website at www.faa.gov/regulations_policies.

Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677. Requesters must identify the docket or notice number of this rulemaking.

All documents FAA considered in developing this proposed rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed in the electronic docket for this rulemaking.

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104 121, 110 Stat. 857, Mar. 29, 1996) requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble. To find out more about SBREFA on the internet, visit www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

The meeting will provide interested parties with an opportunity to present views, recommendations, and comments on the proposed airspace. This will be a virtual informal airspace meeting using the Zoom teleconferencing tool. The meeting will also be recorded and available to watch on the FAA YouTube channel.

(a) Registration: To make a presentation at the meeting, you must register on or before August 14, 2026. To attend the meeting without making a presentation, the public can register here at any point prior to the start of the meeting within the space constraints: https://airportnetwork.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN__yHDu6EoST-5lSw7Y1uNdA. The meeting will be open to all persons on a space-available basis. There will be no admission fee or other charge to attend and participate.

(b) The meeting will be informal in nature and will be conducted by one or more representatives of the FAA's Air Traffic Organization Western Service Area. A representative from the FAA will present a briefing on the planned airspace prior to opening the meeting to public comments.

(c) Each participant will be given an opportunity to deliver comments or make a presentation, although a time limit may be imposed. Only comments concerning the plan to amend the Ontario International Airport Class C airspace area will be accepted.

(d) Each person wishing to make a presentation will be asked to note their intent when registering for the meeting so appropriate time limits, if any, can be established. This meeting will not be adjourned until everyone registered to speak has had an opportunity to address the panel. This meeting may be adjourned at any time if all persons present have had an opportunity to speak.

(e) Position papers or other handout material relating to the substance of the meeting will be accepted. Participants submitting papers or handout materials should send them to the physical mail or email address noted in the ADDRESSES section above. To be considered, such material must be received on or before the September 18, 2026, comment deadline noted in the DATES section above.

(f) This meeting will be formally recorded and available on the FAA YouTube channel. A summary of the comments made at the meeting will be filed in the rulemaking docket.

Information gathered through this meeting will assist the FAA in drafting any NPRM that would be published in the Federal Register . The public will be afforded the opportunity to comment on any NPRM published on this matter.

Additional archived information and information from the informal airspace meeting may be viewed at the following URL: www.faa.gov/air_traffic/community_engagement/ont.

The Department is proposing this rulemaking pursuant to its statutory authority in 49 U.S.C. 40113, which states that the Department may take action that it considers necessary to carry out its statutory duties, including prescribing regulations. In 2011, the Department relied upon 49 U.S.C. 41712 and 49 U.S.C. 40113 to issue its air fare advertising rule, also known as the Full Rare Rule, which is codified at 14 CFR 399.84(a). This rule requires that any advertising for air transportation display the total price to be paid by the consumer, including all government taxes, fees, and carrier-imposed charges. Under the current regulation, the total price must be displayed more prominently and in a larger font than any individual component of that price.

The Department remains committed to the requirement that carriers display the total price to be paid by the consumer. However, the Department tentatively finds that the existing requirements regarding specific font size and prominence is unnecessarily prescriptive, and therefore should be modified to allow fare components to be displayed as prominently as the total price. This change would provide carriers greater flexibility while maintaining essential consumer protections and bring these regulations into conformity with First Amendment jurisprudence. In addition, this proposed rule on prominence reflects the intent of Congress as articulated in the Internal Revenue Code, which similarly states that if the price of transportation and taxes are listed separately from the total price, then the total price must be displayed “at least as prominently as the more prominently stated of the amount to be paid for such transportation or the amount of such taxes.”  1

In 2011, the Department determined in a final rule that it considered any advertising or solicitation by a direct air carrier, indirect air carrier, an agent of either, or a ticket agent, for passenger air transportation, a tour ( i.e., a combination of air transportation and ground or cruise accommodations) or tour component ( e.g., a hotel stay) that must be purchased with air transportation that states a price for such air transportation, tour, or tour component to be an unfair and deceptive practice in violation of 49 U.S.C. 41712 unless the price stated is the entire price to be paid by the customer to the carrier, or agent, for such air transportation, tour, or tour component. When issuing the final rule requiring disclosure of the full fare in 2011, the Department stated that comments filed by individual consumers to the proposed rule, as well as consumer complaints received by the Department, indicated that consumers felt confused or deceived when the fare provided after an initial air fare inquiry did not reflect the total cost of travel. In addition, the Department identified changes in the advertising methods used by sellers of air transportation—particularly then-newer forms of advertising such as social media platforms, unbundling of the cost of air travel into components that must be purchased separately, and offers of more complicated routing with multiple connections—that often result in a lower base fare but higher taxes and fees. The Department found that consumers need “a full picture of the total price to be paid in order to compare fares and routings,” and concluded that “to understand the true cost of travel, consumers need to be able to see the entire price they [must] pay to get to their destination the first time the air fare is presented to them.”  2

The 2011 rulemaking also addressed how airlines and ticket agents may display components of the full fare. The Department's 2011 final rule allowed advertisers to display fare components separately. In order to ensure that consumers were not confused about the full price to be paid, the final rule clarified that “although charges included within the single total price listed ( e.g., government taxes) may be stated separately or through links or “pop ups” on websites that display the total price, such charges may not be false or misleading, may not be displayed prominently, may not be presented in the same or larger size as the total price, and must provide cost information on a per passenger basis that accurately reflects the cost of the item covered by the charge.”  3

After the issuance of the 2011 rule, the Department issued guidance that “`prominent' under this rule means that the break-out of per-person charges cannot be in a more prominent place on a web page or in a print advertisement than the advertised total fare. 4 For example, the break-out cannot be at the top of the page, ahead of the total price. The total price should be in larger font. The break-out of charges should not have special highlighting that sets it apart and makes it more prominent than the total price ( e.g., bold font, underlined, or italicized).”  5

Following the issuance of the 2011 final rule, several airlines filed a petition for review with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, asserting, among other things, that the full fare advertising rule was arbitrary and capricious and that it violated the First Amendment right of airlines to engage in commercial and political speech. 6 The airline petitioners stated that the Department's action was arbitrary and capricious because there was nothing inherently deceptive about listing taxes separately, and that the Department lacked substantial evidence for concluding that doing so is deceptive in practice. The Court upheld the final rule requiring the advertised price to be the full fare. In 2012, the Court rejected the airlines' First Amendment challenge, holding that the rule imposed only a disclosure requirement aimed at preventing deception about the total final price of airline tickets, which did not restrict the ability to provide itemized pricing information. 7

However, since the D.C. Circuit rendered the Spirit decision, the United States Supreme Court has consistently reviewed commercial speech restrictions more stringently. 8 The Supreme Court has also made clear that applying legal standards expansively to uphold laws imposing restrictions on the size and appearance of speech is inconsistent with its governing precedent. 9 In addition, on February 19, 2025, the President issued Executive Order 14219, “Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's `Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative,” which requires Federal agencies to identify and work to rescind unconstitutional regulations and regulations that raise serious constitutional difficulties, such as exceeding the scope of the power vested in the Federal Government by the Constitution. The Full Fare Rule's prominence requirement not only restricts the size and appearance of airline disclosures regarding mandatory taxes and fees, and other charges in their airfare advertisements, but also favors the government's preferred pricing message.

In addition, if Spirit were litigated today, the limits on deference afforded by the court to the agency's interpretation of its regulation could lead to a different decision. The Spirit court afforded substantial deference and controlling weight to the Department's interpretation of the rule, not based on actual evidence of deception caused by prominently displayed itemized pricing information. 10 The statement regarding deference made by the Spirit court reads akin to the type of deference previously afforded agency interpretation of statutes under the so-called Chevron doctrine, which was overturned in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. 11 However, the court in Spirit was applying the still-existing deference approach for an agency's interpretation of its own ambiguous regulations. 12 The soundness of the Spirit court's deference afforded DOT's interpretation of the existing rule is now questionable based on the Supreme Court's narrowing of Auer deference in Kisor v. Wilkie, 588 U.S. __ (2019), 139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019), decided subsequent to Spirit, which clarified when such deference is appropriate by reinforcing and expanding the Auer doctrine's limits. 13

Given these circumstances, and in light of the Supreme Court's repeated emphasis on heightened scrutiny in the commercial speech context since the Spirit decision, as well as direction provided in Executive Order 14219, the Department has tentatively identified the Full Fare Rule's prominence and font size restrictions as raising serious constitutional difficulties, exceeding the scope of the power vested in the Federal Government by the First Amendment. Therefore, the Department proposes to repeal these provisions.

Separate from DOT's Full Fare Rule, in 1970, Congress issued statutory standards for the display of taxes in advertisements for air transportation. Specifically, section 7275 of the Internal Revenue Code requires that any advertising for air transportation must state the cost as the total of (a) “the amount to be paid for such air transportation” and (b) various taxes set forth in the statute. 14 Moreover, if the advertisement separately states the non-tax component and/or the tax component, then the total must be stated “at least as prominently” as the most prominent component. 15 Section 7275 is a criminal tax penalty provision. Violation is considered a misdemeanor, with a maximum penalty of $100 per violation upon conviction. 16 Because the Department did not consider this section when it promulgated the Full Fare Rule, it now seeks comment on the continued relevance of the prominence regulation in 14 CFR 399.84 in light of this Internal Revenue Code provision, which establishes standards for the display of taxes in advertisements for air transportation.

Over time, the Department has issued numerous guidance documents and policy statements relating to its interpretation and enforcement of the Full Fare Rule. Some of these documents are listed as active guidance documents on the Department's website, while others can be found at a separate link at the bottom of that page labeled “archived guidance.”  17 In light of today's proposed regulatory change, the Department proposes to rescind the following guidance documents:

• “Use of the Term `Free' in Air Fare Advertisements and Disclosure of Consumer Costs in Award Travel” (May 17, 2012) (discussing how airlines must disclose carrier charges and government taxes in “free” advertisements);

• “Guidance on the Use of Rounding in Air Fare Advertisements” (February 28, 2012) (providing guidance regarding displaying the exact fare, rather than rounding up or down);

• Additional Guidance on Airfare and Air Tour Price Advertisements” (February 21, 2012) (advising airlines that it is deceptive to list carrier-imposed fees as “taxes” or as “taxes and fees”);

• “Advertising Air Fares on Social Media Sites” (October 3, 2011) (discussing how to advertise fares on character-limited sites like Twitter, and noting that the full-fare rule, effective 2012, will apply to all sites);

• The price advertising provisions of “FAQ on Rule 2 for Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections” (first issued August 19, 2011) (addressing, among other things, the prominence provision of the Full Fare Rule);

• “Disclosure of Airfare Variations: Web vs. Other Sources, Surcharges that May Be Listed Separately in Advertisements” (November 15, 2004) (indicating that the Office of Aviation Consumer Protection (OACP) will allow separate listing of “government imposed surcharges” (like Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs) but not “government approved” surcharges (like fuel taxes);

• “Disclosure of Higher Prices for Airfares Purchased Over the Telephone Via Airline Telephone Reservation Centers Or At Airline Ticket Counters, and Surcharges That May Be Listed Separately In Fare Advertisements” (November 5, 2004) [archived];

• “Advertising: `Free' Tickets, Disclosure of Fees” (September 4, 2003) [archived] (discussing how to disclose tax, fee, and restriction information when fares are advertised as “free”);  18 and

• The price advertising provisions of “Letter to Major and National U.S. Air Carriers and to Air Travel Industry Associations and Labor Unions” (December 20, 1994) (discussing, among other things, “2-for-1” fares and “percentage off” advertising).

On January 15, 2021, the Department issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) seeking comment on whether and how to revise the Full Fare Rule. 19 This ANPRM was publicly posted on the Department's website, but was withdrawn before it published in the Federal Register . 20

On April 30, 2024, the Department issued a final rule titled “Enhancing Transparency of Airline Ancillary Fees” (Ancillary Fee Rule). 21 While the Ancillary Fee Rule primarily focused on the disclosure of fees for certain ancillary services such as transporting a first or second checked bag and canceling or changing a reservation, it also made relatively minor changes to the Department's price advertising requirements for air transportation in 14 CFR 399.84(a). For example, the Department stated that the Full Fare Rule applied to “mandatory charges” (as opposed to optional ancillary fees), and then defined the term “mandatory charges” consistent with longstanding OACP policy. 22 The Ancillary Fee Rule also added and amended other subsections of 14 CFR 399.84; for example, it included a provision relating to “percentage off” advertisements in 14 CFR 399.84(e).

Following the publication of the Ancillary Fee Rule, several airlines and airline associations challenged it in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Petitioners argued that the Department lacks prescriptive rulemaking authority under 49 U.S.C. 41712 and that the Ancillary Fee Rule was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Specifically, petitioners alleged that the Department failed to provide an opportunity for public comment on an economic study the Department relied upon to estimate the percentage of consumers who find ancillary fee information relevant to their search for airfare. 23

On January 28, 2025, a Fifth Circuit panel issued a decision on the merits of the petition. 24 The court held that the “plain text of the statutory framework” authorizes the Department to prescribe regulations to stop unfair and deceptive practices under 49 U.S.C. 41712  25 and that DOT's power to do so is not inconsistent with the Airline Deregulation Act or the major question or nondelegation doctrines. However, the court determined that the failure to provide the economic study for comment violated APA procedures. Accordingly, the court remanded the rule to the Department to provide the opportunity to comment on the new data. On February 3, 2026, an en banc panel of the Fifth Circuit vacated the Ancillary Fee Rule, reasoning that the Department violated the APA's notice and comment requirement by not providing the opportunity for comment on the economic study. 26 The en banc panel did not rule on the scope of the Department's authority to issue regulations under 49 U.S.C. 41712 and 40113. 27

It is well-established that when a court vacates a regulation, “the judgment . . . ha[s] the effect of reinstating the rules previously in force.”  28 Thus, under existing precedent, the vacatur of the Ancillary Fee Rule had the legal effect of reinstating section 399.84 as it was written in 2011. Despite this effect of the vacatur, the Ancillary Fee Rule remains codified in the Code of Federal Regulations.

In this NPRM, the Department proposes to amend only subsection (a) of 14 CFR 399.84. To comply with the Fifth Circuit's vacatur, the new proposed regulatory text reverts to the 2011 version of subsection (a). Accordingly, it does not include the term “mandatory charges” and its associated definition, which were features of the now vacated Ancillary Fee Rule. Instead, we modify the 2011 text only with respect to prominence and font size. All other matters addressed by the vacated Ancillary Fee Rule, including the broader disclosure of ancillary fees and any other necessary amendments to 14 CFR 399.84, will be addressed separately in the rulemaking, titled “Increasing Flexibility on Disclosure of Airline Ancillary Fees” (RIN 2105-AF34).

On January 10, 2025, FTC issued a final rule titled “Trade Regulation Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees” (FTC Rule). 29 The FTC Rule became effective as of May 12, 2025, and applies to offers, displays, or advertisements of the prices of live-event tickets and short-term lodging. 30 The rule was motivated by concerns about various forms of bait- and-switch pricing in those industries. Specifically, FTC found that providers in those industries advertised low prices, only to add mysterious, mandatory fees (such as “convenience fees,” “processing fees,” and “resort fees”) later in the purchasing process. 31 FTC heard concerns from stakeholders that such practices were widespread in many other industries beyond live tickets and short-term lodging, but limited the scope of its rule to live-event tickets and short-term lodging where evidence of unfair and deceptive practices was particularly clear. 32 The FTC Rule sets standards for initial advertisements, disclosures before final payment, and general prohibitions on misleading fees.

The key feature of the FTC Rule is that the advertised price must be the “total price,” which is defined as “the maximum total of all fees or charges a consumer must pay for any good(s) or service(s) and any mandatory ancillary good or service.”  33 The FTC reasoned that any fee that was necessary to obtain the product as advertised must be included in the total price. In other words, the rule prohibits advertising a certain price and then adding unavoidable fees ( e.g., “convenience fees” and “processing fees”) later in the purchasing process.

The key difference between the current DOT Full Fare Rule and the FTC Rule is the treatment of government charges. Under the current DOT Full Fare Rule, all government charges must be included in the advertised price. Under the FTC Rule, which covers offers, displays, or advertisements for live-event tickets and short-term lodging, the advertised price may exclude “government charges,” which are defined as “the fees or charges imposed on the transaction by a Federal, State, Tribal, or local government agency, unit, or department.”  34 Although the FTC Rule allows businesses that offer, display, or advertise live-event tickets and short-term lodging to exclude government charges from the advertised price, it does not require them to do so and such businesses may advertise prices inclusive of such charges and be in compliance with the FTC Rule.

Under the FTC Rule, advertisers are free to list the components of an advertised price, but the total price, excluding government charges and shipping fees, must be disclosed “clearly and conspicuously.” The rule defines “clearly and conspicuously” as “easily noticeable ( i.e., difficult to miss) and easily understandable by ordinary consumers.”  35 Moreover, the total price must be disclosed “more prominently than any other pricing information,” except, as discussed below, the final amount of payment, which must be at least as prominent as the total price. 36

In this respect, the FTC Rule largely tracks the current DOT Full Fare Rule. The DOT Full Fare Rule states that components of the fare may be displayed separately, but “may not be displayed prominently.” The practical effect of both rules is that the total price, although defined differently by FTC and DOT, must be displayed more prominently than any components. The DOT Full Fare Rule is more prescriptive than the FTC Rule with respect to font size: under the DOT Full Fare Rule, components “may not be presented in the same or larger size as the total price.”  37 The FTC Rule is silent as to font size.

Finally, under the FTC Rule, prior to payment, the covered entity must disclose “the nature, purpose, and amount of any fee or charge imposed on the transaction that has been excluded from total price and the identity of the good or service for which the fee or charge is imposed.”  38 These disclosures must be clear and conspicuous. 39 The final amount of payment must be clear and conspicuous, and must be displayed “more prominently than, or as prominent as,” the advertised total price. 40 The net effect of these rules is that the advertised price and the final amount of payment must be displayed more prominently than any components. FTC has issued a guidance document to help regulated entities and the public understand the rule and how to comply with it. 41

On April 3, 2025, the Department issued an RFI titled “Ensuring Lawful Regulation; Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.”  42 The Department solicited comment from the public and stakeholders regarding existing DOT regulations, guidance documents, or reporting requirements that may be “inconsistent with law or Administration policy” and/or “obsolete, unnecessary, unjustified, or simply no longer make sense.”  43

In response to the RFI, Airlines for America (A4A) and the International Air Transport Association (IATA) urged the Department to repeal the core feature of the Full Fare Rule, which is that the initial advertised fare must include taxes and government-imposed fees. They contend that DOT's advertising regulations impose stricter standards on the airline industry than on any other industry, despite the passage of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (ADA). They argue that the rule “requires airlines to hide some of the true cost to consumers” in the form of government taxes and fees, which have increased over time. 44 They argue that it would be easy for airlines to display taxes and fees later in the booking process separately like other industries, and to let consumers calculate the total, because taxes are generally uniform across purchases. A4A notes that the FTC Rule, which covers lodging and live-event tickets, allows those industries to exclude taxes and government fees from the total price. They recommend that “if retained in any material form, the DOT should strictly align with the price advertising standards set by the FTC for other industries.”  45 A4A contends that if the Department continues to require the total price to be advertised more prominently than components (like taxes), then the Department should eliminate prescriptive size requirements and allow airlines to have flexibility on how to display the total price (or final amount of payment) more prominently than other components. 46 A4A also urged the Department to rescind its price advertising guidance documents.

Spirit Airlines and the Association of Value Airlines (AVA), representing ultra-low-cost carriers, 47 also urged the Department to rescind the Full Fare Rule. They argued that there is nothing unfair or deceptive about listing taxes and fees separately from the advertised fare. They also argued that the Full Fare Rule unconstitutionally abridges commercial speech. 48

The Travel Technology Association (Travel Tech) argued that the Department should retain the Full Fare Rule because it “prevent[s] deceptive or misleading marketing of air fares, such as by display bias; enable[s] accurate price comparisons across carriers and sales channels; and uphold[s] a baseline standard of fairness across both airline-direct and indirect platforms.”  49 The United States Tour Operators Association (USTOA) did not comment on the general requirement to display the full fare inclusive of government taxes and fees in advertisements, but urged the Department to rescind its May 2012 guidance regarding advertisements for “free” travel.

Five public interest organizations, advocating on behalf of airline passengers, supported the existing Full Fare Rule because it “enables basic market forces to function. Without price transparency, consumers cannot make informed decisions and competition fails.”  50

Today, the Department is proposing a minor, but certainly meaningful, revision to the Full Fare Rule's prominence provision. However, as an alternative, the Department is considering repealing the Full Fare Rule in whole. The Department's consideration to repeal the rule is based on the combined effect of three primary factors: (1) reconsideration of the exercise of the relevant statutory authorities; (2) direction from Executive Order 14219 to identify for revision those regulations that are based on anything other than the best reading of the underlying statutory authority; and (3) the unnecessary regulatory layering between the existing Full Fare Rule and other applicable law.

The Department is reconsidering the optimal exercise of its statutory authorities. The Department has historically regulated airfare advertising under its 49 U.S.C. 41712 authority to stop unfair or deceptive practices. However, 49 U.S.C. 41712 does not provide explicit direction to the Secretary to regulate price advertising. As discussed above, in 1970, Congress established specific standards for the display of taxes in airfare advertising in the form of a criminal tax penalty under the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 7275). The Department is considering whether, as a matter of policy, the specific standards set by Congress in the Internal Revenue Code should be the primary framework for required disclosures of the amount of applicable taxes in airfare advertising, rather than the Department maintaining overlapping and distinct requirements. Specifically, the Department questions whether, in the specific context of tax and fee prominence, Congress intended for these standards to be governed primarily by the Internal Revenue Code.

On February 19, 2025, the President issued Executive Order 14219, which requires Federal agencies to review regulations and identify for revision those that are “based on anything other than the best reading of the underlying statutory authority.” The Department is considering whether the best reading of the interaction between 49 U.S.C. 41712 and 26 U.S.C. 7275 suggests that the specific governing standard for tax advertising should be the Internal Revenue Code, thereby making the Department's overlapping Full Fare Rule unnecessary for achieving the goal of non-deceptive pricing.

The Department identifies misalignment between the existing Full Fare Rule and the Internal Revenue Code. While the Internal Revenue Code permits taxes to be stated as prominently as the total price, the existing Full Fare Rule imposes a stricter standard, prohibiting taxes and fees from being displayed “prominently.” While it may be possible for entities to comply with both by adhering to the more restrictive DOT standard, the Department questions whether maintaining this divergence remains in the public interest. Further, the Internal Revenue Code establishes standards specifically for tax and total price displays; however, the Department's Full Fare Rule extended these requirements to all “mandatory charges,” a term the Department defined to include all taxes as well as government- and carrier-imposed fees required to purchase air transportation. 51 By including carrier-imposed fees within these prominence restrictions—a category of charges not addressed by the Internal Revenue Code—the Full Fare Rule creates a broader and more restrictive regulatory scheme.

The Department questions whether repeal of the Full Fare Rule may eliminate conflicts with more specific laws, streamline the regulations by eliminating unnecessary restrictions, and reduce the potential for confusion that can arise when multiple Federal entities impose overlapping and different requirements.

Rather than modify the Full Fare Rule as proposed herein, should the Department instead repeal 14 CFR 399.84 in whole or in part? If the Department should consider a partial repeal, what provisions should be retained? For example, the Department seeks comment on a modification to the Full Fare Rule that removes any reference to “prominence” and instead cross-references the Internal Revenue Code by stating that mandatory “charges may not be false or misleading, must provide cost information on a per passenger basis that accurately reflects the cost of the item covered by the charge, and must comply with 26 U.S.C. 7275, as applicable.” What quantifiable or qualitative cost-savings and benefits would be realized through a full or partial repeal? Please submit any data that would assist the Department in weighing the economic impacts of a variety of deregulatory options. In asking these questions, the Department notes it could, under its adjudicative authority found in 49 U.S.C. 41712, pursue enforcement action if an entity in air transportation is found to display fees in a way that is unfair or deceptive, even in the absence of the existing Full Fare Rule.

The Department is of the view that the Full Fare Rule can be revised to provide greater flexibility for advertisers in how they display air fare, including calling attention to the components of a fare ( e.g., government charges) if they wish to do so. Specifically, we believe that the prominence provision of the Full Fare Rule is unnecessarily prescriptive, particularly regarding font size. The current rule states that components of the full fare may not be displayed “prominently.” However, we believe that there is nothing inherently unfair or deceptive in having components of a fare be displayed “prominently,” so long as the total price is just as prominent.

The current rule also states that components of a fare “may not be presented in the same or larger size as the total price.” As noted above, we believe that specifically regulating font size is overly prescriptive. We also recognize the concerns of some stakeholders that the prominence and font size provisions unconstitutionally burden commercial speech, given more recent Supreme Court decisions that have been issued after the D.C. Circuit Court's decision in Spirit Airlines. 52

This proposed rule is deregulatory in two respects. First, unlike the current Full Fare Rule, this proposed rule eliminates the requirement that components of a total price may not be “prominent.” Under this proposed rule, components may be listed as prominently as the total price. Second, this proposed rule eliminates prescriptive advertising rules related to font size. The proposed rule provides airlines and ticket agents greater flexibility with respect to advertising components of air fares, and advances their First Amendment interest in calling greater attention to the portion of air fare that is attributable to government-imposed taxes and fees.

This deregulatory action complies with the policies set forth in Executive Order 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity through Deregulation” (January 31, 2025), because it alleviates an unnecessary regulatory burden. It also complies with Executive Order 14219, “Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's `Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative” (February 19, 2025), to the extent that the current Full Fare Rule raised constitutional concerns, imposed significant costs that were not outweighed by benefits, was based on anything other than the best reading of the underlying statutory authority, and/or was inconsistent with Administration priorities. Both Executive Orders are intended to further the Administration's goal of dismantling the “overbearing and burdensome administrative state.”  53

The Department is proposing to amend the Full Fare Rule as provided in the summary table below.

This NPRM proposes to amend 14 CFR 399.84(a). Currently, that section states that the components of an advertised fare may be stated separately, but “may not be displayed prominently, [and] may not be presented in the same or larger size as the total price.” This proposal would eliminate those requirements, and would instead simply prohibit any components of the fare from being displayed more prominently than the total price. This proposed change would allow advertisers greater flexibility in how air fare is displayed and ensure greater price transparency of the components, including government taxes and fees. The Department recognizes that its proposal differs from the FTC Rule, in that this proposal would allow the total price to be displayed equally as prominently as any component, while the FTC Rule requires the total price to be more prominent. However, our proposal is consistent with the Internal Revenue Code's statutory provision on prominence. As noted above, the Internal Revenue Code requires the total price to be listed “at least as prominently” as any component. 26 U.S.C. 7275(b)(2). As Congress has established standards for the display of advertisements for air transportation in the Internal Revenue Code, to the extent DOT has rules on price advertising, DOT believes it would be preferable to be consistent with Internal Revenue Code.

We solicit comment on all aspects of this proposal, including its costs and benefits, and whether it strikes the right balance in ensuring greater flexibility for regulated entities in how air fare is displayed while ensuring information continues to be presented in a clear and non-misleading manner to consumers.

To avoid confusion, the Department proposes to rescind all price advertising guidance documents on its website (whether active or archived). The Department is of the view that the guidance documents are unnecessary or outdated. DOT stresses that all guidance documents are nonbinding and that regulated entities are bound by statute and regulatory text. With that said, are there any guidance documents that DOT should keep because they clarify existing obligations, reduce compliance burdens, or provide value in other ways?

The Department is of the view that the proposed rule imposes no new requirements relative to the baseline requirements of the current Full Fare Rule. As a result, the rule is deregulatory in several respects. Under this proposal, advertisers are free to display components of the fare prominently, so long as they are not more prominent than the total price. In other words, the total price and the fare components can be equally prominent. In contrast, the current Full Fare Rule prohibits prominent display of fare components. The current Full Fare Rule also prohibits presenting fare components as the same size as the total price, which would be allowed under this proposal.

Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354), as codified in 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) requires that DOT consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public and, under the provisions of PRA section 3507(d), obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information it conducts, sponsors, or requires through regulations. Finally, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) requires DOT to analyze this action to determine if it will have an effect on the quality of the environment. This portion of the preamble summarizes DOT's analyses of these impacts with respect to this notice.

This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and the Department's Regulatory Policies and Procedures (49 CFR part 5 and DOT Order 2100.6B). It provides sellers of air transportation flexibility in advertising while maintaining price transparency for consumers. The Department's Regulatory Impact Analysis is available in the docket.

This proposed rule is expected to be an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this proposed rule can be found in the rule's economic analysis.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires an agency to review regulations to assess their impact on small entities unless the agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A carrier is a small business if it provides air transportation exclusively with small aircraft, defined as any aircraft originally designed to have a maximum passenger capacity of 60 seats or less or a maximum payload capacity of 18,000 pounds or less. The proposed rule also has the potential to disproportionally affect small firms in the travel arrangement and reservation industry, as defined in the rule's economic analysis.

The proposed rule is deregulatory in nature and intends to provide greater flexibility for firms without imposing adjustment costs, therefore, the Department does not expect that the proposed rule would have a significant or disproportionate impact on small entities. Small carriers, travel agents, or tour operators would not be required to make any changes to their advertisements, websites, information systems, or pricing strategies. Passengers on small carriers or consumers who book travel through small travel agencies or tour operators would continue to be presented with full fares upfront, allowing them to make informed purchasing decisions without having to invest additional time searching for information on taxes and fees. Overall, the Department expects that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. While certification could be made at this stage, the Department instead defers formal certification until the final rule, after considering public comments and additional evidence, to ensure a fully informed determination.

This NPRM has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”). This notice does not propose any requirement that (1) has substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, (2) imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments, or (3) preempts state law. States are already preempted from regulating in this area by the Airline Deregulation Act, 49 U.S.C. 41713. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.

This notice has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”). Because none of the options on which we are seeking comment would significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments or impose substantial direct compliance costs on them, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) (PRA), no person is required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The Department is of the view that this NPRM does not impose new information collection requirements and therefore the PRA does not apply.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. As described elsewhere in the preamble, this proposed rule would have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments or on the private sector. Therefore, the Department has determined that no assessment is required pursuant to UMRA.

The Department has analyzed the environmental impacts of this proposed action pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and has determined that it is categorically excluded pursuant to DOT Order 5610.1D, Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (June 30, 2025). Appendix A of DOT Order 5610.1D provides that “actions relating to consumer protection, including regulations” are categorically excluded. The purpose of this rulemaking is to enhance protections for air travelers and to improve the air travel experience. The Department does not anticipate any environmental impacts, and there are no extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOT proposes to amend 14 CFR chapter 2, subchapter F as follows:

The notice of intent contained in this document is issued pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions of 21 U.S.C. 811(h). The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) intends to issue a temporary scheduling order  1 (in the form of a temporary amendment) to add the following four synthetic opioids, including their isomers, esters, ethers, salts, and salts of isomers, esters, and ethers, whenever the existence of such isomers, esters, ethers, and salts is possible, to schedule I under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA):

• 1-(1-(1-(4-bromophenyl)ethyl)piperidin-4-yl)-5,6-dichloro-1,3-dihydro-2 H -benzo[ d ]imidazol-2-one (Other names: 5,6-dichloro brorphine or SR-14968).

• 5,6-dichloro-1-(1-(4-chlorobenzyl)piperidin-4-yl)-1,3-dihydro-2 H -benzo[ d ]imidazol-2-one (Other names: 5,6-dichloro desmethylchlorphine or SR-17018).

• 3-(3-(1-(1-(4-chlorophenyl)ethyl)piperidin-4-yl)-2-oxo-2,3-dihydro-1 H -benzo[ d ]imidazol-1-yl)propanenitrile (Other names: N -propionitrile chlorphine or cychlorphine).

• 8-(1-(4-chlorophenyl)ethyl)-1-phenyl-1,3,8-triazaspiro[4.5]decan-4-one (Other names: spirochlorphine or R-6890).

The temporary scheduling order will be published in the Federal Register on or after July 31, 2026.

The CSA provides the Attorney General with the authority to temporarily place a substance in schedule I of the CSA for two years without regard to the requirements of 21 U.S.C. 811(b), if he finds that such action is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to public safety. 2 In addition, if proceedings to control a substance are initiated under 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1) while the substance is temporarily controlled under section 811(h), the Attorney General may extend the temporary scheduling for up to one year. 3

Where the necessary findings are made, a substance may be temporarily scheduled if it is not listed in any other schedule under 21 U.S.C. 812, or if there is no exemption or approval in effect for the substance under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 355. 4 The Attorney General has delegated scheduling authority under 21 U.S.C. 811 to the Administrator of DEA (Administrator). 5

The CSA requires the Administrator to notify the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) of an intent to temporarily place a substance in schedule I of the CSA ( i.e., to issue a temporary scheduling order). 6 By letter dated April 1, 2026, the Administrator transmitted the required notice to place the four synthetic opioids—5,6-dichloro brorphine, 5,6-dichloro desmethylchlorphine, N -propionitrile chlorphine, and spirochlorphine—in schedule I on a temporary basis to the Assistant Secretary for Health of HHS (Assistant Secretary). 7 By letter dated April 10, 2026, the Assistant Secretary responded to this notice and advised that, based on a review by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), there were currently no investigational new drug applications or approved new drug applications for 5,6-dichloro brorphine, 5,6-dichloro desmethylchlorphine, N -propionitrile chlorphine, or spirochlorphine. The Assistant Secretary also stated that HHS had no objection to the temporary placement of these substances in schedule I of the CSA. These four synthetic opioids are not currently listed in any schedule under the CSA, and no exemptions or approvals under 21 U.S.C. 355 are in effect for these substances.

To find that temporarily placing a substance in schedule I of the CSA is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to public safety, the Administrator must consider three of the eight factors set forth in 21 U.S.C. 811(c): the substance's history and current pattern of abuse; the scope, duration, and significance of abuse; and what, if any, risk there is to public health. 8 This consideration includes any information indicating actual abuse, diversion from legitimate channels, and clandestine importation, manufacture, or distribution of these substances. 9

Substances meeting the statutory requirements for temporary scheduling may only be placed in schedule I. 10 Substances in schedule I have high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, 11 and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. 12

The ongoing evolution and availability of novel psychoactive substances on the illicit drug market continues to pose an imminent hazard to public safety. Adverse health effects associated with the abuse of these substances and their increased popularity have become a serious concern in recent years. Such substances include four synthetic opioids—5,6-dichloro brorphine, 5,6-dichloro desmethylchlorphine, N -propionitrile chlorphine, and spirochlorphine—which have been identified on the illicit drug market in the United States and worldwide.

These four synthetic opioids are pharmacologically similar to other synthetic opioids controlled under the CSA, such as brorphine, 13 fentanyl, 14 morphine, 15 and other mu-opioid receptor agonists. 16 Due to these pharmacological similarities, the use of these four synthetic opioids presents a high risk of abuse and may negatively affect users and their communities.

These four synthetic opioids, which belong to a subset of opioids colloquially known as orphines, are increasingly prevalent on the recreational drug market and have been co-identified with other substances, such as fentanyl, posing a significant threat to public safety. This is particularly concerning, because the United States continues to experience a significant number of opioid-involved overdoses. The misuse and abuse of synthetic opioids, such as these four substances, have led to devastating consequences, including death. In the United States, 5,6-dichloro desmethylchlorphine, N -propionitrile chlorphine, and spirochlorphine have been identified in both drug seizures and toxicological cases, and 5,6-dichloro brorphine has been identified in drug material.

The positive identification of these four synthetic opioids in law enforcement seizures and toxicology reports poses a serious concern to public safety. These substances have been detected through multiple avenues, including DEA's Toxicology Testing Program (DEA TOX), 17 DEA's National Forensic Laboratory Information System (NFLIS), 18 other internal DEA data collection systems, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology's Rapid Drug Analysis and Research (RaDAR) program, 19 among others. Data from these programs indicate that these substances are found both alone or in combination with other substances, and users may not be aware of polysubstance presence. In addition, online discussions surrounding the recreational use of these substances have recently increased. 20

To confront these emerging substances and avoid an imminent hazard to public safety, DEA intends to temporarily place 5,6-dichloro brorphine, 5,6-dichloro desmethylchlorphine, N -propionitrile chlorphine, and spirochlorphine in schedule I of the CSA. Available data and information on these four synthetic opioids, summarized below, indicate that these substances have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. DEA's three-factor analysis is available in its entirety under “Supporting and Related Material” of the public docket for this action at www.regulations.gov under Docket Number DEA-1665.

5,6-Dichloro brorphine, 5,6-dichloro desmethylchlorphine, N -propionitrile chlorphine, and spirochlorphine are novel synthetic opioids that belong to a class of opioids colloquially known as orphines. The earliest known description of these substances, which include benzimidazolinyl piperidine derivatives ( i.e., benzimidazolones), appeared in a U.S. patent in 1967. 21 In recent years, online forum users have begun to discuss recreational use of these four synthetic opioids and commonly compared these four synthetic opioids to other traditionally abused opioids, such as morphine and fentanyl (schedule II substances). However, unlike these two drugs that have FDA-approval for use in specific medical treatments, the four synthetic opioids have no currently approved medical use and, based on positive identifications of these four substances in forensic drug exhibits and toxicology samples, are likely to be trafficked and abused similarly to other synthetic opioids, such as brorphine (schedule I).

Based on available data from user reports and law enforcement seizures, individuals purchase 5,6-dichloro brorphine, 5,6-dichloro desmethylchlorphine, N -propionitrile chlorphine, and spirochlorphine primarily in powder form; additional forms include capsule, liquid, paste, rock, and tablet forms. Common routes of administration include oral consumption, inhalation (including vaping), and injection. Data also indicate that these four substances are likely co-ingested with other substances, whether as separate products or a single product containing multiple licit and illicit substances ( see Factor 6).

Users on online forums began to discuss the four synthetic opioids and their consumption in recent years. In 2025, clusters of overdoses specifically resulting from N -propionitrile chlorphine use have led to public concern both in the United States and in other countries. This concern has initiated state-level efforts to control N -propionitrile chlorphine. 22

In addition, law enforcement data indicate that the presence of the four synthetic opioids is increasingly widespread in the United States. NFLIS-Drug, a component of NFLIS, registered a collective total of 265 reports, across 21 states, pertaining to the trafficking, distribution, and abuse of the four synthetic opioids. 23 More specifically, NFLIS-Drug reported 2 total encounters of 5,6-dichloro brorphine in 2 states since 2025; 2 total encounters of 5,6-dichloro desmethylchlorphine in 2 states since 2025; 225 total encounters of N -propionitrile chlorphine in 19 states since 2022; and 36 total encounters of spirochlorphine in 6 states since 2025. These states include Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Texas. Moreover, other internal DEA data collection systems reported four additional encounters of N -propionitrile chlorphine in 2026. 24

Furthermore, RaDAR has detected two of the four synthetic opioids thus far. RaDAR reported its first detection of N -propionitrile chlorphine in a sample from the East Coast of the United States, collected in January 2026, that contained fentanyl, local anesthetics, medetomidine, and xylazine. 25 RaDAR also reported its first detection of 5,6-dichloro desmethylchlorphine in multiple West Coast samples, collected in February 2026, that contained either cannabinoids and methamphetamine or no other compounds. 26

The availability of synthetic opioids on the illicit drug market continues to exacerbate the opioid overdose epidemic and pose risks to public health and safety. As mentioned previously, 5,6-dichloro brorphine, 5,6-dichloro desmethylchlorphine, N -propionitrile chlorphine, and spirochlorphine exhibit pharmacological profiles similar to those of fentanyl, morphine, and other mu-opioid receptor agonists. These substances bind to and activate the mu-opioid receptor, which then mediates various physiological responses, including reward-associated behavior.

Based on the pharmacological similarities between the four synthetic opioids and other mu-opioid agonists, the four synthetic opioids are likely to exhibit similar physiological responses. Available data on 5,6-dichloro brorphine and 5,6-dichloro desmethylchlorphine indicate that these two substances produce dose-dependent antinociception, reward-associated behavior, and physical dependence. 27 Data on N -propionitrile chlorphine and spirochlorphine indicate that these two substances have greater receptor binding affinities, relative to fentanyl. 28 Moreover, evidence suggests that users abuse the four synthetic opioids for their euphoric and analgesic effects. Users also specifically report self-administering 5,6-dichloro desmethylchlorphine to reduce or reset opioid tolerance in an attempt to continue or maximize drug-induced euphoric effects in subsequent sessions. Consequently, such an attempt may likely increase users' risk of inadvertent harm and fatal overdose during their next recreational dose of other drugs.

Toxicological and forensic case reports on these four synthetic opioids are currently limited, likely because commonly used drug screening methods may not yet be able to identify these four synthetic opioids. As a result, fatalities and emergency room admissions involving the four synthetic opioids, in addition to those reported below, have likely occurred without report. At present, only one nonfatal overdose related to the four synthetic opioids has been reported in scientific and medical literature. 29 In this case report, authors reported that a 36-year-old man was found unconscious after inhaling a substance he believed to be alprazolam—a prescription benzodiazepine—which forensic analysis revealed was primarily N -propionitrile chlorphine mixed with fentanyl and xylazine. The overdose victim also exhibited bradycardia and hypothermia upon arrival at the emergency department.

Despite the limited case reports for these substances in literature, case reports may be obtained through other programs, such as DEA TOX. DEA TOX provides expanded analysis to detect novel psychoactive substances in samples for which routine toxicological findings do not explain the toxidrome exhibited by the victim. Thus far, DEA TOX has positively identified N -propionitrile chlorphine in a total of 49 fatalities; victims included both male (n = 28) and female (n = 21) users, with ages ranging from 18-66 years old. 30 In five of these cases, N -propionitrile chlorphine was detected at low levels, either alone or in the presence of other substances at negligible concentrations, illustrating the potential harm of even low doses of this substance.

Moreover, law enforcement and harm reduction data indicate that the four synthetic opioids are easily and affordably obtainable online and on the illicit market. Available law enforcement data reveal that drug seizures related to the four synthetic opioids contain a plethora of co-identified substances; these substances include, but are not limited to, other opioids ( e.g., carfentanil (schedule II), chlorphine, fentanyl (schedule II), N -pyrrolidino metonitazene (schedule I)); benzodiazepines ( e.g., alprazolam (schedule IV), bromazolam (schedule I), clonazolam (schedule I)); stimulants ( e.g., cocaine (schedule II), methamphetamine (schedule II)); hallucinogens ( e.g., phencyclidine (schedule II)); pharmaceuticals ( e.g., diphenhydramine, quetiapine); and other adulterants ( e.g., xylazine, bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidyl)sebacate). Available harm reduction data indicate that the four synthetic opioids were individually or combinedly present as major substances or trace contaminants in samples assumed to be other drugs, like fentanyl. Consequently, individuals may be unknowingly exposed to these substances despite their intentions to consume other drugs, such as fentanyl.

Congruent with the data above, toxicological reports suggest that users may have inadvertently ingested the four synthetic opioids with other drugs, whether as separate products or a single product containing multiple licit and illicit substances. In available toxicological reports through DEA TOX, substances co-identified with N -propionitrile chlorphine include, but are not limited to, benzodiazepines ( e.g., bromazolam (schedule I)); other opioids ( e.g., fentanyl (schedule II), metonitazene (schedule I), morphine (schedule II)); stimulants ( e.g., cocaine (schedule II), methamphetamine (schedule II)); and other adulterants ( e.g., medetomidine, xylazine). Furthermore, the Center for Forensic Science Research and Education reported detecting the four synthetic opioids alone, with each other, or in combination with other synthetic opioids ( e.g., chlorphine, fentanyl (schedule II), N -pyrrolidino ethylene isotonitazene); designer benzodiazepines ( e.g., phenazolam); and synthetic cathinones ( e.g., 3,4-methylenedioxy-alpha-pyrrolidinoisohexanophenone) across toxicological and drug samples submitted to its program for analysis. 31

In summary, the data presented above indicate that these four synthetic opioids have been encountered as single substances and as polysubstance combinations, and, as a result, the unpredictable levels of adulterant or drug purity across samples poses significant harm and unintended consequences to public health, including death.

In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(3), based on the available data and information summarized above, the uncontrolled manufacture, distribution, reverse distribution, importation, exportation, conduct of research and chemical analysis, possession, and abuse of 5,6-dichloro brorphine, 5,6-dichloro desmethylchlorphine, N -propionitrile chlorphine, and spirochlorphine pose imminent hazards to public safety. DEA is not aware of any currently accepted medical uses for 5,6-dichloro brorphine, 5,6-dichloro desmethylchlorphine, N -propionitrile chlorphine, or spirochlorphine in treatment in the United States. A substance meeting the statutory requirements for temporary scheduling, found in 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1), may only be placed in schedule I. Substances in schedule I must have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. Available data and information for 5,6-dichloro brorphine, 5,6-dichloro desmethylchlorphine, N -propionitrile chlorphine, and spirochlorphine indicate that these substances meet the three statutory criteria.

As required by 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4), the Administrator notified the Assistant Secretary via letter dated April 1, 2026, of DEA's intention to temporarily place four synthetic opioids—5,6-dichloro brorphine, 5,6-dichloro desmethylchlorphine, N -propionitrile chlorphine, and spirochlorphine—in schedule I. In a letter dated April 10, 2026, the Assistant Secretary had no objection to the temporary placement of these four substances in schedule I.

This notice of intent provides the 30-day notice pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1) of DEA's intent to issue a temporary scheduling order. In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1) and (3), the Administrator considered available data and information, herein set forth the grounds for his determination that it is necessary to temporarily schedule four synthetic opioids—5,6-dichloro brorphine, 5,6-dichloro desmethylchlorphine, N -propionitrile chlorphine, and spirochlorphine—in schedule I of the CSA, and finds that placement of these substances in schedule I is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public's safety.

The temporary placement of 5,6-dichloro brorphine, 5,6-dichloro desmethylchlorphine, N -propionitrile chlorphine, and spirochlorphine in schedule I of the CSA will take effect pursuant to a temporary scheduling order, which will not be issued before July 31, 2026. Because the Administrator hereby finds that this temporary scheduling order is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to public safety, it will take effect on the date the order is published in the Federal Register and remain in effect for two years, with a possible extension of an additional year, pending completion of the regular (permanent) scheduling process. 32 The Administrator intends to issue a temporary scheduling order as soon as possible after the expiration of 30 days from the date of publication of this document. Upon publication of the temporary order, these four synthetic opioids will then be subject to the CSA's schedule I regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to the manufacture, distribution, reverse distribution, importation, exportation, research, conduct of instructional activities and chemical analysis, and possession.

The CSA sets forth specific criteria for scheduling drugs or other substances. Regular scheduling actions in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(a) are subject to formal rulemaking procedures “on the record after opportunity for a hearing” conducted pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. 33 The regular scheduling process of formal rulemaking affords interested parties appropriate process and the government any additional relevant information needed to make a determination. Final decisions that conclude the regular scheduling process of formal rulemaking are subject to judicial review. 34 Temporary scheduling orders are not subject to judicial review. 35

The CSA provides for expedited temporary scheduling actions where necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to public safety. Under 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1), the Administrator (as delegated by the Attorney General) may, by order, temporarily place substances in schedule I. Such orders may not be issued before the expiration of 30 days from: (1) the publication of a notice in the Federal Register of the intent to issue such order and the grounds upon which such order is to be issued, and (2) the date that notice of the proposed temporary scheduling order is transmitted to the Assistant Secretary, as delegated by the Secretary of HHS. 36

Inasmuch as section 811(h) directs that temporary scheduling actions be issued by order (as distinct from a rule) and sets forth the procedures by which such orders are to be issued, DEA believes the notice-and-comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, which are applicable to rulemaking, do not apply to this notice of intent. The APA expressly differentiates between orders and rules, as it defines an “order” to mean a “final disposition, whether affirmative, negative, injunctive, or declaratory in form, of an agency in a matter other than rule making.”   37 This contrasts with permanent scheduling actions, which are subject to formal rulemaking procedures done “on the record after opportunity for a hearing,” and final decisions that conclude the scheduling process and are subject to judicial review. 38 The specific language chosen by Congress indicates its intent that DEA issue orders instead of proceeding by rulemaking when temporarily scheduling substances. Given that Congress specifically requires the Administrator (as delegated by the Attorney General) to follow rulemaking procedures for other kinds of scheduling actions, 39 it is noteworthy that, in section 811(h)(1), Congress authorized the issuance of temporary scheduling actions by order rather than by rule.

Even assuming that this notice of intent is subject to the notice-and-comment requirements of the APA, the Administrator finds that there is good cause to forgo those requirements pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as any further delays in the process for issuing temporary scheduling orders would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest given the manifest urgency to avoid an imminent hazard to public safety.

Although DEA believes this notice of intent to issue a temporary scheduling order is not subject to the notice-and-comment requirements of the APA, DEA notes that in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4), the Administrator took into consideration comments submitted by the Assistant Secretary in response to the notice that DEA transmitted to the Assistant Secretary pursuant to such subsection.

Further, DEA believes that this temporary scheduling action is not a “rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 601(2), and, accordingly, is not subject to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The requirements for the preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis in 5 U.S.C. 603(a) are not applicable where, as here, DEA is not required by the APA or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking. As discussed above, DEA is issuing this notice of intent pursuant to DEA's authority to issue a temporary scheduling order. 40 Therefore, in this instance, since DEA believes this temporary scheduling action is not a “rule,” it is not subject to the requirements of the RFA when issuing this temporary action.

In accordance with the principles of Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 13563, this action is not a significant regulatory action. E.O. 12866 directs 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). E.O. 13563 is supplemental to and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review as established in E.O. 12866. Because this is not a rulemaking action, this is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. In addition, DEA scheduling actions are not subject to either E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, or E.O. 14294, Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations.

This action will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with E.O. 13132, it is determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons set out above, DEA proposes to amend 21 CFR part 1308 as follows:

Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding these proposed regulations. Comments must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at Regulations.gov . However, if you require an accommodation or cannot otherwise submit your comments via Regulations.gov , please contact the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . ED will not accept comments by fax or by email, or comments submitted after the comment period closes. To ensure that ED does not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. Additionally, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.

Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.Regulations.gov to submit your comments electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov , including instructions for accessing agency documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site under “FAQ.” Also included on Regulations.gov is a commenter checklist that addresses how to submit effective comments and a plain language summary of the proposed rule.

Comments containing personal threats will not be posted to Regulations.gov and may be referred to the appropriate authorities.

During and after the comment period, you may inspect public comments about the proposed regulations by accessing Regulations.gov . To inspect comments in person, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Privacy Note: ED's policy is to generally make all comments received from members of the public available for public viewing in their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at Regulations.gov . Therefore, commenters should be careful to include in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly available.

Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record: On request, we will provide an appropriate accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for this document. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Title VI and Fulbright-Hays Act Deregulatory Overview: The purpose of programs authorized under Title VI of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), is to support centers, programs, and fellowships in institutions of higher education in the United States for producing increased numbers of trained personnel and research in foreign languages, area studies, and other international studies; to develop a pool of international experts to meet national needs; to develop and validate specialized materials and techniques for foreign language acquisition and fluency, emphasizing the less commonly taught languages; and to promote access to research and training overseas, including through linkages with overseas institutions. The purpose of the statute is also to advance the internationalization of a variety of disciplines throughout undergraduate and graduate education; to support cooperative efforts promoting access to and the dissemination of international and foreign language knowledge, teaching materials, and research, throughout education, government, business, civic, and nonprofit sectors in the United States, through the use of advanced technologies; and to coordinate the programs of the Federal Government in the areas of foreign language, area studies, and other international studies, including professional international affairs education and research.

The implementation of these programs was further codified in parts 655 (International Education Programs—General Provisions), 656 (National Resource Centers Program for Foreign Language and Area Studies), 657 (Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships Program), 658 (Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language Program), 660 (International Research and Studies Program), 661 (Business and International Education Program), and 669 (Language Resource Centers Program). These regulations were last amended in 1982, 1984, 1990, 2005, and 2024, and sought to codify or create specific program requirements related to eligibility, program activities, selection criteria, applicable regulations and definitions, and procedures for the Secretary to award a grant. The changes within each of those years focused on distilling interpretations of the statutory language into prescriptive implementation for grantees.

However, adopting prescriptive regulations conflicts with the purpose of the Title VI programs, which require a nimbler approach as implementation of the program can shift over time. For example, the 2024 regulatory action defined areas of national need, which is not static in interpretation. The need for training in specific languages, areas of national need and security, and overall project creation and implementation will evolve based on the current geopolitical context. Given the ever-changing nature of international affairs, it is crucial to review existing regulations and reform the program to allow applicable entities to prepare their applications with more creativity, less prescription, and in a manner that is responsive to current events and administration priorities.

Further, the Department notes that Title VI of the HEA does not affirmatively require the Department to engage in rulemaking for the implementation of these programs and appropriations, with the exception of 20 U.S.C. 1132-6, which is not currently funded or administered. These codified regulations are more rigid than the HEA in their interpretation of authorized activities, and they restrict the ability of grantees to fulfill the statutory purposes of the program by setting tighter parameters around statutorily permissible activities The Department has determined that the existing regulatory provisions governing uses of Title VI appropriations duplicate government-wide grant requirements, impose unnecessary administrative burden, and reduce institutional flexibility. For example, the selection criteria, regulated in 34 CFR 655.31, were intended to standardize the peer review process. The Department has found that using prescriptive program-specific selection criteria in grant competitions can be burdensome for both applicants and peer reviewers. Further it can provide unintended advantages to prior grantees in the application process. For these programs, we believe that it is more appropriate to align with the selection criteria found in the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR). This would eliminate the prescriptive nature of the criteria, reduce the burden on applicants and peer reviewers, and improve alignment with the statute that guides the program. The removal of the prescriptive language will also allow for more consistent messaging on priorities for international and foreign language education. This change will align the Title VI, HEA programs with other Departmental programs that provide discretion to the Secretary to select among the regulated selection criteria when deciding which criteria to emphasize in a competition year. Eliminating these provisions will allow institutions to devote more resources to foreign language and area studies activities while maintaining accountability through statutory requirements, 2 CFR 200, and competitive grant oversight.

The Department did consider alternatives to rescinding the regulations, such as partial deregulation and not rescinding at all and waiting until next fiscal year. However, after considering these alternatives, the Department has tentatively concluded that the proposed rule is best aligned to meet the goals of maximizing flexibility based on current need and return to the original statutory authority of the program. Partial removal or not removing at all would not achieve the Department's goal of having the option to pursue other more flexible means of delivery authorized by statute. Issuing new regulations to replace the current regulations is not necessary to achieve the Department's goals and would conflict with the Administration's policy to support deregulation and move away from issuing burdensome regulations that hinder effective government services. See, e.g., “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation” Executive Order 14192, January 31, 2025 (90 FR 9065). The Department believes a full recission of the regulations is necessary in order for the Department to have the flexibility to pursue other vehicles for service delivery beyond regional grants and to ensure that the services are responsive to recipient needs while meeting the statutory purposes of the program.

Section 102(b)(6) of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (Fulbright-Hays Act) authorizes what are commonly known as the Fulbright-Hays programs. The Department codified these programs in parts 662, 663, and 664 of the CFR. These regulations were last amended in 2023 and codify programs that are not named in statute, including program names, eligible entities, program activities, selection criteria, applicable regulations and definitions, and procedures for the Secretary to award a grant. These regulations are overly burdensome and place unnecessary restrictions on ED's ability to support the activities named in the Fulbright-Hays Act in a manner that achieves the statutory intent while also addressing current national priorities and needs of the field. Accordingly, ED proposes to rescind all regulations under parts 662, 663, and 664.

Without the restrictions currently in the regulations, the Department could pursue other approaches to increasing flexibility and potentially reducing administrative burden, while maintaining the goals of the international education program. This rescission would allow greater and more grantee-driven interpretation of statutory language, to better align the implementation of these programs with the most contemporary practices of the field. Because the Fulbright-Hays Act and the Title VI programs both operate as discretionary, competitive grant programs, ED believes any potential reliance interest in future competitions under these Acts to be minimal. This is particularly so since ED's proposed deregulation would not affect the eligibility of prior grant recipients under these programs to compete under future competitions, as eligibility will continue to be governed by the underlying statutory framework applicable to such programs.

This proposed rule is a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 as it grants greater flexibility in carrying out the statutory authority for these programs which enables ED to align international and foreign language education with current and evolving national priorities. This rule is expected to be considered an “Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action.”

We have also reviewed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13563. This proposed rule would rescind regulations that are not in alignment with current Department priorities. We are issuing this proposed rule on a reasoned determination that the deregulatory benefit of removing unnecessary provisions from the Code of Federal Regulations justifies its minimal cost. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.

We also have determined that this regulatory action would not unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions. As discussed above, the Department does not believe that this rescission will negatively affect the Department's ability to meet the statutory purposes of the program. None of the existing grantees are state, local, or tribal governments, further suggesting that this rescission and the potential changes in service delivery it will enable would not unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal government functions.

In addition to the non-monetary benefits previously outlined, allowing the Department to administer the program with more statutory fidelity and with less burden, another potential cost reduction is if the Department pursues non-grant options to administer some of the programs, such as through contracts and subgrants. This would eliminate grant-specific costs such as peer review and grantees' indirect costs. Additionally, the Department believes this regulatory action will not impose significant new cost-bearing requirements on IHEs or other entities. We believe that the benefits of implementing this regulatory action outweigh any associated costs.

Over the last five years (FYs 2022-2026), the amount of funding appropriated annually for programs within the Title VI and Fulbright Hayes portfolio has ranged from a low of $80.664 million in FY 2026 to a high of $85.664 million in FY 2025, with an average of 525 grant applications received per year in which IFLE awards were made, and an average of 55 percent of applications ultimately receiving grant awards. With the changes to the regulation, the Department expects a small increase in applications per year due to the flexibility that would be provided within the competition portfolio.

An increase in the number of applicants or awards granted could result in some additional costs to the Department in securing readers to review applications, but if additional costs arise, they would be minimal, and probably only emerge as the increase in costs to secure additional readers. We anticipate no additional costs to grant recipients, as we will continue to pay for grant activities with program funds. We also note that program participation is voluntary.

The Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.

These changes would not adversely affect, in a material way, any sector of the economy. In addition, these changes would not interfere with any action taken or planned by another agency and would not materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs. We also have determined that this recission would not unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

This section considers the effects that the final regulations may have on small entities in the educational sector as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. The Department estimates that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, as the proposed rule would rescind existing regulations and does not contain any new mandates. Accordingly, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required, and the Secretary certifies that this proposed recission would not have a substantial economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The U.S. Small Business Administration Size Standards define proprietary institutions as small businesses if they are independently owned and operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and have total annual revenue below $7,000,000. Nonprofit institutions are defined as small entities if they are independently owned and operated and not dominant in their field of operation. Public institutions are defined as small organizations if they are operated by a government overseeing a population below 50,000.

The Department does not have a Department-specific, SBA-approved definition of a “small entity”; as such, the Department would default to the aforementioned definitions of what would constitute a “small entity.” While some applicants and awardees under the existing IFLE programs might qualify as small entities (in the case of these programs, a nonprofit institution or a community college), they constitute less than 5 percent of the cohort that received grant funding in FY 2024. The vast majority would not qualify as small as almost all IHEs that apply for and secure grants are either well-known, well-resourced, non-profit IHEs or public institutions, which are operated by governments overseeing populations much larger than 50,000.

The proposed action would result in all applicants being required to respond to competition framework elements that are used as a default menu across the Department's competitive grant programs ( e.g., the general selection criteria found in 34 CFR 75.210)—elements which applicants are very likely to be familiar with if they have interacted with other competitive funding streams administered by the Department. Additionally, the alignment of the Department's efforts in the international sphere with efforts being made at other Departments engaged in this work creates efficiencies for applicants that might otherwise be unavailable under the current regulations.

Congress has never appropriated more than $100 million (the current threshold deemed “economically significant”) to support the programs governed by the regulations proposed for elimination, and a cost-benefit-analysis by applicants would strongly suggest that applicants would not invest resources in excess of any amount they might reasonably attain as a result of the competitive process. In fact, they are likely to only invest a small fraction of what they might reasonably obtain if they succeed in the competitive process. Furthermore, this proposed action does not 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.

Changes in the costs of administering the program would be minimal, and primarily inclusive of additional readers for the anticipated increase in applications, which would be paid for using appropriated funds and in an amount provided for by the governing statute.

The proposed recission does not contain any information collection requirements.

Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible format.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register , in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site. You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at www.federalregister.gov.

This proposed rule amends regulations describing the components of the Forest Service Directive System (the Forest Service Manual and Forest Service Handbooks) and the scope of public participation requirements for the “formulation of standards, criteria, and guidelines applicable to Forest Service programs” as required by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended (FRRRPA) (16 U.S.C. 1612(a)). The amendments would clarify the scope of this statutory obligation by excluding changes to Forest Service Directives that are not “formulation” or do not involve “standards, criteria, or guidelines” from notice and comment processes.

The Forest Service Manual would be redefined as the sole source of continuing, mandatory direction for the Agency. Certain Agency officials would be authorized to depart from mandatory direction in the Manual when alternate actions are in the public interest, consistent with law, and the justification for that departure is promptly documented. This exception would be codified at 36 CFR 200.4(b)(1) and would replace Forest Service Manual 1103(6), which allows Forest Service officials to deviate from mandatory direction in “extreme or highly unusual circumstances.” The Forest Service Handbooks would be redefined as advisory and informational guidance that Agency employees may deviate from without documenting or justifying alternate actions. This rulemaking would also clarify the process for providing public notice when formulating standards, criteria, or guidelines applicable to Forest Service programs.

The Forest Service Directives are intended to contain internal direction and guidance for Agency employees. They do not hold the force of law and are not enforceable against non-Agency parties. Compare 36 CFR 200.4(a), “[R]egulations . . . governing the protection and administration of National Forest System lands and other programs of the Forest Service are set forth in Chapter 2 of Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations,” with 200.4(b), “Administrative policy, procedure, and guidance to Forest Service employees for the conduct of Forest Service activities are issued as directives. . . .” Therefore, Forest Service Handbooks cannot contain legislative rules that are subject to the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). If commenters do identify legislative rules in the current Forest Service Handbooks, the Agency would consider conducting a subsequent rulemaking to rescind those provisions or recodify them in the CFR.

The Department invites comments identifying any provisions of the Forest Service Handbooks that the public believe should be retained and moved into the Code of Federal Regulations. Specific comments regarding which provisions are essential to promote safety, ensure compliance with law, or prevent waste or misuse of public funds are requested. Once this rulemaking takes effect all Handbooks will be reviewed to ensure consistency with the new structure of the Directive System. The Department would provide public notice and opportunities to comment on these initial revisions to all Handbooks pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1612(a).

To help reviewers provide well-informed comments, this Notice includes a “description of the subjects and issues” (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)) addressed in Forest Service Handbooks and encourages commenters to review provisions that include minimum timeframes for the submission of comments or the filing of objections or appeals; fee structures for the filing of applications or the receipt or renewal of permits; specific criteria for the issuance, renewal, denial, or termination of permits or licenses; methodologies or standards for environmental review and analysis; procedures for administrative appeals or dispute resolution; penalties or other sanctions on non-Forest Service parties for non-compliance with a statute, regulation, or other legal authority; definitions of key terms that affect the scope of a statute or regulation; requirements for external parties to collect, monitor, or report data; requirements to publish specific data or documents; training, certification, or qualification standards for non-Forest Service personnel; operational constraints such as restricted seasons of use or equipment bans; strict geographic exclusions, setbacks, or spatial buffers; or requirements to provide non-Forest Service parties with notice and opportunities to comment on Agency actions. Provisions of these sorts are most likely to be found in certain Handbook titles including 1109.12—Directive System; 1509.11—Grants, Cooperative Agreements, and Other Agreements; 1709.11—Civil Rights; 1909.12—Land Management Planning; 2109.14—Pesticide-Use Management and Coordination; 2209.13—Grazing Permit Administration; 2709.11—Special Uses; 2709.12—Road Rights-of-Way Grants; 5509.11—Title Claims, Sales, and Grants; and 6709.11—Health and Safety Code. These lists are intended to be illustrative and may not be comprehensive.

This rulemaking also amends the Department's interpretation of the statutory phrase “standards, criteria, and guidelines” under 16 U.S.C. 1612(a) as including only binding direction that employees are generally expected to follow. Therefore, subsequent changes to Handbooks (those occurring after the initial Handbook revisions described in the prior paragraph are complete) would not be subject to notice and comment requirements since advisory and informational guidance is not “standards, criteria, or guidelines” under 16 U.S.C. 1612(a). Additionally, the Department proposes amending 36 CFR 216.1(b) to state that the removal or recission of Forest Service Directives is not “formulation” of standards, criteria, or guidelines and therefore is not subject to notice and comment.

This rulemaking would also clarify that statutorily required notices associated with the formulation of standards, criteria, or guidelines applicable to Forest Service programs can be made via any broadly accessible public forum, including but not limited to an Agency website. Use of additional notices, such as notices in the Federal Register or newspaper(s) of record, are permitted but not required by 36 CFR 216.3. Similarly, this rulemaking would remove the requirement in 36 CFR 216.3 for the Agency to provide a physical mailing address for submission of comments. Electronic submission would become the default means for the Agency to solicit comments. Use of a physical mailing address for this purpose would be at the Agency's discretion.

This rulemaking is proposed pursuant to the Secretary of Agriculture's authority to “prescribe regulations for the government of h[er] department, the conduct of its employees, the distribution and performance of its business” (5 U.S.C. 301). It is also proposed pursuant to section 14(a) of the FRRRPA (16 U.S.C. 1612(a)), which provides that “the Secretary, in exercising h[er] authority [under the Act] and other laws applicable to the Forest Service, by regulation, shall establish procedures, including public hearings where appropriate, to give the Federal, State, and local governments and the public adequate notice and an opportunity to comment upon the formulation of standards, criteria, and guidelines applicable to Forest Service programs.” This provision of law has been effectuated through 36 CFR part 216, published on April 23, 1984.

Currently, 36 CFR part 216 applies to both the Forest Service Manual and the Forest Service Handbooks. The Forest Service Manual outlines legal authorities, objectives, policies, responsibilities, instructions, and guidance needed on a continuing basis by Agency line officers and primary staff in more than one administrative unit to plan and execute assigned programs and activities. The Forest Service Handbooks contain specialized and technical guidance that are intended to help employees effectively implement Agency programs. The requirements under part 216 do not apply to directives in the Forest Service Manual or Handbooks that pertain to law enforcement and investigations; personnel matters; procurement; administrative support activities such as budget and finance; business operations; and activities undertaken by the Forest Service on behalf of other Federal agencies.

This rulemaking preserves the public's opportunity to participate in the formulation of standards, criteria, and guidelines pursuant to 36 CFR 216.1(a) while increasing the flexibility and utility of the Agency's formal, codified Directive System. These changes advance the policies set forth in Executive Order 14219, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation (Feb. 19, 2025), the Presidential Memorandum on Directing the Repeal of Unlawful Regulations (April 9, 2025), and Office of Management and Budget memoranda M-25-28 (May 7, 2025) and M-25-36 (Oct. 21, 2025), and are consistent with the authority provided to the Forest Service in the FRRRPA.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will determine whether a regulatory action is significant as defined by E.O. 12866 and will review significant regulatory actions. OIRA has determined that this proposed rule is not significant as defined by E.O. 12866. E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The Department has developed the proposed rule consistent with E.O. 13563.

The proposed rule would create a clearer distinction between the force and effect of the Forest Service Manual and the Forest Service Handbooks to improve the utility of the Forest Service Directive System and apply the single best reading of section 14(a) of the FRRRPA. Departmental regulations at 7 CFR 1b.4(c)(20) exclude “rules, regulations, or policies to establish service-wide administrative procedures, program processes, or instructions” from documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. The Department's preliminary assessment is that this proposed rule falls within this category of actions and that no extraordinary circumstances exist which would require preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. A final determination will be made upon adoption of the final rule.

The Department has considered this proposed rule under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 602 et. seq. ). This proposed rule would not have any direct effect on small entities as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This proposed rule would not impose recordkeeping requirements on small entities; would not affect their competitive position in relation to large entities; and would not affect their cash flow, liquidity, or ability to remain in the market. Therefore, the Department has determined that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The Department has considered this proposed rule under the requirements of E.O. 13132, Federalism. The Department has determined that the proposed rule conforms with the federalism principles set out in this E.O.; would not impose any compliance costs on the States; and would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, the Department has concluded that this proposed rule would not have federalism implications.

E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. This proposed rule would redefine the Forest Service Handbooks as advisory and informational guidance that employees may deviate from without documenting a justification. The proposed rule would also state that advisory and informational guidance is not “standards, criteria, or guidelines” under 16 U.S.C. 1612(a) and, therefore, changes to Forest Service Handbooks are not subject to statutory notice and comment processes. Lastly, the proposed rule would clarify that removal or recission of Forest Service Directives is not an act of “formulation” under 16 U.S.C. 1612(a) and is therefore outside the scope of statutory notice and comment requirements. The Department has reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with the requirements of E.O. 13175 and has determined that this proposed rule would have substantial direct effects on 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 and coordination with Indian Tribal governments is required for this proposed rule.

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 a rule that may affect family well-being. The proposed rule would have no impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, the Department has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment for the proposed rule.

The Department has analyzed the proposed rule in accordance with the principles and criteria in E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protect Property Rights. The Department has determined that the proposed rule would not pose the risk of a taking of private property.

The Department has reviewed the proposed rule under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. The Department has determined that the proposed rule would not constitute a significant energy action as defined in E.O. 13211.

The Department has analyzed the proposed rule in accordance with the principles and criteria in E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Upon publication of the proposed rule, (1) all State and local laws and regulations that conflict with the proposed rule or that impede its full implementation would be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect would be given to this proposed rule; and (3) it would not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging its provisions.

Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Department has assessed the effects of the proposed rule on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. The proposed rule would not compel the expenditure of $100 million or more, adjusted annually for inflation, in any 1 year by State, local, and Tribal governments in the aggregate or by the private sector. Therefore, a statement under section 202 of the Act is not required.

The proposed rule does not contain any recordkeeping or reporting requirements or other information collection requirements as defined in 5 CFR part 1320 that are not already required by law or not already approved for use. Accordingly, the review provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 do not apply.

Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department proposes to amend chapter II of title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or agency) is proposing the sixth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 6). Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the UCMR program gathers data about unregulated contaminant occurrence in drinking water. The proposed UCMR 6 would require certain public water systems (PWSs) to collect national occurrence data for 30 unregulated contaminants that are not currently subject to national primary drinking water regulations (NPDWRs). This proposed rulemaking would require all community water systems (CWSs) and non-transient non-community water systems (NTNCWSs) serving 3,300 or more people, and a representative sample of smaller PWSs serving fewer than 3,300 people, to conduct monitoring. The data collected will be publicly available and will inform decisions by the EPA.

Consistent with the “ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Implementation of Gold Standard Science” (USEPA, 2025a) based on Executive Order 14303 (White House, 2025), this proposal identifies four drinking water analytical methods to support PWS monitoring for a total of 30 contaminants. These contaminants consist of seven ultrashort organofluorine compounds (including certain PFAS), three pesticide metabolites, 13 semivolatile organic compounds, and seven purgeable organic compounds. The proposed inclusion of ultrashort organofluorine compounds, which include certain PFAS, 1 is also consistent with the EPA's priority to address PFAS in drinking water as established in the 2019 PFAS Action Plan (USEPA, 2019). This proposal also describes the EPA's evaluation of alternate contaminants and invites public comment on all aspects of the proposal.

This proposed rule applies to PWSs described in this section. PWSs are systems that provide water for human consumption through pipes, or constructed conveyances, to at least 15 service connections, or that regularly serve an average of at least 25 individuals daily at least 60 days out of the year. A CWS is a PWS that has at least 15 service connections used by year-round residents or regularly serves at least 25 year-round residents. An NTNCWS is a PWS that is not a CWS and that regularly serves at least 25 of the same people over six months per year. Under this proposal, all large CWSs and NTNCWSs serving more than 10,000 people would be required to monitor. In addition, all small CWSs and NTNCWs serving between 3,300 and 10,000 people and a nationally representative sample of CWSs and NTNCWS serving fewer than 3,300 people would be required to monitor, subject to the availability of appropriations and appropriate laboratory capacity (see discussion of America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 (AWIA) in sections I.A.3 and I.B of this document). (For a description of the statistical approach for the nationally representative sample see “ Selection of Nationally Representative Public Water Systems for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule: 2021 Update” (USEPA, 2021a)). As is generally the case for UCMR sampling, transient non-community water systems (TNCWSs) ( i.e., non-community water systems that do not regularly serve at least 25 of the same people over six months per year) would not be required to monitor under UCMR 6.

States, territories, and tribes with primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) to administer the regulatory program for PWSs under SDWA (hereinafter referred to in this document as “states”) can participate in the implementation of UCMR 6 through voluntary Partnership Agreements (see discussion of Partnership Agreements in section III.N in this document). Primacy agencies with Partnership Agreements can choose to be involved in various aspects of the UCMR 6 monitoring for PWSs they oversee; however, the PWS remains responsible for all compliance activities.

Potentially regulated categories and entities are identified in the following table.

This table is not intended to be exhaustive but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table includes the types of entities that the EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not included could also be regulated. To determine whether your entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the definition of PWS found in sections 141.2 and 141.3, and the applicability criteria found in section 141.40(a)(1) and (2) of Title 40 in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

As part of its authority under SDWA, the EPA implements section 1445(a)(2), Monitoring Program for Unregulated Contaminants. This section, as amended in 1996, requires that once every five years, beginning in August 1999, the EPA issue a list of unregulated contaminants to be monitored by PWSs. SDWA requires that the EPA enter the monitoring data into the agency's publicly available National Contaminant Occurrence Database (NCOD) for drinking water at https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/national-contaminant-occurrence-database-ncod.

The EPA must vary the frequency and schedule for monitoring based on the number of persons served, the source of supply, and the contaminants likely to be found. The EPA is using its SDWA section 1445(a)(2) authority as the basis for requiring covered systems to monitor for the unregulated contaminants proposed under this rulemaking.

SDWA, as amended by the AWIA (Pub. L. 115-270), specifies that, subject to the availability of appropriations for such purpose and appropriate laboratory capacity, the EPA's UCMR program must require all systems serving between 3,300 and 10,000 people to monitor, and ensure that only a nationally representative sample of systems serving fewer than 3,300 people are required to monitor. The program will continue to ensure that all systems serving a population larger than 10,000 people are required to monitor. This AWIA provision became effective October 23, 2021.

The EPA proposes to require certain PWSs to collect occurrence data for 30 contaminants. These contaminants may be present in drinking water but are not yet subject to NPDWRs. More specifically, the UCMR 6 proposal identifies the following: drinking water analytical methods to measure the UCMR contaminants; monitoring timeframe; sampling locations; data elements ( i.e., information required to be collected along with the occurrence data); and conforming and editorial changes, such as those necessary to remove requirements solely related to UCMR 5.

This proposed action, once finalized, will provide the EPA, states, and communities with scientifically valid data on the national occurrence of these contaminants in drinking water. The UCMR data are the primary source of national occurrence data that the EPA uses to inform other SDWA programs and risk management decisions for drinking water contaminants. This proposal identifies four drinking water analytical methods to be used by laboratories analyzing UCMR samples for the unregulated contaminants. In addition, section III.E of this document describes how the EPA evaluated other candidate contaminants.

This proposed rulemaking reflects the monitoring approach defined in the AWIA amendments and describes the UCMR 6 scope as including all systems serving 3,300 or more people, and a representative sample of systems serving fewer than 3,300 people. SDWA section 1445(a)(2)(C)(ii) requires the EPA to “pay the reasonable cost of such testing and laboratory analysis” for all applicable PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer people. Accordingly, the AWIA conditioned the monitoring scope on the availability of appropriations and on the availability of adequate laboratory capacity to analyze the samples.

Based on the EPA's experience implementing the AWIA scope in UCMR 5 and informed by ongoing engagement with the laboratory community, the EPA anticipates that sufficient laboratory capacity will continue to support the scope defined by the AWIA. Regarding the EPA's resources, the agency plans on taking the same approach outlined in UCMR 5 that enables the agency to adjust the number of small PWSs that serve 10,000 or fewer people to monitor based upon the appropriations received each fiscal year. Regardless of whether the EPA is able to carry out the monitoring outlined in the AWIA or reduces the scope of that monitoring due to availability of appropriations, the small PWS data collection, coupled with data collection from all large PWSs serving more than 10,000 people under this action, will provide scientifically valid data on the national occurrence of 30 unregulated contaminants in drinking water. See “ Selection of Nationally Representative Public Water Systems for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule: 2021 Update ” for further details about the nationally representative sample (USEPA, 2021a).

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2023-0469, at https://www.regulations.gov, (our preferred method), or the other methods identified in the ADDRESSES section of this document. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from the docket. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit to the EPA's docket at https://www.regulations.gov any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), Proprietary Business Information (PBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Contact the EPA if you want to submit CBI; see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission ( i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). Please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets for additional submission methods; the full EPA public comment policy; information about CBI, PBI, or multimedia submissions; and general guidance on making effective comments.

The EPA will hold two identical virtual public meetings during the public comment period on August 11, 2026 and August 12, 2026. Topics will include the proposed UCMR 6 monitoring requirements, contaminant selection and rationale, drinking water analytical methods, and the laboratory approval process. To register to attend the meeting or speak, please use the online registration form available at https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr/unregulated-contaminant-monitoring-rule-ucmr-meetings-and-materials or contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. The last day to pre-register to speak at the meeting will be July 31, 2026. On August 10, 2026, the EPA will post a general agenda for the meeting that will list pre-registered speakers in approximate order at https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr/unregulated-contaminant-monitoring-rule-ucmr-meetings-and-materials and will concurrently email registered participants the materials that were posted on the website.

The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as possible on the day of the meeting; however, please plan for the identical events to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule.

Each commenter will have the opportunity to provide oral testimony, and the agency will allocate the time available amongst the commenters who registered to speak ( i.e., not to exceed 10 minutes). We ask that only one person present on behalf of a group or organization. The EPA encourages commenters to provide the EPA with a copy of their oral testimony electronically by emailing it to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. The EPA also recommends submitting the text of your oral comments as written comments to the rulemaking docket.

The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written statements and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as oral comments and supporting information presented at the public meeting.

Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the meeting will be posted online at https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr/unregulated-contaminant-monitoring-rule-ucmr-meetings-and-materials and will be emailed to those who register to attend the meeting. While the EPA expects the meeting to go forward as set forth above, please monitor our website or contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document to determine if there are any updates. The EPA does not intend to publish a document in the Federal Register announcing updates. The number of connections available for the meeting is limited and will be available on a first-come, first-served basis. If the number of connections becomes limited, the EPA will post additional dates and times online at https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr/unregulated-contaminant-monitoring-rule-ucmr-meetings-and-materials.

The EPA will not provide audiovisual equipment for presentations unless we receive special requests in advance. Commenters should notify the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document when they pre-register to speak that they will need specific equipment. If you require the services of an interpreter or special accommodation such as audio description, please pre-register for the webinar with the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document and describe your needs by July 30, 2026. The EPA may not be able to arrange accommodations without advance notice.

Under SDWA, Congress established a multistep, risk-based approach for determining which contaminants would become subject to drinking water standards. Under the first step, the EPA is required to publish a CCL every five years that identifies contaminants that are not subject to any proposed or promulgated drinking water standards, are known or anticipated to occur in PWSs, and may require future action under SDWA. Under the second step, the EPA must require, every five years, monitoring of unregulated contaminants to determine the frequency and level of their occurrence in drinking water systems; this is the UCMR program. Under the third step, the EPA is required to determine, every five years, whether or not to regulate at least five contaminants from the CCL through the regulatory determination process. Under SDWA sections 1412(b)(1)(A), the EPA regulates a contaminant in drinking water if the Administrator determines that:

(1) The contaminant may have an adverse effect on the health of persons;

(2) the contaminant is known to occur or there is substantial likelihood that the contaminant will occur in PWSs with a frequency and at levels of public health concern; and

(3) in the sole judgment of the Administrator, regulation of such contaminant presents a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by PWSs. Where the Administrator determines that a contaminant meets all three criteria, SDWA requires the EPA to propose and publish a NPDWR. Information on the CCL and the regulatory determination process can be found at https://www.epa.gov/ccl.

The data collected through the UCMR program are made available to the public through the NCOD for drinking water. SDWA section 1445(g)(3) requires that the EPA maintain UCMR data in the NCOD and use the data when evaluating the occurrence of contaminants in drinking water at a level of public health concern. The UCMR results can be viewed at https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/ nationalcontaminant-occurrence-database-ncod or via the UCMR web page at https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr.

The EPA incorporates public involvement into each UCMR cycle. Specific to the development of UCMR 6, the EPA sought comments on drinking water method development for emerging contaminants, and held a public meeting, state consultation, tribal consultation, and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) consultation. A summary of the public comments for each of these meetings is included in the EPA public docket for this proposed rulemaking, under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2023-0469. Additionally, the EPA is announcing another meeting in this proposal (see section II.B of this document).

On February 8, 2024, the EPA published a Federal Register notice that requested public input on the development of drinking water analytical methods for unregulated contaminants (89 FR 8584, (USEPA, 2024a)). The notice focused on contaminants listed on the fifth Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 5), that might support monitoring under the UCMR 6 and/or other future UCMR cycles. The EPA received 12 public comments throughout the 60-day comment period.

The EPA hosted two identical pre-proposal meetings on April 17 and April 18, 2024, to discuss potential approaches for developing UCMR 6, including: the status of drinking water analytical methods and contaminants being considered; possible sampling design; laboratory approval; other potential aspects of the monitoring approach; and included time for public questions and statements (89 FR 8584, (USEPA, 2024a)). Representatives from state agencies, laboratories, PWSs, environmental organizations, and drinking water associations joined the meeting. The presentation materials can be found on the EPA's Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Program Meetings and Materials webpage at https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr/unregulated-contaminant-monitoring-rule-ucmr-meetings-and-materials.

The EPA hosted the state consultation from May 30 to July 1, 2024, with the meeting on May 29, 2024, to discuss the early development of UCMR 6, and the voluntary options states have in the implementation of the UCMR program. Thirty state representatives attended the meeting and participated in the discussion (USEPA, 2026a).

The EPA hosted the tribal consultation from March 10 to June 20, 2024, with the meeting on May 20, 2024 (USEPA, 2026b), and the ANCSA consultation from December 6, 2024, to February 10, 2025, with the meeting on January 15, 2025 (USEPA, 2026c). More details on tribal and ANCSA consultations can be found in section V.G of this document.

This proposed action updates the existing UCMR ( i.e., UCMR 5), by revising: the list of contaminants for UCMR 6, the drinking water analytical methods for these new contaminants, the data elements for reporting, and the monitoring timeframe. A track-changes version of the rule language, comparing UCMR 5 to the proposed changes for UCMR 6, (“ Proposed Revisions to 40 CFR parts 141.35 and 141.40” (USEPA, 2026d)), is included in the EPA public docket for this proposed rulemaking, under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2023-0469. The EPA's proposed approach and rationale for changes are described in the following sections.

In establishing the proposed list of contaminants for UCMR 6, the EPA evaluated unregulated contaminants consistent with the statutory authorities described in section I.A of this document. The UCMR is one of the first steps in the SDWA regulatory process and is used to inform the criteria outlined in SDWA 1412(b) for EPA's regulatory determinations (see section III.A). Consistent with SDWA section 1445(a)(2) as amended by the AWIA, and the process described in this document, the EPA is proposing monitoring for the unregulated contaminants listed in Exhibit 2.

SDWA 1445(a)(2) requires the EPA to establish criteria for a monitoring program for unregulated contaminants. As a starting point, the EPA considered the CCL 5, which includes 66 chemicals, three chemical groups and 12 microbes (87 FR 68060, November 14, 2022 (USEPA, 2022)). The agency also evaluated contaminants nominated by the public for potential inclusion on the sixth CCL (CCL 6) (88 FR 10316, February 17, 2023 (USEPA, 2023)) and considered other priority contaminants beyond the CCL. Further, the EPA considered the opportunity to collect occurrence data for contaminants within the scope of the drinking water analytical methods that already contained a CCL contaminant based on available health and occurrence information to create a more cost-effective design ( i.e., maximize the number of contaminants in each drinking water analytical method, to reduce overall cost and burden). Consistent with the “ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Implementation of Gold Standard Science” (USEPA, 2025a) based on Executive Order 14303 “ Restoring Gold Standard Science,” (White House, 2025), the EPA evaluated candidate UCMR 6 contaminants using a prioritization process that deprioritized contaminants that were previously monitored under a prior UCMR cycle (unless there was a compelling case to monitor for them again) as well as contaminants not expected to have a completed, validated drinking water method in time for rule proposal. The potential contaminants for the monitoring program were then further evaluated based on health effects information, if available, to inform public health concern, and the occurrence information, if available, to inform the likelihood the contaminant will be found in finished drinking water.

Additional information on this prioritization process, as well as contaminant-specific information ( e.g., source, use, production, release, persistence, mobility, health effects, and occurrence) that the EPA used to evaluate candidate contaminants, is contained in “ Information Compendium for Candidate Contaminants for the Proposed Sixth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 6)” (USEPA, 2026g), found in the EPA public docket for this proposed rulemaking, under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2023-0469. The EPA invites comment on the proposed UCMR 6 contaminants (and their associated drinking water analytical methods) identified in Exhibit 2.

PFAS are a diverse group of compounds and the CCL 5 lists PFAS as a group, characterized by a structural definition, which EPA uses as a first step in considering individual compounds. The recently-developed EPA Method 563  3 can capture certain PFAS, as defined by the CCL 5 ( i.e., PFMOAA, PFPrA, PFPrS, PFEtS). As noted in the 2019 PFAS Action Plan (USEPA, 2019), these PFAS, referred to as short-chain PFAS have been less thoroughly studied, but are a concern due to increase global production and use.

While TFMS, TFSI, and TFA are not defined as PFAS under the CCL 5 structural definition, these ultrashort organofluorine compounds are persistent in the environment, highly mobile, used widely in industry, and have health effects information (USEPA, 2026g). Due to the similarities in chemical structure to the CCL 5 defined PFAS, TFMS, TFSI, and TFA can also be analyzed by EPA Method 563. This allows the EPA to better understand the frequency and occurrence of this suite of contaminants without increased costs, and can inform and prioritize future resource-intensive research. During early stakeholder engagement, the public provided both written comments and discussions in support of monitoring for these contaminants in public drinking water (see section III.B).

Additionally, as a part of the process to identify contaminants for the monitoring program, the agency identified an alternate contaminant in the event that one is needed. The agency identified MGK 264 as the alternate contaminant. MGK 264 is an ingredient used in common insecticides to enhance the potency of pyrethroid ingredients. This contaminant has not been monitored under a previous UCMR cycle, is in a method already proposed for UCMR 6, and has an available health assessment (USEPA, 2021c). If, during the laboratory approval process, the agency determines that laboratories are experiencing analytical difficulties with one of the proposed contaminants, the agency intends to replace that contaminant with MGK 264 a priority alternate from EPA Method 525.3 in the final UCMR 6. The EPA welcomes comments on the potential inclusion of MGK 264 in UCMR 6.

The EPA notes that two contaminants deviate from the prioritization process outlined in this section. 1,2,3-TCP has already been monitored in a previous UCMR cycle and the discussion for that contaminant's inclusion is in section III.D.1 of this document. The parent contaminant to chlorpyrifos oxon, chlorpyrifos, has already been monitored in a previous UCMR cycle and the discussion for that contaminant's inclusion is in section III.D.2 of this document.

1,2,3-TCP is a likely carcinogenic man-made chemical used as an industrial solvent, cleaning agent, degreasing agent, and synthesis intermediate (USEPA, 2009a, USEPA, 2026g). This contaminant was included on the third, fourth, and fifth CCLs and was monitored during UCMR 3 (USEPA, 2009a, USEPA, 2016a, USEPA, 2022, USEPA, 2012b). The UCMR 3 occurrence data can be found at https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr/occurrence-data-unregulated-contaminant-monitoring-rule#3. The EPA did not make a regulatory determination for 1,2,3-TCP during Regulatory Determination 4 (86 FR 12272, March 3, 2021 (USEPA, 2021b)), and did not make a preliminary determination in Regulatory Determination 5 (90 FR 3830, January 15, 2025 (USEPA, 2025b)), due in part to the drinking water analytical method minimum reporting level (MRL = 0.03 µg/L) being substantially higher than the level of public health concern, which presents uncertainty when characterizing exposure and a potential meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction. To better understand the potential risk of this contaminant in drinking water, the agency developed “ Recommended Parameters to Enhance Sensitivity for the Analysis of Select Purgeable Organic Compounds using EPA Method 524.3 in Selected Ion Monitoring (SIM) Mode” (USEPA, 2026e) that can detect 1,2,3-TCP at lower concentrations (0.009 µg/L) than what was feasible in the method “ Method 524.3: Measurement of Purgeable Organic Compounds in Water by Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry,” (USEPA, 2009b) used during UCMR 3. Monitoring using this optimized method would provide the EPA with occurrence data closer to the levels of public health concern, which will provide the agency with additional information that could inform future regulatory decisions for 1,2,3-TCP through SDWA.

Chlorpyrifos and its metabolite, chlorpyrifos oxon, are organophosphate pesticides that are used on crops, animals, in buildings, and in other settings, to kill several pests, including insects and worms (USEPA, 2026g). Chlorpyrifos, which is a neurotoxin (USEPA, 2020), is listed on the CCL 5 (87 FR 68060, November 14, 2022 (USEPA, 2022)), is used across the country on a variety of crops (USGS, 2019), and was monitored during UCMR 4 (MRL = 0.03 µg/L) (81 FR 9266, December 20, 2016 (USEPA, 2016b)). There was limited occurrence of the parent, chlorpyrifos, in UCMR 4 (for data results see https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr/occurrence-data-unregulated-contaminant-monitoring-rule#archival ). However, chlorpyrifos metabolizes into chlorpyrifos oxon during the chlorination of drinking water, which is a treatment commonly used in PWSs (USEPA, 2005). As a result, the metabolite has a higher likelihood of being found in finished drinking water, and occurrence data is critical to characterizing exposure and a potential meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction. Therefore, the EPA proposes to monitor for chlorpyrifos oxon in UCMR 6. Additionally, EPA Method 540 is being considered for UCMR 6 because it includes the pesticide metabolites, phorate sulfone and phorate sulfoxide, which are both tied to the CCL 5 contaminant phorate in EPA Method 525.3.

This notice describes the 30 contaminants that the agency has identified as the highest priorities for UCMR 6 monitoring through the process described in the preceding section of this document. This process prioritizes the unregulated contaminants, for which nationally representative data on the frequency and level of occurrence is critical to characterizing exposure and assessing whether there is a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction. The EPA considers that the primary utility of the UCMR data is to provide data to the other SDWA programs. SDWA requires that the data collected under the UCMR be used to develop the CCL (see SDWA section 1412(b)(1)(B)(i)(I)) and to make regulatory determinations for CCL contaminants (see SDWA section 1412(b)(1)(B)(ii)(II)). The data collected under the UCMR also provides states and PWSs with information that could be used to protect public health in each state.

In developing this UCMR action, the EPA considered the burden that UCMR places upon PWSs to monitor and, consistent with SDWA sections 1445(j) and 1452(o), the availability of funding to pay the cost of small PWS monitoring, the laboratory capacity to support the analysis of UCMR samples, and the utility of the information to be collected. For further information on these contaminants, see “ Information Compendium for Candidate Contaminants for the Proposed Sixth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 6)” (USEPA, 2026g), found in the EPA public docket for this proposed rulemaking, under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2023-0469.

The EPA invites comment on the contaminants described in the following sections and any other priority contaminants commenters wish to recommend. In your comments, please identify the following: any new contaminant(s) that you believe should be included in the UCMR 6 monitoring; any contaminant(s) in Exhibit 2 that you believe should be removed from the list; the recommended drinking water analytical method(s) for any new contaminant(s) that you propose; and other relevant details ( e.g., reporting level, sampling location, sampling frequency, analytical cost). Comments that provide supporting data or rationale are especially helpful.

On November 26, 2025, the agency received a petition from the Governors of 7 states (Governors' Petition) to include microplastics on UCMR 6. SDWA section 1445(a)(2)(B)(ii) provides that “[t]he Administrator shall include among the list of contaminants for which monitoring is required under this paragraph each contaminant recommended in a petition signed by the Governor of each of 7 or more states, unless the Administrator determines that the action would prevent the listing of other contaminants of a higher public health concern.” The EPA also received a petition from the Food and Water Watch group with signatures from other organizations supporting monitoring for microplastics in UCMR 6 (a copy of that petition and response, and the Governors' Petition have been placed in the public Docket for this proposed rulemaking, under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2023-0469).

The EPA has listed microplastics as a group on the draft Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 6) as a first step toward defining and better understanding potential public health risk from exposure via drinking water (USEPA, 2026h). The EPA will collaborate with other federal agencies to evaluate risks and exposures of microplastics to enable future monitoring for those microplastics that present potential health risks. This approach will also enable the EPA to list microplastics on a future UCMR when national monitoring is scientifically feasible through the availability of a validated drinking water analytical method.

As the Governors' Petition acknowledges, there is no validated EPA or consensus drinking water analytical method with the proper quality control data, accuracy, and precision that could be used for UCMR 6, and it is not feasible to develop a drinking water analytical method within the statutory timeframe ( i.e., December 27, 2026). If microplastics were included on UCMR 6, the PWSs subject to this rulemaking would be unable to successfully monitor for microplastics. Such monitoring is the central purpose of the UCMR as outlined by SDWA section 1445(a)(2). In addition, the agency and the public would lose an opportunity to gain occurrence information on other unregulated contaminants that have a drinking water analytical method available for UCMR 6.

The Governors' Petition asserts that “the variability in methodologies for detecting microplastics poses challenges to data consistency and comparability” and “this variability complicates efforts to standardize findings, underscoring the need for harmonized protocols to ensure reliable data collection and analysis.” The agency will continue to evaluate the existing procedures and techniques (ASTM—D8332-20 and D8333-20) (ASTM, 2020a, ASTM, 2020b) to develop robust and validated methods, as well as adequate laboratory capacity, that would support national monitoring for microplastics in a future UCMR.

The agency acknowledges the interest in and concern for microplastics in drinking water, and believes that including these contaminants on the draft CCL 6 as a first step in responding to the petition will prioritize the research that is needed to define and better understand the characteristics of microplastics ( i.e., size, type of plastic, shape, count, etc.) that are associated with the public health risk. This research may inform the development of drinking water analytical methods that can be used to standardize data collection and analysis in the future.

Pharmaceuticals in drinking water have been a public health concern for over a decade. Since 2012, the EPA has led a federal workgroup on pharmaceuticals in water alongside the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) to exchange information on pharmaceuticals in the environment and to support the coordination of joint studies. The agency recently included a pharmaceuticals group on the draft CCL 6 to further prioritize research and information needed to identify which specific pharmaceuticals are occurring in drinking water and may be of greatest public health concern (USEPA, 2026h). The agency also released the “ Human Health Benchmarks for Pharmaceuticals (HHB-Rx) in Drinking Water” (USEPA, 2026i). Human health benchmarks are non-enforceable drinking water levels that provide information about adverse health effects from drinking water exposure to contaminants that have no drinking water standards or health advisories. These actions support the agency's approach to prioritize specific pharmaceuticals and develop drinking water analytical methods to support monitoring in a future UCMR.

In CFR 141.40(a), the EPA proposes February 1, 2026, as the date to determine which PWSs are subject to UCMR 6. That is, the determination of whether a PWS is required to monitor under UCMR 6 is based on the type of system ( e.g., CWS, NTNCWS) and its retail population served, as indicated by the Safe Drinking Water Information System Federal Reporting Services (SDWIS/Fed) inventory on February 1, 2026. If a PWS believes its retail population served in SDWIS/Fed is inaccurate, the system should contact their state authority to verify its population as of the specified date and request a correction, if necessary. This applicability date is exactly five years from the last date published in UCMR 5 (86 FR 73131, December 27, 2021 (USEPA, 2021d)), based on the 5-year cycle of the UCMR program.

In CFR 141.35(c)(4), the EPA proposes April 26, 2027, as the date large PWSs must contact the EPA or state if the PWS believes they are subject to UCMR 6 and they have not been contacted by the EPA or the state. This date is also exactly five years from the last date published in UCMR 5 (86 FR 73131, December 27, 2021 (USEPA, 2021d)), based on the 5-year cycle of the UCMR program.

In five different CFR sections, 141.35 (c)(1), 141.35 (c)(2), 141.35 (c)(5)(i), 141.35 (d)(2) and 141.40 (a)(4)(i), the EPA proposes December 31, 2027, as the reporting and sampling requirements date, by which PWSs are required to report contact information, zip code information, sampling location inventory information, and scheduling and rescheduling notifications. These updated dates are exactly five years from the last dates published in UCMR 5 (86 FR 73131, December 27, 2021 (USEPA, 2021d)), based on the 5-year cycle of the UCMR program.

The proposed rule outlines the monitoring period for UCMR 6. From the date of this proposal until January 1, 2028, the EPA will be conducting a number of activities, including reviewing comments and promulgating the final rule, coordinating laboratory approval, selecting representative small PWSs, organizing Partnership Agreements with states, developing State Monitoring Plans (see III.N of this document), establishing monitoring schedules and inventory, and conducting outreach and training. The EPA proposes that PWSs will collect samples between January 1, 2028—December 31, 2030, and PWSs must complete their monitoring by December 31, 2031. Exhibit 3 illustrates the major activities that the EPA expects will take place in preparation for, and during, the implementation of UCMR 6.