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-2026-7209; Project Identifier MCAI-2025-00629-E” 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 amend the 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 Alexis Whitaker, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198. 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 issued AD 2009-04-13, Amendment 39-15819 (74 FR 7643, February 19, 2009) (AD 2009-04-13), for RRD Model BR700-715A1-30, BR700-715B1-30, and BR700-715C1-30 engines, with an LPC compressor (fan) disc assembly, part number (P/N) BRH10048 or P/N BRH19253. AD 2009-04-13 was prompted by an MCAI originated by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA issued EASA Emergency AD 2007-0116-E, dated May 4, 2007 (EASA Emergency AD 2007-0116-E) to address the manufacturer revising the engine TLM life limits to introduce new or more restrictive tasks and limitations and associated thresholds and intervals for life-limited parts.

AD 2009-04-13 requires revising the ALS of the operator's existing approved engine maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive tasks and limitations and associated thresholds and intervals for life-limited parts. Additionally, AD 2009-04-13 requires removing LPC compressor (fan) disc assemblies from service that exceed a certain life limit, removing LPC compressor (fan) disc assemblies from service that do not pass the Hawaiian Flight Mission check, and completing the Life Limited Part Tracking Sheet.

The FAA issued AD 2009-04-13 to prevent failure of critical rotating parts, which, if not addressed, could result in uncontained failure of the low-pressure compressor (fan) disc assembly and damage to the airplane.

Since the FAA issued AD 2009-04-13, EASA superseded EASA Emergency AD 2007-0116-E and issued EASA AD 2025-0086, dated April 16, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0086) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states that the manufacturer published a revised engine TLM to introduce new or more restrictive tasks and limitations and associated thresholds and intervals for life-limited parts.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2026-7209.

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2025-0086, which specifies revising the ALS of the existing approved engine maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive tasks and limitations and associated thresholds and intervals for life-limited parts.

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.

These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority (CAA) of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2025-0086, described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. See “Differences Between this AD and the MCAI” for a discussion of the general differences included in this AD.

In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some CAA ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2025-0086 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2025-0086 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2025-0086 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2025-0086. Material required by EASA AD 2025-0086 for compliance will be available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2026-7209 after the FAA final rule is published.

Where paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2025-0086 specifies revising the approved Aircraft Maintenance Programme (AMP) within 12 months after the effective date of EASA AD 2025-0086, this proposed AD would require revising the ALS of the existing approved engine maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, within 30 days after the effective date of this proposed AD.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 218 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

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

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

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 that the 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:

Table of Contents I. Background and Executive Summary II. Authority for this Rulemaking III. Discussion of the Proposal A. The Need for FAA to Clarify the Scope of Preemption B. Field Preemption C. Conflict with Federal Safety Regulations D. Airline Deregulation Act Express Preemption E. Flight Attendant Requirements IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses A. Regulatory Impact Analysis B. Regulatory Flexibility Act C. International Trade Impact Assessment D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment E. Paperwork Reduction Act F. International Compatibility G. Environmental Analysis VI. Executive Order Determinations A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use C. Executive Order 13609, International Cooperation D. Executive Order 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation VII. Additional Information A. Comments Invited B. Confidential Business Information C. Electronic Access and Filing D. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act I. Background and Executive Summary

Recent litigation prompted FAA to review regulations relating to duty and rest for flightcrew members and flight attendants. To forestall any confusion relating to the preemptive effect of those regulations, FAA proposes clarifying regulations.

FAA proposes to add § 121.468 to title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations to clarify and reiterate that FAA's flight attendant duty and rest period regulations preempt State and local laws that are covering the same subject matter. 1 While Federal regulations concerning flightcrew members have consistently preempted State action, 2 there have been efforts to apply some State laws to flight attendants. 3 FAA regulations relating to flightcrew members have consistently preempted State and local labor laws, and FAA proposes new § 117.31 as a conforming amendment to ensure FAA occupies the entire field of flightcrew member regulations to prevent future misapplications of State and local laws or misinterpretations of FAA regulations (as further discussed in section III of this preamble). Further, FAA asserts that the same field and conflict preemption that applies to flightcrew members applies to flight attendants because FAA thoroughly occupies this relevant field and State laws may conflict with FAA safety requirements. FAA proposes these regulations to further assert comprehensive regulation of flight attendant duty and rest to include meal and rest breaks during a duty period.

Like flightcrew members, flight attendants perform critical safety functions. Flight attendants are responsible for taking action during emergencies, including administering first aid, conducting aircraft evacuations, responding to inflight fires, managing medical emergencies, and handling passengers who threaten the safety of other passengers or might be unruly or disruptive. 4 FAA's regulations ensure that flight attendants are available to perform these duties as needed while also ensuring that post duty rest periods provide sufficient time to prevent fatigue. Conflicting State or local laws would create a complex patchwork of regulatory requirements that would frustrate the Federal regulatory scheme and inhibit aviation safety.

Therefore, FAA proposes adding §§ 117.31 and 121.468 to ensure the duty and rest requirements of flightcrew members and flight attendants are subject only to Federal aviation regulations.

To address the inconsistency created by judicial rulings and to ensure a cohesive national safety standard, FAA proposes a rule clarifying that a single, uniform set of requirements applies to the duty, rest, and break periods for both flightcrew members and flight attendants.

This proposed rule clarifies that FAA's regulations—including 14 CFR part 117 and 14 CFR 121.467—occupy the entire field of flightcrew member and flight attendant duty and rest, including meal and rest breaks during duty periods. The same principles that support preemption of State meal and rest break laws for pilots should apply with equal force to flight attendants. This proposed rule, moreover, clarifies that air carriers may not permit flightcrew members or flight attendants to take off-duty breaks during a duty period and any State law requiring such breaks conflicts with FAA regulations and is preempted.

FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code (U.S.C.). 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. Section 44701(a)(4) requires the Administrator to promulgate regulations in the interest of safety for the “maximum hours or periods of service of airmen and other employees of air carriers.” Section 44701(a)(5) requires the Administrator to promulgate “regulations and minimum standards for cybersecurity and other practices, methods, and procedures that the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce and national security.” In addition, 49 U.S.C. 44701(d)(1)(A) specifically states that the Administrator, when prescribing safety regulations, must consider the duty of an air carrier to provide service with the highest possible degree of safety in the public interest. Such authority applies to the oversight FAA exercises to ensure safety of air carrier operations, including crewmember flight, duty, and rest requirements.

Recent litigation—most notably Bernstein v. Virgin America, Inc. and Wilson v. SkyWest Airlines, Inc. 5 —over the applicability of State meal and rest break laws to flight attendants has underscored the need to propose regulations to remove confusion over which laws prevail in this field. Specifically, some State laws  6 that have been applied to flight attendants pertain to when he or she is on duty or permitted to take time off during their duty period to have a meal or rest break; however, for the reasons discussed below, FAA regulations supersede these State laws and this proposed rule seeks to make that clarification. FAA proposes including paragraphs (b) of §§ 117.31 and 121.468 to clarify and reiterate that FAA's flightcrew member and flight attendant duty and rest period regulations preempt State and local laws related to flightcrew member and flight attendant duty and rest periods, including meal and rest breaks.

Under principles of field preemption, “State law is pre-empted if federal law so thoroughly occupies a legislative field as to make reasonable the inference that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it.”  7 When “Congress has entrusted an agency with the task of promulgating regulations to carry out the purposes of a statute, as part of the preemption analysis [courts] must consider whether the regulations evidence a desire to occupy a field completely.”  8 Further, “if the pervasiveness of the regulations indicate that the agency sought to occupy the field, the question is whether that action was within the scope of the agency's delegated authority.”  9

Congress has given FAA comprehensive authority to ensure the safety of air travel and the efficient use of the airspace. 10 This includes a specific statutory mandate to regulate “the maximum hours or periods of service of airmen and other employees of air carriers . . . .”  11 FAA has issued regulations that cover every aspect of aviation safety. Consistent with FAA's statutory mandate, these regulations include duty and rest regulations for flightcrew members and flight attendants. FAA regulations require airlines to provide flight attendants on each flight and contemplate that those flight attendants will be available to ensure passenger safety. 12 FAA imposes specific requirements related to flight attendant number and activities during boarding, takeoff, landing, taxi, deplaning, and when passengers are on board a stationary aircraft on the ground. 13 FAA has also issued detailed regulations setting the maximum length of flight attendant duty periods and minimum length of flight attendant rest periods. 14 Through these regulations, FAA has not only occupied the field of aviation safety generally, but has specifically occupied the field of flight attendant duty regulations, consistent with the statutory requirement that it regulate “the maximum hours or periods of service of airmen and other employees of air carriers.”  15 Therefore, State and local laws pertaining to flight attendant duty or rest periods, including rest and meal breaks, are preempted by FAA's regulations because FAA thoroughly occupies this relevant field and issues these kinds of regulations in accordance with its statutory authority.

Despite this Federal regulatory framework, FAA is aware of efforts to apply State meal and rest break laws to flight attendants, including when those flight attendants are on board an aircraft in flight. This proposed rule clarifies that such State requirements are preempted. This proposed rule also intends to fill any potential gap in the field of FAA's regulation of flight attendant duty and rest, including meal and rest breaks, with provisions requiring air carriers to ensure flight attendants are available to perform safety-related responsibilities during a flight duty period, while also providing allowance for meeting physiological needs. Air carriers already incorporate meal and rest breaks for flight attendants in their operations as necessary and these provisions are not intended to alter the Federal regulatory status quo. FAA invites comments on any unintended effect of these provisions on air carrier operations.

State laws, including the California law at issue in Bernstein, are preempted when they conflict with Federal law. FAA regulations define duty periods for flightcrew members and flight attendants and are designed to ensure that flightcrew members and flight attendants are available to perform critical safety duties. 16 To the extent that a State law purports to restrict the availability of a flightcrew member or a flight attendant to perform their safety-related duties during a duty period, such a law conflicts with the Federal regulatory framework and is preempted.

Under 14 CFR 121.467(a), the “duty period” for a flight attendant is defined as the elapsed time from reporting for an assignment until the final release. Under 14 CFR 117.3, the “flight duty period” for a flightcrew member is defined as “a period when a flightcrew member is required to report for duty with the intention of conducting a flight * * * and ends when the aircraft is parked for the last flight and there is no intention for further aircraft movement.” For both flightcrew members and flight attendants, this duty period can include times before, between, and after flights. FAA regulations require that flightcrews remain on-duty and on-call throughout this entire period to respond to safety needs. Various State laws require employees on break to be relieved of all duty or employer control and free to come and go. 17 Applying this requirement to a flight in progress is physically impossible, as a flight attendant or flightcrew member cannot be free to come and go while mid-flight. These laws would also present clear and significant safety risks.

The primary mission of flight attendants is to ensure safety, a role that is undermined if a flight attendant is legally “off-duty” during an emergency. Flight attendants need to be ready to manage land and water evacuations, control inflight fires, manage medical emergencies, and handle unruly passengers among other tasks. In the event an emergency evacuation is necessary, flight attendants must need to be available immediately to assist when mere seconds can make a difference in the number of fatalities involved. 18

In addition, safety response relies on highly coordinated teamwork among flight attendants and flightcrew members. FAA regulations require airlines to provide FAA-approved crew resource management training to flightcrew members and flight attendants. 19 This FAA-required training as part of an FAA-approved air carrier training program serves to ensure appropriate interaction between flightcrew members and flight attendants, especially during emergency situations. This training contemplates flightcrew members and flight attendants who are not only available, but are required to perform safety functions. State laws mandating that flightcrew members or flight attendants be “off-duty” and free from responsibility during any portion of a duty period would conflict with this FAA-required crew resource management training, which is not designed to manage crew unavailability due to State laws.

In contrast to these State laws that present safety risk, FAA's regulations are intended to increase safety through fatigue mitigation, which FAA addresses by regulating rest periods between shifts rather than during them. Most recently, at Congress's direction, 20 FAA issued the 2022 Final Rule increasing the mandatory rest period for flight attendants to 10 consecutive hours to ensure they receive adequate rest and are fully recovered before starting a new duty period. 21

Flightcrews function as highly coordinated safety teams. Rotating “on-duty” and “off-duty” members during a single flight segment increases the risk of confusion and undermines safety protocols. This is especially true since FAA regulations apply to all flight attendants on board a flight, not just a minimum required number. There is no Federal provision that allows a “surplus” attendant to be entirely off-duty and unresponsive while the aircraft is in operation.

There are also economic impacts that increased flight attendant coverage would impose. Forcing airlines to block passenger seats for “relief” crew members reduces available capacity, increases ticket prices, and may make low-margin regional routes economically unviable. Finally, even with extra staff, the requirement for a crew member to be “free of all restraint” cannot be met while they are confined to an aircraft in flight.

In contrast to general-purpose State meal and rest break laws, FAA believes that the existing status quo under FAA regulations, which is a result of both FAA's rules about duty periods, collective bargaining agreements (CBA) reached between air carriers and labor unions, and other industry standards and specific air carrier crew resource management procedures, provides the appropriate policy balance. These provide a specialized, industry-specific balance between flight attendant health and aviation safety and utilize tailored provisions concerning meals and other rest breaks  22 that do not conflict with FAA regulations or otherwise trigger the dangerous safety and operational conflicts inherent in rigid, “off-duty” State mandates. Although at this time FAA is not proposing to codify the approach taken in any specific CBA or crew resource management procedure, FAA is requesting comment on whether to do so in the final rule. In particular, if FAA proceeds to a final rule FAA seeks comments on what specific terms should be included in a regulation to ensure that safety is maintained without unnecessarily constricting any future agreements between air carriers and labor unions or air carrier procedures. FAA also seeks comments on if additional guidance material would be desirable on FAA regulations relating to flight attendant rest and duty periods or preemption.

FAA believes its occupation of the field in aviation safety and the efficiency of the airspace and conflicts with its existing regulations concerning flight duty and rest are sufficient to show that State meal and rest break requirements are preempted. That said, these laws, if not preempted, would also have a “significant impact” on airline prices, routes, and services and thus are also preempted under the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (ADA), 23 which was enacted to ensure that the “maximum reliance on competitive market forces” remains the primary driver of efficiency, innovation, and low prices in the aviation industry.

To protect this Federal interest, the ADA's express preemption provision prohibits States from enacting or enforcing any law “related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier.” The Supreme Court has made clear that this preemption provision is to be read expansively, first in Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 24 and again in Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transportation Ass'  25 The Supreme Court established in Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. that State laws are preempted if they have a “significant impact” on airline rates. Complying with State laws would require airlines to hire additional crew members to stagger “off-duty” breaks, which would have direct labor and operational costs. Airlines would be forced to block off passenger seats to accommodate relief crew members, foregoing the revenue that could have been made through the sale of those seats. On regional aircraft with limited seating, the loss of even one or two seats for additional crew can eliminate the economic viability of the flight and may result in the elimination of low margin routes serving small communities. Applying these changes to the flights across their networks would result in significant costs to the airlines. These increased costs would inevitably be passed to consumers through significantly higher ticket prices.

Finally, a central purpose of the ADA's preemption clause is to prevent a patchwork of varying State requirements that would interfere with interstate commerce. State meal and rest break laws are not uniform and may at times be conflicting. For example, New York's labor laws require meal breaks at specific times of day ( e.g., between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.), while other States may use different intervals. Airlines providing interstate service are not required to and cannot practically track and comply with disparate laws for every crew member across different States on a single flight. This complexity creates regulatory uncertainty that disrupts standard nationwide scheduling and staffing practices which in turn has a significant effect on airline services, contrary to the prohibitions on State action in the ADA.

Unlike short-haul truck drivers, an inapt parallel drawn in Bernstein, airline crews cannot readily interrupt operations to accommodate State-mandated breaks without fundamentally altering and affecting the services and prices Congress intended to deregulate. Such a regime of multiple, conflicting State meal and rest break requirements would frustrate airlines' ability to provide safe, efficient and timely service to the travelling public throughout the United States.

In 14 CFR 121.467(a), a flight attendant serving in part 121 operations is defined as an individual, other than a flightcrew member, who is assigned by a certificate holder to duty in an aircraft during flight time and whose duties include activities related to ensuring cabin safety. 26 Section 121.391 specifies the minimum number of flight attendants required on board a flight, based on maximum payload capacity and seating capacity, for certificate holders conducting passenger-carrying operations under part 121. 27 Flight attendants are responsible for taking action during emergencies, including administering first aid, conducting aircraft evacuations, responding to inflight fires, managing medical emergencies, and handling passengers who threaten the safety of other passengers or might be unruly or disruptive. 28 They also need to be prepared to respond to situations that could threaten the safety of the passengers and the flight, including turbulent air, airplane decompression, and hijackings. Flight attendants need to know the location of emergency exits, fire extinguishers, first aid kits, flotation devices, oxygen masks, and emergency slides, and check emergency equipment before flight. In addition, they need to assess and verify the suitability of passengers that occupy exit seating, brief passengers on safety equipment and evacuation and emergency landing procedures, and ensure compliance with applicable safety and security regulations. A flight attendant needs to be able to perform these responsibilities during their duty period.

Under 14 CFR 121.467, duty period is defined as “the period of elapsed time between reporting for an assignment involving flight time and release from that assignment by the certificate holder conducting domestic, flag or supplemental operations.” FAA establishes duty period limitations to ensure flight attendants do not become overly fatigued during flight assignments to enhance the safety of the flying public. 29 In addition, the duty period limitations are designed to suit all operations that require flight attendants without imposing a significant burden on operators. 30

A designated “off-duty” meal or rest break during a flight attendant's duty period when he or she would be unavailable to perform cabin safety-related responsibilities would pose a risk to aviation safety.

Flight attendants serve as a core component in cabin safety responsibilities. One of those responsibilities includes handling passengers who threaten the safety of other passengers or might be unruly or disruptive. Over the past five years, FAA received 14,343 reports of unruly passengers on flights. 31 Flight attendants handle these passengers to ensure the safety of other passengers. If a flight attendant is permitted during their duty period to be relieved of their safety responsibilities, including handling unruly passengers ( e.g., a meal or rest break), there would be a critical gap in cabin safety coverage during the flight. In this situation, a flight attendant may not be available to handle a passenger's disruptive or violent behavior that could harm other passengers or cause risk to the operation of the aircraft. Flight attendants need to be available and ready to perform safety procedures during their duty period.

Another example of the aviation safety need for flight attendants to remain on duty during their duty period and perform safety responsibilities is the growing number of lithium battery events involving smoke, fire, or extreme heat in the aircraft cabin. Passengers frequently carry portable electronic devices powered by lithium-ion batteries, including cell phones, laptops, portable rechargers, watches, and cameras. As more of these lithium-ion battery devices are introduced to the aircraft cabin, the risk of smoke, fire, or extreme heat increases. Between March 3, 2006 and January 8, 2026, there were 693 verified incidents of lithium battery related events involving, smoke, fire or extreme heat. 32 The frequency of incidents has increased progressively from 39 incidents in 2020 to 93 incidents in 2025. 33 Flight attendants need to respond quickly to such an event to mitigate the risk of onboard lithium battery fires; this need is heightened given the likelihood that the number of these events will continue to increase. As previously stated, if a flight attendant was relieved of their safety responsibilities during a duty period, then he or she would not be responsible for responding to an emergency such as a fire, thus placing aviation safety at risk.

Therefore, FAA proposes new §§ 117.31(a) and 121.468(a) to ensure that FAA regulation of flight attendant and flightcrew member duty and rest periods preempt State and local laws and to clarify the availability of meal and rest breaks for flight attendants while on duty. Including meal or rest breaks during a duty period in which the flight attendant is relieved from all responsibilities does not enhance the safety of the flying public nor does it relieve a burden on certificate holders. As with pilots, FAA recognizes flight attendants will have physiological needs ( e.g., using the restroom and consuming food and drink) during their duty period. Given this context, FAA understands many CBAs between certificate holders and labor unions or certificate holder's standard operating procedures cover the topic of physiological needs ( e.g., meal and rest breaks). As such, FAA intends for certificate holders to determine how to ensure that all flight attendants are available to perform safety-related responsibilities and also be able to meet physiological needs during a duty period.

FAA proposes a conforming amendment by adding § 117.31(a) to forestall any confusion for flightcrew members responsibilities and to avoid any implication that FAA does not intend to preempt State and local law with regard to flightcrew members. 34

In addition, because an air carrier may apply the duty and rest provisions of part 117 to flight attendants, pursuant to § 121.467(c), FAA believes it is necessary to include conforming amendments in part 117.

Finally, FAA proposes a technical amendment to revise the authority citation for 14 CFR part 117 that would remove the citation to title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.) 106(g) to reflect amendments resulting from the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 and would add the citation to 49 U.S.C. 106(f) to reflect FAA's current statutory rulemaking authority. 35

Executive Orders 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 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 determined this proposed rule is a significant regulatory action as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.

The decision in Bernstein and the potential for similar litigation to apply state meal and rest break laws to flight attendants presents the possibility of airlines having to comply with a patchwork of requirements. These requirements could also affect individual flight attendants at the same airline differently. There have been efforts to mitigate the decision—in March of 2023, the State of California amended its Labor Code (§ 512.2) to exempt flight attendants from standard meal and rest period requirements if they are covered by a CBA that addresses these breaks. However, not all airlines are covered by collective bargaining agreements.

The proposed rule would clarify that FAA regulations pertaining to flightcrew member and flight attendant duty and rest periods preempt state-mandated meal and rest break laws. In doing so, the proposed rule would prevent the potential patchwork of requirements that could result through litigation. State meal and rest break requirements differ and the nature and result of any future litigation is unknown. Also unknown are subsequent actions, such as the amendment to California Labor Code, that might mitigate the impact of any decisions. However, the types of impacts industry may avoid by not having to comply with different state requirements include staffing flights with additional flight attendants; reserving passenger seats for additional flight attendants; disruption to flight operations; and wider route implications from increased costs. Airlines may also experience efficiency gains from only having to track and comply with FAA regulations for flight attendants.

In comparison, the ruling in Bernstein resulted in damages payable to flight attendants who were not afforded State mandated meal and rest breaks. The proposed rule would clarify that these State laws do not apply to flight attendants and prevent or discourage similar litigation. While airlines would not have to comply with the State requirements, flight attendants would also not be afforded any incremental breaks compared to those already identified in CBAs or airline policies.

In summary, FAA anticipates the proposed rule will prevent airlines from having to comply with differing State meal and rest break requirements for flight attendants that could be costly and disruptive to operations. Flight attendants would not receive meal and rest breaks based on State laws and would instead continue under existing CBAs and airline policies. FAA requests comments on this analysis and the identified uncertainties.

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 independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

If an agency determines a rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the head of the agency may so certify under section 605(b) of the RFA. The proposed rule does not impose costs on any entities, including small entities (individuals are not small entities under the RFA). Also, the economic impacts of this rule with respect to cost savings are uncertain as they relate to potential future litigation. Therefore, FAA certifies the proposed rule would not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. FAA solicits comments regarding this determination.

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 has assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and determined it ensures the safety of the American public and does not exclude imports that meet this objective. As a result, FAA does not consider this proposed rule as creating 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 the proposed rule would not result in the expenditure of $187,000,000 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 FAA to consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. FAA has determined there would be no new requirement for information collection associated with this proposed rule.

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 that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to these regulations.

FAA has analyzed the environmental impacts of this proposed rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). FAA has determined this rule is categorically excluded pursuant to Paragraph B-2.6(f) of appendix B to FAA Order 1050.1G, FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures. 36 Categorical exclusions are categories of actions the agency 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). 37 In analyzing the applicability of a categorical exclusion, the agency must also consider whether extraordinary circumstances are present that would warrant the preparation of an EA or EIS. 38 In analyzing the applicability of a categorical exclusion, the agency must also consider whether extraordinary circumstances are present that would warrant the preparation of an EA or EIS. 39 This rulemaking, which proposes to preempt duty and rest requirements to ensure passenger safety, is categorically excluded pursuant to Paragraph B-2.6f of FAA Order 1050.1G: “Regulations, standards, and exemptions (excluding those that if implemented may cause a significant impact on the human environment.” 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 Executive Order (E.O.) 13132, Federalism. This proposed rule has “federalism implications” as defined by E.O. 13132, because it would have a “substantial direct effect” on the States and on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States. In accordance with section 2 of E.O. 13132, FAA has determined that the problem of inconsistent aircraft crew duty regulations is of “national significance” and requires a uniform Federal solution. Under section 4, an agency may only preempt State law when a statute contains express preemption or there is “clear evidence” that Congress intended preemption. FAA relies on the express preemption provision of the ADA (49 U.S.C. 41713(b)(1)) and clear evidence that State meal and rest break laws and rules “directly conflict” with Federal safety objectives. FAA has restricted this preemption to the “minimum level necessary” to achieve the safety and economic objectives of the Federal Aviation Act and the ADA. With regard to consultation with State and local officials, FAA has been clear throughout the litigation in Bernstein that it believes that these laws should be preempted and, in this NPRM, requests comment from States and local governments on this issue.

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

Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 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 Executive Order 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.

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), FAA solicits comments from the public to inform its rulemaking process better. FAA posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

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 that 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. Commenters 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 (SBREFA) of 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 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 three 7-hydroxymitragynine-related substances, 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):

• Methyl ( E )-2-((1′ S, 6′ S, 7′S)-6′-ethyl-4-methoxy-3-oxo-3′,5′,6′,7′,8′,8 a ′-hexahydro-2′ H -spiro[indoline-2,1′-indolizine]-7′-yl)-3-methoxyacrylate (commonly known as mitragynine pseudoindoxyl),

• Methyl ( E )-2-((2 S, 3 S, 7 aS, 12 aR, 12 bS )-3-ethyl-7 a -hydroxy-8-methoxy-1,2,3,4,6,7,7 a, 12,12 a, 12 b -decahydroindolo[2,3- a ]quinolizin-2-yl)-3-methoxyacrylate (commonly known as dihydro-7-hydroxymitragynine, or MGM-15),

• Methyl ( E )-2-((2 S, 3 S, 7 aS, 12 aR, 12b S )-3-ethyl-9-fluoro-7 a -hydroxy-8-methoxy-1,2,3,4,6,7,7 a, 12,12 a, 12 b -decahydroindolo[2,3- a ]quinolizin-2-yl)-3-methoxyacrylate (commonly known as 9-fluoro-dihydro-7-hydroxymitragynine, or MGM-16).

The temporary scheduling order will be published in the Federal Register on or after August 5, 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 this intent to issue a temporary scheduling order. 6 By letter dated December 15, 2025, the Administrator transmitted the required notice to place mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, and MGM-16 in schedule I on a temporary basis to the Assistant Secretary for Health of HHS (Assistant Secretary). 7 By letter dated January 20, 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 (IND) or approved new drug applications (NDA) for mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, and MGM-16. The Assistant Secretary also stated that HHS had no objection to the temporary placement of these substances in schedule I of the CSA. Mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, and MGM-16 are not currently listed in any schedule under the CSA.

To find that placing a substance temporarily 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 mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, and MGM-16. 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 prevalence and misuse of Mitragyna speciosa (commonly known as kratom) and its psychoactive alkaloids, including mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine, have led to the proliferation of commercial products containing opioids chemically synthesized from mitragynine or 7-hydroxymitragynine. In recent years, mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, which is a chemical rearrangement product of 7-hydroxymitragynine, and MGM-15, which is a derivative of 7-hydroxymitragynine, have recently emerged on the Mitragyna speciosa consumer markets. MGM-16 is a highly potent opioid and shares a similar pharmacological profile with mitragynine pseudoindoxyl and MGM-15. The chemical scaffolds of mitragynine or 7-hydroxymitragynine were used in scientific research to develop mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, or MGM-16 via chemical modifications of purified isolates. Evidence from the Mitragyna speciosa retail markets demonstrates that mitragynine pseudoindoxyl and MGM-15 have transitioned from experimental substances studied in research to widely available commercial products. These products are commonly sold in different forms such as powders, tablets, and liquid shots. This is a significant evolution from the traditional administration of Mitragyna speciosa, which was once restricted to either chewing raw leaves or steeping the leaves into water decoctions and teas.

These products are sold under numerous brand names like Kama, Hydroxie, Fruity Perks, and Happie Tabs, 13 and they are easily purchased on the internet, as well as in gas stations, corner shops, and vape shops. These products are available in consumer-friendly forms to include flavored chewable tablets, which increases their appeal to a broader demographic. Also, the aggressive marketing of these semi-synthetic opioids (mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15) as “precision-formulated products,” “botanical extracts,” or as “mood boosters” for the treatment of health conditions is deeply concerning. The branding creates a false sense of safety for unknowing consumers who may equate the term “botanical” with lower risk. Furthermore, there is paucity of data on quality control or standardized dosage available for these products, making their use especially dangerous.

Mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, and MGM-16 are potent opioids that share a similar pharmacological profile with 7-hydroxymitragynine. Available pharmacology data demonstrate that mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, and MGM-16 exhibit strong affinity for the mu-opioid receptor (MOR) and function as MOR agonists. 14 15 Data from preclinical studies show that these substances produce analgesic effects that is more potent than morphine. 16 oBecause mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, and MGM-16 are potent MOR agonists, they pose similar health risks as other mu-opioid agonists ( i.e., morphine and fentanyl), including physical and psychological dependence, and respiratory depression.

A scan of retail data on the internet shows that vendors explicitly market mitragynine pseudoindoxyl and MGM-15 for their “clean and powerful” opioid-receptor activation, utilizing deceptive terminology to target individuals seeking alternatives to pharmaceutical opioids. These combinations and marketing strategies pose significant safety risks to unsuspecting consumers who use these products by exposing them to high doses of opioids. Recently, reports have confirmed the positive identification of mitragynine pseudoindoxyl and MGM-15 in toxicology cases in the United States, and evidence demonstrates that these substances are being misused. The lack of clinical data regarding their safety and efficacy, coupled with the risk of life-threatening respiratory depression and addiction, underscores the danger of marketing these unapproved, highly potent opioids under the guise of therapeutic or wellness products.

While no evidence supports the presence of MGM-16 on the Mitragyna speciosa consumer market, its profile as a highly potent opioid that is structurally related to 7-hydroxymitragynine lends itself as an attractive substitute that could emerge on the illicit drug market. MGM-16 is synthetically manufactured for research purposes and is not approved for any clinical indication in the United States. DEA's investigation of publicly available information, including popular online platform, revealed that at least some individuals intend to abuse MGM-16. Recent online surveillance of a vendor site  17 lists MGM-16 for upcoming sale. The sale of products containing mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, and MGM-15, and the potential sale of MGM-16 poses an imminent hazard to public safety.

Available data and information for mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, and MGM-16, 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-1644.

Mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, and MGM-16 are synthetic derivatives of the indole alkaloids, mitragynine or 7-hydroxymitragynine, of the Mitragyna speciosa plant. Unlike the indole alkaloids mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine, which are naturally occurring in the plant, mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, and MGM-16 are produced through synthetic modifications of purified mitragynine isolates or 7-hydroxymitragynine. 18 The chemical scaffolds of mitragynine or 7-hydroxymitragynine were used in scientific research to develop novel mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, and MGM-16. The first mention of mitragynine pseudoindoxyl in scientific literature dates to 1974 when mitragynine pseudoindoxyl was isolated as a metabolite from bio transformed mitragynine. In 2014, as part of a drug discovery research, MGM-15 and MGM-16 were developed as potent opioid agonists, with potential therapeutic utility for pain. 19

The first confirmed appearance of mitragynine pseudoindoxyl in consumer products was reported in 2024. 20 The emergence of MGM-15 in commercially available products was in September 2025. 21 The introduction of these substances into the Mitragyna speciosa consumer market follows a classic pattern of new designer drugs, where packaging appears like those of designer novel psychoactive substances and are often advertised as “sold strictly for laboratory, botanical, and research purposes only” and “not intended for human consumption.”  22 A study on products sold online containing mitragynine pseudoindoxyl showed that of the 51 total products sold online, 35 had an appealing flavor ( e.g., various berry, mint, watermelon, pink lemonade, candy apple, grape, citrus, mango, pistachio, and vanilla bean), and 32 of the products had packaging that was formulated using bright colors. Seventy-six percent (39 of 51) of these products were chewable tablets, 18 percent were liquids (9 of 51), and the remaining three were either dried ice cream cones with ice cream (two products) or a chocolate bar (one product). 23 Many of the products typically feature serving sizes that require consumers to split tablets or doses.

Users seek these 7-hydroxymitragynine-related products for their psychoactive effects and products are often advertised as mood enhancers or alternative to prescription opioid analgesics ( see Factor 5). These products are commonly sold in different product forms, such as powders, tablets, or liquid shots, which is a sharp contrast from the traditional mode of administration of Mitragyna speciosa, which was confined to either water decoctions or brewed into tea or chewing of fresh leaves. A review of vendor websites  24 show that these products are explicitly marketed as “potent” and “fast-acting” substances and sold at low prices. For example, mitragynine pseudoindoxyl and MGM-15 tablets are sold in varying fruit flavors and in bright colors, and prices vary from about $2-4 per tablet or $34.99 per pack (single pack and 10-pack bulk). Of great concern to DEA is that the price of these products may facilitate high-frequency and rapid escalation of use ( see Table 1). Further, open-source signal detection demonstrates that users are seeking MGM-16 with the intent to abuse. 25

The shift from natural leaf decoctions of Mitragyna speciosa to flavored, standardized, and high-potency semi-synthetic substances suggests an intentional market strategy to maximize consumer appeal and sale of products with rapid onset of effects. The use of “research chemical” labeling, a common tactic to bypass regulatory oversight, for flavored chewable products further demonstrates a pattern to reach a broader consumer demographics.

The abuse of mitragynine pseudoindoxyl and MGM-15 is concerning due to their high opioid potency and commercial availability. Mitragynine pseudoindoxyl and MGM-15 products are sold in formulations that facilitate ease of use, bypass the traditional, lower-alkaloid preparation (chewing leaves or drinking tea) and provide a highly potent effect that mimics classical opioids such as morphine.

Analysis of marketed mitragynine pseudoindoxyl products revealed misleading marketing strategies with claims that the products are “kratom.” Available information on vendor website indicates that the concentrated alkaloid products often contain more than one alkaloid with opioid activity ( e.g., mitragynine and MGM-15 or 7-hydroxymitragynine and mitragynine pseudoindoxyl). These substance combinations and marketing practices pose significant safety risk to unsuspecting consumers by exposing them to high doses of opioids ( see Table 1). It is known that repeated use of opioids can lead to psychological and physical dependence. In fact, data show that chronic use of 7-hydroxymitragynine has sent users to opioid detox clinic and the need for opioid use disorder medication. 26 Furthermore, these products are labeled for “strong mood enhancement” and “analgesic properties.” Finally, the presence of these products containing mitragynine pseudoindoxyl and MGM- 15 is deeply concerning because the identity, purity, and quality of these products' formulation are uncertain, thus presenting additional safety concerns for unsuspecting users. The potential presence of MGM-16 in designer drug products would have similar concerns.

A study of products sold as mitragynine pseudoindoxyl over the internet found that the 51 unique products sold online as mitragynine pseudoindoxyl were marketed in child-appealing forms and contained other opioid alkaloids, with limited consumer safety information. The serving size varied and alkaloid concentrations for these marketed products were often higher than those in naturally occurring Mitragyna speciosa leaves. The analysis revealed that among the products sampled, 71 percent featured a combination of mitragynine pseudoindoxyl and 7-hydroxymitragynine, while 24 percent contained mitragynine pseudoindoxyl only. The remaining 6 percent contained combination of mitragynine pseudoindoxyl and other hydroxymitragynine forms (8-hydroxymitragynine or 11-hydroxymitragynine). 27

Data from online sources show that the availability of mitragynine pseudoindoxyl and MGM-15 are not isolated to a single region but have rapidly spread across the United States. Products containing mitragynine pseudoindoxyl and MGM-15 are sold on the internet and are delivered to most states where there are currently no kratom use restrictions, suggesting national distribution network facilitated by online sales and mass-market retail channels. The significance of the abuse of mitragynine pseudoindoxyl and MGM-15 is underscored by the potent opioid pharmacological profile of these substances and the specific health warnings acknowledged even by those who are marketing the substances. Vendor descriptions listed below provide insight into the duration and pattern of use that characterizes the abuse of these compounds:

Sustained Effect: The duration of effects is reported to last “several hours.”  28 This prolonged duration increases the likelihood of cumulative effects and potential for toxicity if doses are repeated.

Deceptive Marketing for Medical Conditions: Despite having no FDA-approved medical use, these products are explicitly marketed for “easing stress and tension,” “internal calm and reduced restlessness,” and as a “mental clarity.” 29 This marketing encourages individuals with legitimate medical needs to utilize potent, unlawful opioids as self-treatment.

Deceptive “Natural” Branding: Vendors frequently frame these substances as “clean and powerful” alternatives to traditional kratom. This branding is used to minimize the perceived risk of what are highly potent semi-synthetic opioid agonists.

Deceptive Safety Profiles: While products are marketed as a “midday stress relief” or “mental reset,” the inclusion of warnings for lethal respiratory depression on retail sites confirms that the products possess a toxicity profile identical to scheduled opioids.

Low Barrier to Entry: The use of “fruity” flavors and “chewable” formats ( e.g., Fruity Perks) suggests an effort to appeal to a broader, potentially younger demographic, significantly increasing the scope of potential abuse.

According to the National Forensic Laboratory Information System (NFLIS)  30 database, which collects drug identification results from drug cases submitted to and analyzed by Federal State and local forensic laboratories, there has been one report of mitragynine pseudoindoxyl in New York (queried February 26, 2026). Further, recent monographs  31 by Center for Forensic Science Research and Education (CFSRE), report that mitragynine pseudoindoxyl (n > 10) and MGM-15 (n = 2) have been detected in at least 12 drug materials. MGM-15 was detected as a tan solid drug that originated from New England, and those involving mitragynine pseudoindoxyl (pills and tablets) initially originated from Pennsylvania and Illinois.

The paucity or lack of seizure data for some of these 7-hydroxymitragynine-related substances as reported in forensic laboratories casework may be due to lack of readily available analytical reference standards and other analytic challenges. Because these are new substances, it often takes time for forensic laboratories to develop and validate the necessary testing methods required for substance identification. Specifically, mitragynine pseudoindoxyl is an oxidative metabolite of 7-hydroxymitragynine, and such closely related compounds require specific method and instrumentation for accurate identification. Also, since these 7-hydroxymitragynine-related substances are not federally controlled under the CSA, some forensic laboratories may not analyze and track encounters of non-controlled substances and thus reporting could be limited.

The population likely to abuse mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, and MGM-16 appear to be the same as those abusing Mitragyna speciosa and prescription opioid analgesics. According to data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), 32 as of 2021, an estimated 1.7 million people aged 12 years or older used kratom in the past year. The highest users were among adults aged 26 or older (1.4 million people). The analysis of 2019 NSDUH survey data showed that kratom users base predominately non-Hispanic White and male. The survey finding also revealed a link between kratom use and substance use disorder, particularly nonmedical prescription opioid use disorder, indicative of a strong trend of use for self-managing opioid dependence. 33

Mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, and MGM-16 function as potent MOR agonist. This mechanism of action is inherently associated with high potential of abuse, physical dependence, and psychological dependence, consistent with the effects of controlled schedule I and II opioid substances. As of early 2026, mitragynine pseudoindoxyl and MGM-15 products are sold in smoke shops, gas stations, and through numerous online marketplaces, often marketed alongside traditional supplements, which mask their potent opioid nature. Data from preclinical studies demonstrate that mitragynine pseudoindoxyl is about 100 times more potent than mitragynine at the MOR, MGM-15 and MGM-16 are about 50 and 240 times more potent than morphine in animal models, respectively. 34 Because of the potency of these compounds, they can be abused in smaller, concentrated doses. It has been demonstrated that mitragynine pseudoindoxyl may cause development of signs of opioid physical dependence after chronic use in rodents. Pre-clinical studies demonstrated that chronic twice-daily administration of mitragynine pseudoindoxyl in rodents induces signs of opioid physical dependence and withdrawal symptoms in morphine addiction rodent models as evidenced by increased diarrhea, jumping, and rearing frequency occurring when naloxone was administered or when treatment with this alkaloid was tapered. 35

These products are easily accessible in unregulated retail environments often with no age restrictions, amplifying public health concerns, particularly to vulnerable populations. Vendor descriptions provide insight into the public health threat posed by the abuse of these compounds:

Rapid Onset: Marketing materials for mitragynine pseudoindoxyl products emphasize a “quick onset,” typically occurring within 10 to 60 minutes, often described as a “wave of calm clarity,” “dual-action formula featuring 100mg per piece for maximum potency and a fast-acting hit.”  36

Sustained Effect: The duration of effects is reported to last “several hours.”  37 This prolonged duration increases the likelihood of cumulative effects and potential for toxicity if doses are repeated.

Potency Information: Marketing information of an MGM-15 product indicates this product contains a very large amount of MGM-15 “105 mg total per bottle,”  38 which, given its extreme opioid potency, presents a significant threat to public health.

Opioid Receptor Activation: Marketing materials explicitly state that these compounds directly activate opioid receptors and are “full agonist at mu receptors,” providing effects that mirror analgesic and stimulant effects (“pain relief and mood enhancement”). 39

Acknowledgment of Severe Risks: Notably, vendors acknowledge significant public health risks, advising users to monitor for “habit-forming behavior,” “high euphoria,” “dependence,” “overdose,” and “death”. 40 The mention of overdose and death is a significant indicator of the hazard these substances pose.

As with any MOR agonist, the potential health and safety risks for users of 7-hydroxymitragynine-related substances are high. Mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, and MGM-16 abuse carry a high risk of cardiotoxicity, hepatic and renal toxicity, respiratory depression, neurological effects, and physical dependence and withdrawal. According to data from poison control centers, from January to July 2025, there have been 1,690 exposure calls involving kratom, a significant increase from 2024 exposure calls. According to data from DEA Toxicology Testing Program (DEA TOX), 41 between February 2025—February 2026, mitragynine pseudoindoxyl has been identified in at least 31 overdose cases, of which 25 were fatal events. Recent monographs by CFSRE report that mitragynine pseudoindoxyl (n >10) and MGM-15 (n = 1) have been detected in at least 12 toxicology cases. MGM-15 was co-identified with mitragynine, 7-hydroxymitragynine, and trace ketamine. Mitragynine pseudoindoxyl was co-identified with other kratom alkaloids.

The sale of products with combination of high-potency opioids, explicit marketing for medical ailments, and the acknowledged potential for life-threatening respiratory depression and addiction highlights the danger posed by mitragynine pseudoindoxyl and MGM-15. While mitragynine pseudoindoxyl and MGM-15 have already been identified in fatal toxicological screening, the pharmacological profile of MGM-16 presents a significant health risk. As previously mentioned, MGM-16 is an opioid agonist with approximately 240-times the antinociceptive potency of morphine in animal studies. Recent online surveillance of a vendor site  42 lists MGM-16 for upcoming sale. This transition from a research grade chemical to an accessible consumer product, combined with its opioid mechanism of action, underscores its potential as a highly attractive but lethal substitute. Thus, to schedule MGM-15 without MGM-16 would create a regulatory loophole that manufacturers are already poised to exploit. Its inclusion is necessary to prevent a market shift toward an even more potent derivative that poses a significant risk of respiratory depression.

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 mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, and MGM-16 pose an imminent hazard to public safety. DEA is not aware of any currently accepted medical uses for mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, and MGM-16 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 are those that 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 mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, and MGM-16 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.

As required by 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4), the Administrator notified the Assistant Secretary, via letter dated December 15, 2025 of DEA's intention to temporarily place mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, and MGM-16 in schedule I. In a letter dated January 20, 2026, the Assistant Secretary for Health had no objection to the temporary placement of these 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 mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, and MGM-16 in schedule I of the CSA, and finds that placement of these substances in schedule I of the CSA is necessary in order to avoid an imminent hazard to the public's safety.

The temporary placement of mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, and MGM-16 in schedule I of the CSA will take effect pursuant to a temporary scheduling order, which will not be issued before August 5, 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. 43 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, mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, and MGM-16 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. 44 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. 45 Temporary scheduling orders are not subject to judicial review. 46

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 schedule 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 of HHS, as delegated by the Secretary of HHS. 47

Inasmuch as section 811(h) directs that temporary scheduling actions be issued by order and sets forth the procedures by which such orders are to be issued, including the requirement of a publication in the Federal Register of a notice of intent, the notice-and-comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, do not apply to this notice of intent. The APA expressly differentiates between an order and a rule, 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. ”  48 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. 49 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, 50 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 the 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. 51 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:

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 7-hydroxymitragynine  2 above a specified threshold described herein, including its 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). The specified threshold for 7-hydroxymitragynine was adapted from the definition used by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), 3 which is described as follows:

(A) Any botanical material of the plant Mitragyna speciosa, also known as kratom, and contains more than 0.050 percentage of 7-hydroxymitragynine on a dry weight basis, or

(B) Any alternative article to that described in (A), that is:

i. Resulting from synthetic methods and containing 7-hydroxymitragynine present in amounts greater than 0.050 percentage by weight/weight, weight/volume, or volume/volume or greater than 1.00 milligram of 7-hydroxymitragynine in the article, or

ii. Material derived from Mitragyna speciosa and further processed to manufacture alternative dosage forms such as extracts, concentrates, processed edibles, or pressed pills, and which may have materials that have been exposed to chemical, thermal, or other methods leading to chemical transformations that result in 7-hydroxymitragynine present in amounts greater than 0.050 percentage by weight/weight, weight/volume, or volume/volume, or greater than 1.00 milligram of 7-hydroxymitragynine in the article.

The temporary scheduling order will be published in the Federal Register on or after August 5, 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. 4 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. 5

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 (FD&C Act), 21 U.S.C. 355. 6 The Attorney General has delegated scheduling authority under 21 U.S.C. 811 to the Administrator of DEA (Administrator). 7

The CSA requires the Administrator to notify the Secretary of HHS of this intent to issue a temporary scheduling order. 8 By letter dated February 24, 2026, the Administrator transmitted the required notice to place 7-hydroxymitragynine above a specified threshold in schedule I on a temporary basis to the Assistant Secretary for Health of HHS (Assistant Secretary). 9 By letter dated March 6, 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 (IND) or approved new drug applications (NDA) for these substances. The Assistant Secretary also stated that HHS had no objection to the temporary placement of this substance above the specified threshold in schedule I of the CSA.

To find that placing a substance temporarily 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. 10 This consideration includes any information indicating actual abuse, diversion from legitimate channels, and clandestine importation, manufacture, or distribution of 7-hydroxymitragynine above the specified threshold. 11

Substances meeting the statutory requirements for temporary scheduling may only be placed in schedule I. 12 Substances in schedule I have high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, 13 and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. 14

7-Hydroxymitragynine Above a Specified Threshold 7-Hydroxymitragynine is a psychoactive alkaloid found in Mitragyna speciosa ( M. speciosa ) plant, a tropical evergreen tree indigenous to Southeast Asia. While the use of the plant was once geographically limited, the use of M. speciosa has since extended to the United States and other global markets. Among the numerous alkaloids identified in M. speciosa, the indole alkaloids mitragynine (major) and 7-hydroxymitragynine (minor) are primarily responsible for the plant's psychoactive effects. In its natural botanical form, 7-hydroxymitragynine makes up less than two percent of the total alkaloid content or occurs in trace amount in M. speciosa. However, 7-hydroxymitragynine can be synthesized from mitragynine through a one-step chemical reaction, and it also exists as an active oxidized metabolite of mitragynine in vivo. Despite the different origins of 7-hydroxymitragynine, the chemical structures of synthetic and naturally occurring 7-hydroxymitragynine are identical. Consequently, the intrinsic pharmacological profile, receptor affinity, and mechanism of action of 7-hydroxymitragynine molecule remain unchanged regardless of its source. While consumers of raw plant matrix may experience a modified or attenuated physiological effect due to the competitive, co-occurring alkaloids inherent to M.speciosa, isolated or semi-synthetically derived formulations deliver unattenuated, high-potency effects of the target alkaloid directly, representing a distinct public safety profile when concentrated above the proposed threshold.

Recently, the United States has seen a proliferation of 7-hydroxymitragynine products. Evidence suggests that commercially available products, including extracts and synthetic formulations, contain a significantly higher concentration of 7-hydroxymitragynine than what is found in botanical M. speciosa. These products are commonly sold on the internet and in retail outlets, such as gas stations and smoke shops, in various forms, including powders, tablets, gummies, and sublingual films designed for rapid absorption. To date, the safety profile of these concentrated products in humans remains unknown because no controlled clinical trials have been conducted to establish safe consumption limits or standardized dosing.

7-Hydroxymitragynine has opioidergic activity, sharing a similar pharmacological profile to schedule II opioids like morphine. Preclinical data  15 indicates that 7-hydroxymitragynine carries a high abuse potential with safety risks, including tolerance, dependence, and respiratory depression, which are comparable to those of classic opioid analgesics. The United States has recently seen an emergence of products containing 7-hydroxymitragynine, which are often characterized by ambiguous dosages and misleading marketing, frequently being labeled as “natural M. speciosa extracts.” While sellers promote these products for their euphoric and opioidergic effects, evidence demonstrates they may also contain other opioid alkaloids, such as mitragynine pseudoindoxyl. These combinations, coupled with a lack of regulatory oversight, pose significant safety risk to unsuspecting consumers by exposing them to high doses of opioids. The absence of clinical evidence to support vendor health claims is deeply concerning. Consequently, 7-hydroxymitragynine products sold as unregulated dietary supplements pose significant health risks, as essential information regarding their purity, identity, quantity and long-term safety remain unknown.

7-Hydroxymitragynine does not meet the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) safety standard for dietary supplements, or dietary ingredients, and it has not been proven safe or effective for any drug use. FDA has issued warning letters to companies clarifying that 7-hydroxymitragyine is not an FDA-approved drug product and no food additive regulation has authorized the use of 7-hydroxymitragynine in food supply. Furthermore, FDA has warned consumers against using products labeled as 7-hydroxymitragynine, as they have not been proven safe or effective for any use. 16 Fatal overdoses involving 7-hydroxymitragynine have been reported, making its wide availability and unknown safety profile a significant threat to public health, which is particularly concerning in the midst of an opioid crisis. The availability of 7-hydroxymitragynine-containing substances in the United States' M. speciosa consumer market poses an imminent hazard to the public safety.

Available data and information for 7-hydroxymitragynine, summarized below, indicate that this substance has 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-1570.

7-Hydroxymitragynine is most commonly used in isolated form or as component of M. speciosa. Historically, M. speciosa has been used for a variety of purposes, including as an opium substitute and a treatment of various opioid withdrawal symptoms, such as pain, cough, anxiety, diarrhea, and intestinal difficulty. 17 While its use was once geographically limited, the marketing in the United States of 7-hydroxymitragynine products has been aggressive and often indistinguishable from the sale of M. speciosa. 18 In recent years, 7-hydroxymitragynine has been unlawfully marketed as a dietary supplement  19 or natural extract despite failing to meet FDA's safety standard for dietary supplements or dietary ingredients. Anecdotal information from users who post on social media indicates that many users are self-treating chronic pain with unregulated 7-hydroxymitragynine products. 20

7-Hydroxymitragynine products are readily obtained from smoke shops, gas stations, and online vendors in various forms, including tablets, liquid oral beverages (shots), capsules, powder, syrup, vapes, sublingual pouch/strips, nasal spray, chewable, and liquid extracts. These products are commonly sold with names such as “7 Ohmz,” “7-hydroxy,”, and “7-OH,” and they are presented in colorful packages. One investigation identified 250 products sold between September 2024 through February 2025, noting that chewable/sublingual tablets were the most common formulation. 21 These products were sold for general wellbeing and claims of increased focus. The investigation further highlighted the concerns regarding standardized dosing and cost. The concentration of 7-hydroxymitragynine products varied significantly, ranging from 1 mg to 700 mg in a single dose or serving. The average cost per dose across most products containing 7-hydroxymitragynine was about $3.97.

Anecdotal information synthesized from user-contributed reports and subsequently analyzed by clinical educators  22 between 2024 and early 2025 provide additional information on abuse patterns. Users consistently report transition from traditional kratom leaf to 7-hydroxymitragynine tablets ( e.g., 7OHMZ, Press'd, Hydroxie). 7-Hydroxymitragynine was described as “the cleanest and most euphoric high” that lacks “ceiling effect of nausea” of the plain leaf. A dominant theme is the short-lived nature of the 7-hydroxymitragynine high. Users report the urge to redose frequently.

The National Drug Early Warning System (NDEWS) conducted web monitoring on reddit mentions of kratom and its derivates. In the report, information provided by reddit discussants surrounding kratom and 7-hydroxymitragynine shows that users often compare 7-hydroxymitragynine effects to prescription opioids, like oxycodone and hydrocodone, with users expressing worry on how such potent products are legally available at smoke shops. Commenters mentioned the ease and convenience of buying products at gas stations and noted how this can be a concern for impulse use due to ease of accessibility. Further, discussions on full commercial retail package prices ranged from $15-40 per retail unit, 23 which is consistent with multi-dose presentation of these commercial formulations.

In summary, 7-hydroxymitragynine products are available in different forms and can be purchased easily via several avenues, predominantly via the internet. This is a shift from traditional botanical use to aggressive marketing of highly concentrated opioid products in the United States.

The abuse of 7-hydroxymitragynine is increasing and widespread. Given its pharmacological profile as an opioid agonist and high abuse potential, 24 the marketing of 7-hydroxymitragynine products to consumers as botanical supplements constitute a significant public health risk. 7-Hydroxymitragynine, a potent opioid, presents overdose risk and toxicity to users because its chemical manufacturing process is inconsistent and does not adhere to good manufacturing practices. This lack of oversight may lead to variation in doses and composition in final products. Further, 7-hydroxymitragynine is sold as sublingual pouch/tablet, a formulation known to deliver drugs rapidly into the systemic circulation. This rapid delivery, coupled with 7-hydroxymitragynine's known pharmacokinetic profile, contributes to its high potential for abuse. 25

7-hydroxymitragynine sellers make claims of its opioidergic effects. Evidence demonstrates that 7-hydroxymitragynine products have been identified to contain other opioid alkaloids, such as mitragynine pseudoindoxyl. 26 These combinations and practice pose significant safety risks to unsuspecting consumers by exposing them to high doses of opioids. The lack of evidence to support health claims made by vendors selling 7-hydroxymitragynine products is worrisome. Hence, 7-hydroxymitragynine products sold as dietary supplements pose significant health risks to users because information on their purity, identity, quantity and safety is unknown.

The number of seizures for 7-hydroxymitragynine as reported in law enforcement systems is currently limited, primarily because forensic chemists often prioritize the identification of mitragynine, the major alkaloid in M. speciosa, rather than extending analysis to the identification of minor alkaloids, such as 7-hydroxymitragynine. Furthermore, because 7-hydroxymitragynine is not federally controlled under the CSA, specific forensic identification may be limited. Consequently, some forensic laboratories may not place emphasis on analyzing or tracking the encounters of non-controlled substances, making it unlikely to be fully reported to forensic laboratories databases. Nonetheless, available data from the National Forensic Laboratory Information System (NFLIS) database  27 shows that, in 2025, there were 42 reports of 7-hydroxymitagynine from 12 states. This law enforcement data illustrates the widespread and increasing availability of products containing 7-hydroxymitragynine within the domestic kratom drug market.

Between June and July 2025, FDA issued seven warning letters  28 to marketers and distributors for the unlawful use of 7-hydroxymitragynine as a drug, dietary supplement, or added to conventional food. The warning letters explicitly stated that 7-hydroxymitragyine is not an FDA-approved drug product and that no food additive regulation has authorized the use of 7-hydroxymitragynine in food. FDA further classified 7-hydroxymitragynine as a “new dietary ingredient” under section 413(d) of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. 350b(d), because there is no evidence demonstrating it was marketed as a dietary ingredient in the United States before October 15, 1994. Additionally, some letters noted that, as a dietary supplement, 7-hydroxymitragynine is considered adulterated under section 402(f)(l)(B) of the FD&C Act,21 U.S.C. 342(f)(l)(B). This is because there is inadequate information providing reasonable assurance that the ingredient does not present a significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury. Of note was FDA's warning letter issued on June 25, 2025, to a company selling “7OHMZ 7-Hydroxymitragynine Gummies,”  29 in which FDA cautioned that such products may be appealing to children due to their packaging. Other warning letters targeted the illegal sale of unapproved 7-hydroxymitragynine products marketed for the treatment of pain, relaxation, mood enhancement, and other medical conditions. 30 Vendors utilized websites and social media pages to make unproven medical claims for 7-hydroxymitragynine, such as describing tablets as “expertly formulated to provide a potent dose” or promising “intense relaxation and a feeling of pure bliss.”

Due to concerns over its abuse, several states have regulated or banned the consumption of 7-hydroxymitragynine or M. speciosa. 31 Currently, nine states (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Ohio, Vermont, and Wisconsin) have prohibited 7-hydroxymitragynine consumption. Additionally, some states, such as Arizona, Colorado, South Carolina, and Texas, have set restrictions on the limits of 7-hydroxymitragynine (not to exceed a specified percent of total alkaloid content).

Furthermore, 19 states have enacted model legislation known as the “kratom consumer protection Act (KCPA),” which requires that M. speciosa, mitragynine, or 7-hydroxymitragynine be manufactured safely, labeled accurately, and distributed appropriately to protect consumer under a certain age. These states are Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia. Other states, like Illinois, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Tennessee, have bans in some localities. 32 Of note, the state of Mississippi has set the limit per weight basis to one percent of total alkaloid content of 7-hydroxymitragynine or 0.5 mg per container. DEA's intent to temporarily control 7-hydroxymitragynine above the specified threshold does not preempt more restrictive state law regarding the consumption of 7-hydroxymitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine-related products. 33

The significance of 7-hydroxymitragynine abuse is demonstrated by an increasing volume of calls to poison control centers. Reporting for 7-hydroxymitragynine was historically limited within the National Poison Data System (NPDS); however, specific data codes for this substance were recently implemented between February and May 2025. During the initial tracking period from February 2025 to April 2025, NPDS recorded a total of 53 case reports involving 7-hydroxymitragynine. Of these exposure calls, 37 cases involved single-substance exposure of 7-hydroxymitragynine alone, and 24 cases were classified as abuse involving other substances in combination with 7-hydroxymitragynine. Among the single-substance exposure calls, 16 cases were categorized as intentional abuse, while 13 calls involved moderate medical outcomes where the patients exhibited pronounced and prolonged systemic symptoms.

Expanded data from United States poison centers indicates a rapid escalation in reported incidents. 34 From January 1 through July 31, 2025, there were 165 exposure cases involving 7-hydroxymitragynine. Of those reporting exposures to 7-hydroxymitragynine alone, 35 percent of these cases resulted in serious health problems, and 67 percent of individuals were treated at a healthcare facility. Patients exposed to 7-hydroxymitragynine frequently exhibit a range of severe physiological and neurological symptoms, including: gastrointestinal (nausea and vomiting), neurological (agitation, confusion, loss of consciousness, and seizure), cardiovascular (sweating, tachycardia, and hypertension), and respiratory (difficulty breathing). According to HHS' review, users report several reasons for using 7-hydroxymitragynine, including the following:

Desired Effects: Euphoria and an opioid-like “buzz”/high as motivation for using 7-hydroxymitragynine.

Product Appeal: The availability of “candy-like” formulations of some 7-hydroxymitragynine tablets, which some users acknowledge as carrying health risk due to possibility of overconsumption.

Self-Treatment: Claim of 7-hydroxymitragynine therapeutic value in self-treating pain and anxiety.

Risk Awareness: There is an acknowledgement among users of products containing 7-hydroxymitragynine that these products can lead to addiction, withdrawal symptoms, overdose, and other serious health outcomes, including death.

In summary, the abuse of 7-hydroxymitragynine in the United States is fueled by its pharmacological similarities to opioid analgesics, a lack of regulatory controls, and the relative ease of obtaining 7-hydroxymitragynine products via smoke shops and the internet. 35 Furthermore, the consumption of 7-hydroxymitragynine alongside other mind-altering substances may exacerbate the potential acute and long-term hazards and risks to the user, especially drug dependence. FDA responded to the increase in sales of 7-hydroxymitragynine products and unsubstantiated medical claims by issuing warning letters to companies to protect public safety. Available information from published literatures and poison control centers suggests that 7-hydroxymitragynine is used by a diverse population for the self-treatment of various health conditions. The ingestion of 7-hydroxymitragynine, a potent opioid, alone or co-ingestion with other substances, commonly a CNS depressant, is of serious concern. The poison control center data and popularity of 7-hydroxymitragynine-products collectively underscores the severity and significance of abuse of 7-hydroxymitragynine in the United States.

7-hydroxymitragynine has opioidergic and addictive properties. Available preclinical data demonstrates that 7-hydroxymitragynine has an abuse potential similar to that of schedule I and II opioids, such as heroin, morphine, and fentanyl. 36 The abuse of 7-hydroxymitragynine presents severe risks to public health, including tolerance, dependence and addiction, respiratory depression, and death. Public health assessment is further complicated because 7-hydroxymitragynine is a known metabolite of mitragynine, making it difficult to distinguish between the ingestion of M. speciosa and other isolated 7-hydroxymitragynine products.

On August 11, 2025, DEA queried the FAERS public dashboard for 7-hydroxymitragynine and noted that there were 1 case count in 2023, 2 cases in 2024, and 11 cases as of June 30, 2025. Most of the cases involved drug dependence (n = 6) and withdrawal syndrome (n = 4). A recent query of the database on February 27, 2026, revealed an increase in cases involving 7-hydroxymitragynine. The total count for 2025 increased to 66 with 17 new cases already reported for 2026. Of the total 86 cases currently within the database, 79 cases were reported as serious, including death. To date, 9 cases within the FAERS database have resulted in death.

DEA TOX program, which investigates the presence of new psychoactive substances in biological samples from drug overdoses, has identified 7-hydroxymitragynine in 85 cases since 2019. 37 Of these, 55 were fatal and 30 were non-fatal cases. These cases involved both males and females with a median age of 36. The average concentration of 7-hydroxymitragynine detected in biological samples was 463.23 ng/mL. Samples often contained other related alkaloids (mitragynine and mitragynine pseudoindoxyl) or other drug classes, such as opioids ( e.g. fentanyl), benzodiazepines ( e.g. bromazolam), and ketamine. Between 2020 and 2025, there has been a significant increase in the positive identification of 7-hydroxymitragynine in fatal overdose cases.

In 2025, California, 38 Pennsylvania, 39 and Texas health authorities linked 7-hydroxymitragynine and concentrated extracts to several illness and overdose cases. 40 Other notable cases are summarized in the table below:

The Attorney General is responsible for enforcing the Gun Control Act (“GCA”), as amended, and the National Firearms Act (“NFA”), as amended. 1 This includes the authority to promulgate regulations necessary to enforce the provisions of the GCA and NFA. See 18 U.S.C. 926(a); 26 U.S.C. 7805(a). Congress and the Attorney General have delegated the responsibility for administering and enforcing the GCA and NFA to the Director of ATF (“Director”), subject to the direction of the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General. See 28 U.S.C. 599A(b)(1), (c)(1); 28 CFR 0.130(a)(1)-(2); Treas. Order No. 221(2)(a), (d), 37 FR 11696-97 (June 10, 1972). 2 Accordingly, the Department and ATF have promulgated regulations to implement the GCA in 27 CFR part 478, and to implement the NFA in part 479.

The NFA applies to machine guns; shotguns having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; rifles having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; weapons made from a rifle or shotgun with an overall length of less than 26 inches or with a barrel or barrels of less than 16 or 18 inches in length, respectively; silencers; destructive devices; and any other weapon as defined by the Act. 26 U.S.C. 5845(a). The GCA applies to firearms and destructive devices more broadly, in addition to specific subcategories of those weapons. See 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3)-(8).

Pursuant to the GCA at 18 U.S.C. 923(a), no person  3 may import, manufacture, or deal in firearms or ammunition without a license to do so from the Attorney General. The license application must include information the Attorney General prescribes by regulation, and by statute must include the applicant's photograph and fingerprints. Id. ATF implemented these requirements in regulations at 27 CFR 478.44(a). 4 Paragraph (a)(1) requires persons to submit ATF Form 5310.12, Application for Federal Firearms License (“Form 7”) to apply for GCA licenses, and paragraph (a)(1)(ii) contains the fingerprint and photograph requirement for all GCA applicants.

Because entities do not have personal photographs or fingerprints to submit, it is not immediately obvious that they are facially covered by the 18 U.S.C. 923(a) requirements. However, section 923(d)(1)(B) further states that a GCA application will be approved only if, among other requirements, the applicant “(including, in the case of [an entity], any individual possessing, directly or indirectly, the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of the [entity])” is not prohibited from possessing a firearm under sections 922(g) and (n). ATF refers to the directing individuals referenced in section 923(d)(1)(B) as “responsible persons” (“RPs”). 27 CFR 478.11. 5 Because of this statutory provision, ATF must collect identifying information on RPs for all firearms licensees, including entities, that is sufficient to determine that they are not prohibited persons.

As a result, ATF's licensing regulations require all GCA applicants to submit certain identifying information used for that purpose, including fingerprints and photographs. More specifically, the regulations require applicants to complete Form 7 in accordance with the instructions on the Form. 27 CFR 478.44(a)(1). Form 7 requires that each applicant complete part B, whether they are an individual applicant/RP or an RP for a more complex entity. Part B collects the identifying information necessary to conduct a background check to determine if the person is prohibited, and currently specifies that GCA individual applicants/RPs must submit a 2″ × 2″ photograph and one properly completed FBI Form FD-258, Fingerprint Card (“fingerprint card” or “fingerprints”).

Similarly, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 5822, an NFA firearm cannot be made unless the Attorney General approves the person to make and register the firearm and notes the approval on the application, and, per 26 U.S.C. 5812, an NFA firearm cannot be transferred without an application filed with and approved by the Attorney General. The Attorney General must deny such making and transfer applications if making, transferring, receiving, or possessing the NFA firearm would place the maker or transferee in violation of law. 26 U.S.C. 5812(a), 5822. The NFA requires that “individual” firearm makers and transferees include as part of these applications their fingerprints and photographs, in a manner prescribed by regulation. 6 Id. But the statute imposes no fingerprint or photograph requirements on trusts or other legal entities. See id. The statute also requires applicants to use an application “form” prescribed by the Attorney General and to include on that form all information required by the statute, in a manner prescribed by regulation. Id.

Regulations at 27 CFR 479.62 implement these statutory requirements for NFA firearm makers, and prescribe that applicants must submit ATF Form 5320.1, Application to Make and Register NFA Firearm (“Form 1”), to ATF for approval, and include the information required by statute. Likewise, regulations at § 479.84 (for tax-paid transfers) and §§ 479.90 and 479.90a (for tax-exempt transfers) implement these statutory requirements for NFA firearm transferors, and prescribe that transferors must submit ATF Form 5320.4, Application to Transfer and Register NFA Firearm (Tax-Paid) (“Form 4”), or ATF Form 5320.5, Application to Transfer and Register NFA Firearm (Tax-Exempt) (“Form 5”), to ATF for approval, and include the transferee information required by statute. The NFA regulations currently require individual makers or transferees to submit a 2″ × 2″ photograph and fingerprints when applying using Forms 1, 4, or 5; but NFA regulations require two properly completed fingerprint cards, whereas Form 7 for GCA license applicants requires just one. See §§ 479.63(a), 479.85(a), and 479.90(b).

If a maker or transferee applicant is an entity, however, as discussed above, they do not have personal photographs or fingerprints to submit. So, similarly to the Form 7, part B, requirements for GCA license applicants, the NFA regulations require that each of the entity's RPs submit all the required individual information on ATF Form 5320.23, National Firearms Act (NFA) Responsible Person Questionnaire (“Form 23”). 7 See §§ 479.63(b) and 479.85(b); see also 27 CFR 479.11 (defining “responsible person” along the same lines as the relevant GCA regulation). For these entity applicants, §§ 479.63(b) and 479.85(b) require the entity to identify itself on ATF Form 1, 4, or 5, and attach to the form a completed Form 23 for each RP. In completing the Form 23, each RP must include a 2″ × 2″ photograph and two properly completed fingerprint cards.

Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 5801 and 5802, importers, manufacturers, and dealers in NFA firearms must pay a special occupational tax (“SOT”) and register with the Attorney General. The registration provision, section 5802, requires that individuals include with their SOT registration a photograph and fingerprints. The regulations implementing this process are 27 CFR 479.31 and 479.34. Similarly to the previously discussed applications, ATF has prescribed that persons submit ATF Form 5630.7, the title of which is being revised to NFA Special Occupational Tax (SOT) Registration/Return (“Form 5630.7”), for this purpose. In addition, § 479.34(e) requires the taxpayer, if an individual, to submit a 2″ × 2″ photograph and one properly completed fingerprint card with their initial Form 5630.7, unless they have filed a properly executed GCA license application (which includes fingerprints and a photograph) as specified in § 478.44(a). As a result, only individuals registering to import, manufacture, or deal in NFA firearms as a business, and who are not already licensed under the GCA, must submit a photograph and fingerprints with Form 5630.7.

In 2016, ATF published a final rule, “Machineguns, Destructive Devices, and Certain Other Firearms: Background Checks for Responsible Persons of a Trust or Legal Entity with Respect to Making or Transferring a Firearm,” which, in relevant part, required background checks on NFA RPs and enacted the fingerprint requirements under §§ 479.63(b) and 479.85(b). 81 FR 2658 (Jan. 15, 2016). Commenters at that time questioned whether there was sufficient statutory authority for ATF to require fingerprints and photographs for such RPs because the NFA requires that only individual applicants must submit fingerprints and photographs. Id. at 2683. At the time, ATF disagreed with these commenters. The NFA provides broad authority for the Attorney General to require identifying information from any applicant to make or transfer an NFA firearm. See 26 U.S.C. 5812 and 5822. (Similarly, 18 U.S.C. 923 provides broad authority for the Attorney General to require identifying information from any license applicant under the GCA.) The final rule on the NFA making and transfer applications explained that requiring fingerprint cards and photographs was necessary to verify the identity of RPs associated with trusts and other legal entities. 81 FR at 2683.

Nine years after the 2016 final rule, ATF recognizes that, even if it has the statutory authority to require fingerprints and photographs from both NFA and GCA RPs and individual applicants, the current regulations on those topics largely no longer serve a useful purpose. In almost all cases, fingerprint cards are of little utility to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) when it conducts National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”) background checks on applicants to make, transfer, and register NFA firearms or to become GCA licensees. According to ATF and FBI subject matter experts, fingerprint cards have only been helpful (and used) for NICS purposes in processing fewer than 1 percent of these applications. Similarly, 2″ × 2″ passport-style photographs serve little specific utility as a means of verifying an NFA or GCA applicant's identity. A copy of the applicant's photo identification would better serve this verification purpose, and providing a photo identification copy is easier than obtaining a 2″ × 2″ photograph. Thus, requiring fingerprints and a 2″ × 2″ photograph to be submitted with every NFA application is needlessly burdensome on applicants, as is requiring a 2″ × 2″ photograph with every GCA application. Accordingly, ATF is proposing the following revisions.

For each making or transfer application under the NFA and license application under the GCA (except for collectors), ATF contacts NICS to conduct a background check and verify whether transferring, receiving, or possessing the firearm(s) would place the applicant in violation of the law. See 28 CFR 25.6(j)(2). FBI regulations require the following descriptors to query NICS: (1) name; (2) sex; (3) race; (4) complete date of birth; and (5) residence state. 28 CFR 25.7. Notably, none of these descriptors require a fingerprint. For NFA applications, fingerprints are primarily used to coordinate with the FBI to resolve criminal-history issues or other similar issues that can arise during background checks. For example, fingerprints are useful when an applicant's biographic information matches that of another individual. The FBI also references NFA fingerprints with respect to resolving identity questions in its NICS appeals process. See 28 CFR 25.10(b). The FBI uses fingerprints for the same purposes for GCA license applications, although ATF also has additional uses for fingerprints in the GCA licensing context (see discussion below) that it does not have for NFA maker and transferee applications.

ATF routinely collaborates with the FBI on streamlining and modernizing the firearms application process. For example, in January 2022, ATF agreed to send fingerprint cards to the FBI only when helpful to resolve issues arising during a NICS background check. As a result, ATF now generally submits fingerprint cards to the FBI only when the FBI needs additional information and therefore requests the cards from ATF. Based on ATF and FBI estimates, the FBI has used fingerprints to resolve questions about a person's criminal history in only a small portion of all cases. The first column of Table 1 shows the total number of NFA and GCA individual and RP applicants from 2022 to 2025 who submitted an individual Form 1 or Form 4 (including fingerprints) or an RP Form 23 (including fingerprints) with Forms 1 and 4 applications to make and transfer under the NFA, or who completed an individual Form 7 (including fingerprints) or an RP stand-alone Form 7, part B (including fingerprints) with applications for a GCA license. The second and third columns show the subsets of those NFA and GCA applicants, respectively, for whom NICS requested fingerprints. The fourth column is the sum of the second and third columns. Of all fingerprint cards provided to ATF with the NFA and GCA applications (column 1) between 2022 and 2025 (the years during which ATF has been submitting only requested fingerprint cards to NICS), NICS requested between 1.3 and 2.3 percent per year (column 5).

Because the FBI does not use fingerprints to process standard background checks in the ordinary course, ATF would, were it both legally possible and helpful to applicants, propose wholly eliminating the NFA and GCA regulations requiring applicants to submit fingerprints with Forms 1, 4, 5, 7, 23, and 5630.7 except as needed to resolve NICS background check issues or issues ATF needs to address for GCA license applicants. However, ATF cannot eliminate the requirement for individuals to submit fingerprints up front because fingerprints are currently statutorily required for individual applications under both the NFA and GCA. 26 U.S.C. 5802, 5812(a), and 5822(d). Even though collecting such fingerprints does not assist NICS in processing the background checks of over 97 percent of applicants, ATF cannot modify this statutory requirement by regulation. Moreover, with respect to GCA license applicants, in addition to submitting applicants' fingerprints to coordinate with the FBI to resolve issues that arise during NICS background checks, ATF also uses the fingerprints to respond to and resolve applicants' appeals from license denials. Collecting fingerprints from GCA applicants up front thus often benefits licensees.

Therefore, regarding NFA making and transferee applications, ATF is instead proposing to reduce the number of fingerprint cards individuals must submit with Forms 1, 4, and 5 from two cards to one (Form 5630.7 already requires only one card). In addition, ATF is proposing to word the regulatory requirement for individuals to submit fingerprints as a reference to the statutory requirement, so that if that requirement is removed from the statute in the future, the regulations will align. Further, ATF is proposing to eliminate the requirement that RPs for a trust or other legal entity applying to make or transfer an NFA firearm submit their fingerprints with Form 23. Instead, such persons would be required to submit fingerprint cards only upon request by ATF, if necessary to efficiently complete a background check.

Additionally, under this proposed rule, ATF would clarify that all persons required to submit fingerprints would be able to submit one digital fingerprint set if they apply electronically. Due to the advent of new technology, ATF has already shifted to accepting digital fingerprints, and a majority of the industry currently submits digital fingerprints with NFA applications. Finally, ATF proposes to remove language requiring that fingerprints be taken by someone specifically trained to take them because it is no longer applicable. Under this rule, individuals could take and submit their own fingerprints using FBI Form FD-258 or digital fingerprinting equipment, provided the fingerprints are clear enough to be accurately identified.

To effectuate the proposed changes discussed above, ATF is proposing a new stand-alone § 479.27. This would allow all the NFA fingerprint requirements to be in one place, with cross-references elsewhere as appropriate, and would avoid unnecessarily duplicating requirements in multiple places. The new § 479.27 would be added under subpart C, Administrative and Miscellaneous Provisions, to clarify that NFA applicants and SOT taxpayers must submit fingerprint cards (and photographs) only when the statute specifically requires or, when not required by statute, upon the request of the Director as needed to efficiently conduct certain background checks. The new section would also provide that, when required or requested, persons would submit only one set of fingerprints, whether digital or on a paper card. ATF also proposes conforming changes to 27 CFR 479.34(e), 479.63, and 479.85.

For GCA license applicants, as discussed above, ATF uses fingerprints to resolve appeals from license denials in addition to submitting the fingerprints to NICS. As a result, ATF is not proposing to make any changes to the current regulatory requirements for all GCA license applicants (including RPs) to submit one set of fingerprints with their initial applications. In addition, under the proposed rule ATF would continue its existing practice of not requiring GCA applicants to resubmit their fingerprints when they complete a renewal application or other document.

As noted in section II.A of this preamble, FBI regulations on NICS require the following descriptors to query NICS: (1) name; (2) sex; (3) race; (4) complete date of birth; and (5) residence state. 28 CFR 25.7. As with fingerprints, none of these descriptors require a photograph. Nevertheless, the photograph's utility is in verifying an individual's identity as part of GCA and NFA application processes.

Due to technological developments since ATF prescribed the 2″ × 2″ photograph requirements for GCA and NFA individuals and RPs, copies, scans, or similar reproductions of a photo identification document are now able to be just as clear and viable as original documents. As a result, ATF is proposing to include an option for applicants to submit a copy of a photo identification document to satisfy the statutory photograph requirements, in place of a stand-alone 2″ × 2″ passport-type photograph.

In many cases, making a copy, scan, etc., of a photo identification document is easier, faster, and less burdensome and costly than taking a passport-type photograph. It does not decrease public safety because, in addition to including a picture of the individual, the photo identification document helps confirm the individual's name and, usually, the individual's address. This information aids in verifying an individual's identity more than just a stand-alone 2″ × 2″ photograph. Photo identification documents also confirm the information submitted on the NFA and GCA applications. Furthermore, Congress already mandates that federal firearms licensees (“FFLs”) collect photo identification documents to verify identity as part of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act's background check process, so this would be consistent with that requirement as well. 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(1)(D).

For these reasons, and in an effort to reduce public burden while maintaining a process to verify an applicant's identity, ATF is proposing an alternative to the requirement that individuals submitting Forms 1, 4, 5, 7, or 5630.7; NFA RPs submitting Form 23; and GCA RPs submitting only Form 7, part B, must submit a 2″ × 2″ passport-type photograph. ATF proposes to allow all individual applicants and RPs to submit a clear electronic or physical copy (such as a photocopy, a scanned copy, a digital image, etc.) of a valid photo identification document, as defined in 27 CFR 478.11, instead of requiring only a 2″ × 2″ passport-type photograph (which will remain an option for those who prefer). However, under the proposed new rule, ATF would still be able to request a passport-type photograph if needed to efficiently verify identity or complete a background check.

To effectuate these proposed changes for NFA applicants, the proposed new § 479.27 would state that, when part 479 requires individuals or RPs to submit a photograph, they may attach either a copy of their photo identification document, as defined in 27 CFR 478.11, or a 2″ × 2″ photograph, as currently required. However, the new section would also clarify that, even if individuals submit a copy of their photo identification as permitted, the Director may nonetheless require a 2″ × 2″ photograph, as necessary. ATF also proposes conforming changes to 27 CFR 479.34(e), 479.63, and 479.85. 8

To effectuate this rule's proposed photograph changes for GCA applicants, ATF proposes to amend § 478.44(a)(1)(ii) to require individuals or RPs to submit a copy of their photo identification document, as defined in 27 CFR 478.11, or a 2″ × 2″ photograph, as currently required. This paragraph would also clarify that, even if individuals submit a copy of their photo identification as permitted, the Director may nonetheless require a 2″ × 2″ photograph, as necessary.

Table 2 shows the changes the rule proposes for each group's fingerprints and photograph requirements.

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) directs agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits.

Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of agencies quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting public flexibility.

The Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has determined that this rule would be a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, but that it is not a section 3(f)(1) significant action because it would not have an impact of $100 million or more in any one year. Accordingly, this rule has been submitted to OMB for review. This proposed rule would remove the requirement for entity RPs submitting Forms 1, 4, or 5 to submit fingerprints with their Forms 23 and would allow them to instead submit fingerprints only at ATF's request, if needed to complete a background check. It would also reduce the number of fingerprint cards individuals must submit with Forms 1, 4, and 5 from two cards to one (Form 5630.7 already requires only one card). In addition, it would allow individual applicants using Forms 1, 4, 5, 7, or 5630.7, and RPs using Forms 23 or Forms 7/stand-alone Forms 7, part B, the option of submitting a copy of a photo identification document instead of a 2″ × 2″ photograph.

Because this proposed rulemaking would be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, ATF has laid out the impacts of this proposed rulemaking in OMB's A-4 accounting statement in Table 3. Table 3 also illustrates the range of future estimates in a low, primary, and high range, as ATF's Circular A-4 sensitivity analysis. ATF then provides its normal regulatory cost-benefit analysis below the table.

ATF has been permitting NFA applicants to submit Forms 1, 4, and 5 electronically via its online eForms platform for several years, which has included accepting digital fingerprints and photographs as that technology has developed. As a result, this cost-benefit analysis incorporates those existing industry standards as part of its assumptions when determining costs and benefits. Because NFA applicants have been able to submit electronically through email and then eForms for several years, almost 100 percent of these applicants submit electronically. Analysts in the National Firearms Act Division estimate that only two percent of NFA applicants currently submit paper documents. As a result, for purposes of this analysis, ATF incorporates this existing industry practice: that 98 percent of NFA applicants are submitting digital documents electronically and two percent are submitting paper documents by mail.

Although ATF has also been permitting GCA applicants to submit Forms 7 electronically during the past few years via downloadable and fillable PDF forms submitted by email, accompanied by digital fingerprints and photographs, currently almost all GCA applicants submit paper documents by mail. However, ATF anticipates that, like NFA paper applications, GCA paper applications will decrease in the next few years, especially as ATF stops printing and distributing paper forms over the course of this year and moves GCA application forms to the eForms platform—which is more convenient than email submission. ATF has not been tracking the number of GCA applications submitted by email versus mail, but Federal Firearms Licensing Center analysts estimate that a very small percent of GCA applicants currently submit electronically. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, ATF uses the same two percent assumption for GCA electronic submissions that applies to NFA paper ones, as the best available proxy. As a result, for this analysis, ATF incorporates this existing industry practice: that 98 percent of GCA applicants are submitting paper documents by mail and two percent are submitting digital documents electronically.

This proposed rule is necessary to reduce burdens for persons applying to make or obtain an NFA firearm or to obtain an FFL license under the GCA. It also updates the regulations to incorporate methods of meeting the statutory requirements with current technology. This proposed rule would codify in ATF regulations the existing industry practice whereby applicants can submit digital fingerprints and photographs to ATF. Furthermore, as to NFA applications using Forms 1, 4, 5, and 23, this proposed rule would also reduce or, in the case of RPs, rescind, the fingerprint requirements, unless ATF subsequently requests prints because they are needed to facilitate a given background check. Finally, the proposed rule would provide all applicants the option to submit a copy of their photo identification instead of a passport-type photograph. Overall, this rule would lessen regulatory burdens and provide savings to the public without impacting public safety.

This proposed rule would result in benefits to the public in the form of cost savings because segments of the covered population would no longer need to obtain fingerprints or would obtain a reduced number, and segments of the population would no longer have to obtain photographs from vendors. NFA individual applicants and GCA individual/RP applicants who submit electronically would still obtain digital fingerprints and photographs as they do now, though they would have the additional convenience of submitting a digital copy of their photo identification instead. Individual NFA applicants who still submit paper applications would need to obtain only one fingerprint card instead of two, and would also have the option of submitting a copy of their photo identification instead of obtaining a photograph. NFA RPs, whether submitting electronically or on paper, would no longer have to submit fingerprints with their Forms 23 (although a subset might later need to submit fingerprints if ATF requests them so FBI can resolve a background check). Like GCA individuals/RPs, NFA RPs would also have the convenience of submitting a copy of their photo identification instead of obtaining a photograph, but only those applicants who submit paper documents would accrue a cost savings from this change.

To determine the population segments that would be affected by this proposed rule's provisions over the next ten years, ATF used data on the number of applications submitted historically by individuals and RPs under both the NFA and GCA to establish a baseline annual average growth rate for each group. ATF then used forecasting software to apply that annual average growth rate to future years, resulting in the projected number of future applications.

For purposes of determining savings for NFA applicants, ATF used data on the number of NFA applications submitted over eight years, from 2017 to 2025. Table 4 shows the historical data on the size of the NFA applicant pool.

In Table 5, ATF forecasts the annual number of NFA applications that individuals (Forms 1, 4, 5, and 5630.7) and RPs (Forms 23) would collectively submit over the next ten years. In addition, the table breaks out the number of individuals and RPs who would submit NFA applications in paper form and the number of NFA RPs who would submit documents electronically. We have not included a column for the number of NFA individual applicants who would submit electronically as they would not be impacted by the changes proposed in this rule. As noted above, approximately two percent of individuals and RPs currently still submit paper NFA applications. Table 5 uses this estimated percentage and the number of NFA individual and RP applications from Table 4 to calculate the annual number of paper and electronic applications for the relevant applicant categories.

For the number of GCA applicants, ATF also used historical data from 2017 to 2025. ATF did not break out individual GCA applicants from other GCA RP applicants as it did for NFA applicants in Tables 4 and 5, because both GCA individuals and other RPs would realize the same benefits from this proposed rule. Table 6 shows the historical GCA data.

In Table 7, ATF forecasts the total annual number of GCA license applications (Forms 7 and attached Forms 7, part B, collectively) that individuals and other RPs would submit over the next ten years. In addition, the table breaks out the number of individuals/RPs who would submit GCA applications on paper. As noted above, ATF is using a proxy of two percent of individuals/RPs to estimate the number who currently submit GCA applications electronically. However, based on ATF's experience with permitting email submissions, we anticipate a moderate growth rate for emailed GCA applications during the first two years and thus, a corresponding decrease in paper submissions: we estimate in year one, 98 percent of applicants will submit paper documents; and in year two, 88 percent. Further, based on our experience with NFA forms that previously were made available on the eForms platform, ATF also anticipates that, once the GCA forms are on eForms (one to two years from now, so we use two years to be conservative), there will be a more significant growth rate for electronically submitted GCA applications during the following two years, and thus, a corresponding decrease in paper submissions. Specifically, we estimate in year three, 50 percent of applicants will submit paper documents; and in year four onward, 2 percent. Table 7 uses the number of GCA individual/RP applications from Table 6 to forecast the annual future number of paper GCA individual/RP applications.

ATF is proposing to reduce the number of fingerprint cards NFA individual applicants must submit with Forms 1, 4, and 5 from two cards to one (Form 5630.7 submissions, like GCA individual and RP applications, already require only one card, so this change would not affect these applicants). Under the proposed rule, individual NFA applicants would still have to submit fingerprints with their application, but only one set. Because those who submit electronically already obtain and submit just one set of fingerprints, they would not accrue savings from this change. While the majority of NFA individual applicants submit their forms electronically, approximately two percent continue to submit via paper. As a result, that two percent would be affected by this proposed change. ATF estimates that the cost to obtain two sets of paper fingerprints is $50. 9 By reducing the number of paper cards NFA individual applicants who submit by mail would have to obtain, the proposed rule would reduce their fingerprint cost from $50 to $32, 10 resulting in a per-application savings of $18 for this two percent of applicants.

ATF is also proposing to eliminate the requirement for NFA RPs to submit fingerprints with their applications. Currently, NFA RP applicants are required to submit two sets of fingerprints with their Forms 23, although 98 percent of them submit digital fingerprints and thus submit just one digital set. Digital fingerprints cost $73 on average. 11 For the remaining two percent of NFA RPs, the cost of obtaining two sets of paper fingerprints is $50. As NFA RPs would no longer have to submit fingerprints with their Forms 23, 12 the proposed change would result in savings to RPs of up to $50 or $73 in capital costs per application, depending on whether they submit by mail or electronically. In addition, NFA RPs would save the time involved in obtaining fingerprints. However, a small number of NFA RPs would still need to submit a fingerprint set later, as requested by ATF, to coordinate with the FBI on resolving criminal history-related issues that can arise, for example, when an NFA applicant's biographic information matches that of another individual (see section 3, Savings offset, below for details). 13

ATF is also proposing that NFA and GCA individual and RP applicants would no longer have to submit 2″ × 2″ photographs with their applications. They would instead have a new option to submit a scan or copy of their photo identification document. Applicants who already submit electronically would not accrue a cost savings from this option, as they are already able to submit a self-generated digital photo instead of obtaining one by another means, but the proposed rule would provide them the convenience of scanning their photo ID if they preferred. Applicants who submit paper documents would save the cost of obtaining a paper photograph and the time spent doing so.

ATF estimates the average cost to obtain one photograph at up to $17. 14 Therefore, NFA and GCA individual and RP applicants who submit paper photographs could realize a capital savings of $17 per application if they choose to copy their photo identification instead.

In addition to the costs of fingerprints, NFA RPs also incur a time cost to acquire fingerprints. NFA RPs acquiring fingerprints would likely be performing such actions during their leisure time because, if they are applying to make or purchase a firearm, it is most likely for personal use or as part of a personal trust, rather than as part of a business transaction. Therefore, ATF has estimated a leisure wage rate for NFA applicants in this proposed rule.

ATF estimated the leisure wage based on methodology from the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), updated to account for the latest available data. 15 The HHS methodology is to first obtain the median U.S. non-leisure weekly wage from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (“BLS”) and divide it by 40 hours to derive the median hourly non-leisure wage. Step two is to obtain the average U.S. real household income before taxes and after taxes from the Census Bureau and divide the post-tax income by the pre-tax income to determine the net household income rate. Step three applies the net income rate to the median non-leisure hourly rate derived in step one, to calculate the hourly leisure wage. Table 8 shows the steps and data ATF used under this methodology to determine an updated leisure wage.

Based on the methodology outlined by HHS, the estimated leisure wage is $26, which ATF used to calculate the hourly savings for NFA applicants. This leisure wage—the opportunity cost of leisure, meaning the time spent engaging in activities that could otherwise be spent earning income—is the product of multiplying the median hourly wage of $30.35 by the 0.86 net household income rate to derive the after tax median hourly wage ($26.10, rounded to $26). For NFA applicants, ATF used this hourly leisure wage rate to calculate the monetized time savings for all NFA RPs who would no longer obtain fingerprints and to calculate the monetized time savings for NFA individuals and RPs submitting paper applications who would no longer obtain paper photographs.

For GCA license applicants, who would be applying as part of their firearms business activities, ATF used the BLS hourly wage for a facilities manager of $53.42 per hour as an analogue for the hourly wage of an FFL manager. 16 To account for fringe employment benefits such as insurance, ATF determined an average load rate based on BLS's calculated national hourly compensation (salaries/wages plus paid benefits) for all private-sector occupations (an average of $44.20 for 2024)  17 divided by the national average hourly wages and salaries without benefits (an average of $31.10 for 2024), 18 making a load rate of 1.42. 19 ATF then applied this load rate to the estimated hourly wage rate for an FFL manager to calculate their total compensation. Multiplying BLS's estimated hourly wage rate equivalent for an FFL manager ($53.42) by the load rate of 1.42, ATF estimated that an FFL would save $75.86, rounded to $76, in loaded monetized time per hour under this rule.

The Attorney General is responsible for enforcing the National Firearms Act (“NFA”), as amended, 26 U.S.C. chapter 53. 1 Congress and the Attorney General have delegated the responsibility for administering and enforcing the NFA to the Director of ATF (“Director”), subject to the direction of the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General. See 28 U.S.C. 599A(b)(1), (c)(1); 28 CFR 0.130(a)(1)-(2); Treas. Order No. 221(2)(a), (d), 37 FR 11696-97 (June 10, 1972). 2 Accordingly, the Department and ATF have promulgated regulations to implement the NFA in 27 CFR part 479.

The NFA, at 26 U.S.C. 5845(a), defines “firearm” to include machine guns, a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length, a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length, certain weapons made from a rifle, certain weapons made from a shotgun, silencers, destructive devices, and any other weapon as defined in 26 U.S.C. 5845(e) (“NFA firearm”). Section 5841(b) mandates that each manufacturer, importer, and maker must register each NFA firearm they manufacture, import, or make in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (“NFRTR”), unless, as specified in section 5841(a), the United States Government (“USG”) possesses or controls the NFA firearm, in which case it is exempt from NFA registration requirements.

A person engaged in the business of manufacturing or importing NFA firearms must pay a special (occupational) tax (“SOT”) under the NFA. 26 U.S.C. 5801. A federal firearms licensee who pays a manufacturing SOT or an importing SOT is then qualified to manufacture or import NFA-regulated firearms (sometimes referred to as a “qualified manufacturer” or “qualified importer”).

The NFA defines a “manufacturer” as a person who engages in the business of manufacturing NFA firearms. 26 U.S.C. 5845(m). Section 5841(c) further requires that manufacturers notify the Attorney General in such manner as regulations prescribe that they have manufactured an NFA firearm, and that doing so serves to register the firearms in the NFRTR. Implementing regulations at 27 CFR 479.103 provide that manufacturers must register NFA firearms on ATF Form 5320.2, Notice of Manufactured or Imported NFA Firearms (“Form 2”), no later than the close of the next business day after they manufacture the firearm.

However, 26 U.S.C. 5851(a) includes an exemption from the special (occupational) tax for manufacturers exclusively doing business with the USG, and 27 CFR 479.33(a) incorporates and mirrors the statutory exemption. The exemption excuses any persons from paying the SOT if they establish that they conduct business exclusively with, or on behalf of, the USG. Paragraph (b) in both the statute and regulation requires persons who wish to be exempt from paying the SOT to submit an application to the Director.

In addition, section 5851(a) and § 479.33(a) authorize the Director to relieve persons manufacturing firearms for or on behalf of the USG from complying with any NFA regulatory provision with respect to conducting business involving those USG firearms, whether they do business exclusively with the USG or not. This portion of the provision does not create an exemption, but permits the Director to grant relief and, unlike the exemption, applies only to manufacturers and does not require that they do business exclusively with the USG. The Director has long applied this authority to relieve qualified manufacturers from registering firearms manufactured for or pursuant to a contract with the USG. In other words, under this grant of relief, manufacturers who manufacture NFA firearms pursuant to a contract with the USG do not have to provide notice to ATF on Form 2 or register such firearms in the NFRTR. The Director has granted this relief, but it has not been included in the regulations.

ATF is proposing first to reorganize § 479.33 so that the SOT exemption and the Director's authority to grant relief are separated, for better clarity. In addition, ATF is proposing to amend § 479.103 to articulate the Director's existing grant of relief to manufacturers doing business with the USG from registering firearms they manufacture for, or on behalf of, the USG. In conjunction with this, ATF is also proposing to add to § 479.103 a provision allowing manufacturers to register such firearms later, if they fall out of USG contract.

In addition, ATF is proposing minor technical plain writing edits and updates to form numbers and titles in §§ 479.33 and 479.103.

ATF is proposing to reorganize § 479.33 by moving the second sentence of § 479.33(a)—which states the Director's authority to grant relief—into a stand-alone paragraph separate from the SOT exemption (also in § 479.33(a)).

The SOT exemption for licensees who conduct business exclusively with the USG applies to any licensee who is required to pay a SOT, not just manufacturers, and would remain at § 479.33(a). This regulatory exemption arises from the exemption in 26 U.S.C. 5851(a), which also provides a SOT exemption for any person required to pay a SOT who conducts business exclusively with the USG. The current paragraph (b) in the implementing regulation, which describes the requirements for this exemption, would remain paragraph (b).

The second sentence of the current paragraph (a), the Director's authority to grant relief, would move to a new paragraph (c) to better clarify that it is not applicable only to those who conduct business exclusively with the USG but is applicable to manufacturers, though only with respect to firearms manufactured for or on the USG's behalf. The Director's regulatory authority to grant relief from other NFA requirements under what would now be § 479.33(c) mirrors the provision in 26 U.S.C. 5851(a) that allows the Director to grant relief to any person who manufactures NFA firearms for, or on behalf of, the USG from NFA requirements with regard to those items.

ATF is also proposing to add a new paragraph (d) that would parallel the existing paragraph (b) by providing the process a manufacturer would need to follow to request any specific relief they would like the Director to grant from an NFA requirement. The current paragraph (b) has been confusing by mixing elements applicable to both the exemption and the relief authority, so having one application requirements paragraph for each would be clearer. Like paragraph (b), new paragraph (d) would require the request to be in letter form and to contain the manner in which the manufacturer conducts business with the USG, the types of firearms involved in the request, and the nature and specifics of the USG contract(s) under which the manufacturer is requesting relief from a requirement. In addition, paragraph (d) would also require manufacturers to include the relief they are requesting and the reasons they are requesting relief, since this paragraph covers requests for relief.

The Director has previously granted manufacturers relief from registering firearms they manufacture for the USG, as discussed above (though not currently included in regulation), and—as one of the terms of that grant—has been requiring manufacturers to submit their request in a letter so that ATF can verify the manufacturers are contracting with the USG and then, during inspections, can easily determine that they are relieved from the registration requirement with regard to firearms they manufactured for the USG. Therefore, ATF is also proposing to retain that requirement in this rule. However, ATF proposes including it in § 479.103 with the grant provision relieving manufacturers from registering so that all the terms of the relief are located in one place. The proposed revisions to § 479.103 are discussed in more detail in the next section.

ATF is proposing to amend § 479.103 to clarify that the Director has granted relief under 26 U.S.C. 5851(a) and the new 27 CFR 479.33(c) to manufacturers from the requirement to register NFA firearms that they manufacture for, or on behalf of, the USG. ATF is proposing to include this clarification specifically in its regulations as a new paragraph (b) under § 479.103, which governs registering manufactured NFA firearms. In addition, ATF is proposing to include in this new paragraph (b) both the existing requirement that manufacturers submit a letter to ATF to request the relief and a new grant of relief from the registration timing requirements. This new provision granting relief from timing requirements would permit such manufacturers to register, after the standard registration window, rejected, residual, or repurposed (collectively, “rejected”) USG firearms not previously registered when they were part of a contract with the USG ( e.g., a contract with the Department of Defense).

Licensees who conduct business solely with the USG do not have to pay the SOT because the statute explicitly carves out this exemption. But licensees who also conduct business with others do still pay the SOT because those other business activities remain taxable. And the Director can grant relief from other NFA requirements to licensees conducting business with the USG, relevant to that portion of their business, pursuant to the last sentence of 26 U.S.C. 5851(a). 3

The Director's authority to grant relief from NFA requirements, even though it does not explicitly discuss granting relief to manufacturers from registering NFA firearms they manufacture for the USG, has been consistently interpreted and applied as including authority to grant registration relief. ATF has been offering this registration relief to manufacturers for many years although it has not been in the regulations. However, people new to the industry are often confused by this, and ATF considers it better to make the registration relief more explicit.

Therefore, ATF also proposes to amend its regulations at § 479.103 to reflect the Director's grant of relief for manufacturers from the NFA registration requirement under what would become § 479.33(c). ATF has already been granting this relief, and it should be included in the regulations along with its existing requirement that manufacturers who wish to make use of this relief must submit a request letter to ATF that sets out the manner in which the manufacturers conduct business, the types of firearms they manufacture, and proof satisfactory to the Director of the USG contract under which they operate.

In addition, ATF proposes to add to the proposed new § 479.103(b) a new grant of relief, providing a mechanism for manufacturers approved for registration relief to subsequently register NFA firearms they manufactured under a USG contract but that have since fallen out of contract. 4 Without a mechanism to register the firearms once they are no longer covered by the USG contract, the firearms must be destroyed or exported.

Manufacturers have requested permission to register such firearms “late”— i.e., after they fall out of USG contract. For example, ATF has been presented with scenarios where a Type 10 SOT licensee, a Manufacturer of Destructive Devices, Ammunition for Destructive Devices, or Armor Piercing Ammunition, sells destructive device munitions to the USG, but the munitions fall out of contract. Reasons might include that the USG rejected the items or directed the licensee to redirect the items to a commercial customer, or that the firearms are residual munitions manufactured for testing and research or development pursuant to a USG contract. While these munitions still maintain commercial value, they currently cannot be registered in the NFRTR and resold by the manufacturer. There is no regulatory mechanism to register NFA firearms manufactured for the USG that have fallen out of USG contract, so manufacturers must destroy or export such items, which can be extremely costly and burdensome. In the past, however, ATF has issued variances pursuant to the Director's authority to grant relief under what would now become § 479.33(c). These variances have provided relief from the regulatory requirement at § 479.103 that firearms be registered by the close of the next business day after manufacture, and they have allowed such firearms to be registered “late.”

Because the firearms were originally procured for the USG under contract, the proposed change to § 479.103 would allow otherwise eligible manufacturers who were initially exempt from registering those NFA firearms to subsequently register them if they fall out of USG contract. This relief from the standard registration period would be codified in the proposed new § 479.103(b) after the new provision explicitly granting manufacturers relief from registering firearms manufactured for the USG. ATF is proposing to permit manufacturers to register rejected USG firearms within 15 days after the date on which the items fall out of USG contract. ATF has decided to provide 15 days because these items usually fall out of contract in large batches without much, if any, notice, and it takes time to mark and register them all. A similar timeframe exists in ATF regulations for imported items, 5 which are often imported in lots or batches, as well, and industry has found it to be sufficient time, while ATF has found it to not be an excessive delay in terms of firearms accountability and public safety. The proposed 15-day late registration window thus comports with existing regulatory provisions. As an example, if a licensee manufactured thousands of unmarked firearms for the US military and that contract fell through, the manufacturer—under the standard registration period in the current regulations—would be required to have every firearm marked and registered by the end of the next business day. That would be an unreasonable timeframe. A licensee manufacturing non-USG NFA firearms knows how many it can mark and run off the line in a day, so the licensee can plan its manufacturing accordingly. If an entire lot falls out of contract, the manufacturer would have a difficult time marking the entire lot in a day.

Although this provision would grant manufacturers relief from registering NFA firearms they manufacture for the USG, and would permit them to later register any such firearms that fall out of government contract, other NFA and GCA requirements would remain in effect. For example, the record-keeping and marking requirements of the GCA would remain applicable. See, e.g., 27 CFR 478.92. Although many USG contracts specify the required markings, some specify other markings that are not the same as those in ATF regulations. Licensees may apply for a marking variance for NFA firearms under § 479.102 or rely on ATF Ruling 2016-5, if applicable. 6 However, if those NFA firearms later fall out of USG contract, the licensees must comply with the regulatory marking requirements and apply those markings to the fallen firearms. Additionally, explosives regulations under 27 CFR part 555 would remain applicable.

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) directs agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits.

Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of agencies quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting public flexibility.

The Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has determined that this proposed rule is a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 because this rule is expected to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more in any given year. As discussed above, this proposed rule would reduce the regulatory restrictions on NFA firearm manufacturers. The rule would allow manufacturers who do not register NFA firearms because they are part of a contract with the USG a period of time in which to register any such firearms that then fall out of government contract, which they would otherwise have to destroy or export.

ATF notes that the cost-benefit analysis in this rule for the impact of permitting late registration focuses on manufacturers of destructive devices. Manufacturers have already been incurring the costs of dealing with unregistered firearms that fall out of USG contract and would thus be impacted on that front if this rule is finalized as proposed. ATF has occasionally permitted manufacturers, who are already eligible for what would become the § 479.33(c) exemption through variances, to register NFA firearms that fall out of USG contracts, but this most often occurs for manufacturers of firearms other than destructive devices. Manufacturers of destructive devices primarily have to destroy any destructive device that falls out of USG contract. ATF lacks data on manufacturers of NFA firearms (other than destructive devices) who would be affected by this proposed rule; ATF has data on manufacturers of destructive devices because some of these manufacturers provided data to support requests that ATF provide this registration option. As a result, ATF focuses this analysis on the group for which it has data as a representative example of manufacturer impacts from the late registration portion of this rule, and requests comments on the savings manufacturers of other types of NFA firearms would realize from the late registration option. ATF requests the following information on current expenses for NFA firearm manufacturers with respect to NFA firearms that fall out of USG contracts:

1. Are you currently able to refurnish or resell NFA firearms (other than destructive devices) that fall out of a USG contract?

2. How often do you, as an NFA manufacturer, or NFA manufacturers collectively, have such NFA firearms that fall out of a USG contract in a given year?

3. How much does it cost to destroy such NFA firearms that fall out of a USG contract?

4. How often do you have to destroy NFA firearms that fall out of a USG contract as opposed to exporting them to another country?

5. How often can you export NFA firearms that fall out of a USG contract rather than destroy them?

6. If you export NFA firearms, how much profit could you recoup?

7. How much could you, or manufacturers collectively, profit if you were able to repurpose or resell items that fall out of a USG contract domestically instead of exporting and reselling them?

Because this proposed rulemaking would be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, ATF has laid out the impacts of this proposed rulemaking in OMB's A-4 accounting statement in Table 1. Table 1 also illustrates the range of future estimates in a low, primary, and high range as ATF's Circular A-4 sensitivity analysis. ATF then provides its normal regulatory cost-benefit analysis to comply with Executive Orders 12866 and 13563.

Currently, although manufacturers do not have to register NFA firearms they manufacture for the USG by the close of the next business day after they manufacture the items, they only have the option to later register any such items that fall out of USG contract by variance, and as a result often must destroy or export them, which presents a potential loss of revenue and costs. Manufacturers, particularly those of destructive devices, have requested from ATF the opportunity to register such “rejected USG firearms” after they fall out of contract to avoid those costs and lost revenue.

As discussed in section II of this preamble, ATF believes that there is no impediment to converting the existing variance option for manufacturers into the regulation, thereby making the registration relief clearer for licensees. In addition, ATF agrees with licensees that permitting manufacturers to register USG NFA firearms late if they fall out of contract would be beneficial to industry and would not present a public safety risk. It simply permits registering these particular firearms, which were specially exempt under the NFA because they were for the USG, at a later time in the NFRTR. The firearms are subject thereafter to all the requirements for registered NFA firearms, just like other NFA firearms that were registered when first manufactured. Historically, as reflected in ATF crime gun data, registered NFA firearms are not commonly used to commit crimes. Therefore, ATF does not consider it a risk to the public if more registered devices move in commerce, particularly as most NFA firearms and destructive devices manufactured for the USG would not be eligible to enter the non-government market.

Manufacturers of NFA firearms would receive benefits from this rule that include no longer incurring costs to destroy firearms that fall out of USG contract, and income from selling such items. To the extent that manufacturers of NFA firearms are currently able to export these firearms instead of destroying them, benefits stemming from this rule would be decreased by the amount of any profits manufacturers currently make from exporting and reselling. ATF has no data on whether manufacturers in this situation currently export firearms that have fallen out of USG contract, to what extent the rejected firearms consist of firearms permitted for export, how frequently this occurs, whether the manufacturers are able to make a profit beyond their exporting costs, or whether the net return is more than the costs for destroying these firearms. ATF therefore requests public comments on these topics and does not include exporting in this analysis.

However, as discussed in the beginning of section III.A of this preamble, ATF also does not have data on the frequency with which manufactured NFA firearms of all types fall out of contract in a year or the costs for disposing of them; we have received such data for only some manufacturers of destructive devices. As a result, this portion of the analysis focuses on manufacturers of destructive devices to illustrate the benefits that would accrue from this rule—which could also accrue to manufacturers of other NFA firearms in an unknown amount.

As discussed throughout this rule, manufacturers who manufacture destructive devices (one type of NFA firearm) for USG contracts may have some that fall out of contract—in other words, the items end up not being sold or used within the contract for various reasons. The regulations require that NFA firearms, including destructive devices, be registered in the NFRTR by the close of the next business day after they are manufactured. The regulations do not include a provision for registering these formerly excepted devices if they fall out of USG contract later than close of the next business day after they were manufactured. As a result, manufacturers of destructive devices for the USG that then fall out of contract cannot subsequently sell those destructive devices within the United States; they must destroy them. However, this proposed rule would relieve manufacturers from the requirement to register such firearms by close of the next business day. Instead, the proposed rule would allow these manufacturers to register such destructive devices within 15 days after they fall out of USG contract, thereby enabling the manufacturers to lawfully retain them for possible sale to another customer. This proposed rule would allow these manufacturers to make a profit on already made destructive devices, rather than dismantle or destroy them at a loss, or export them at additional cost (and sell them) if they are of a type that may lawfully be exported pursuant to Department of State or Department of Commerce authorization.

To determine the number of these manufacturers that would accrue benefits from registering destructive devices that fall out of USG contract, ATF estimated the total active number of licensed manufacturers of destructive devices to establish a baseline population.

Based on ATF licensing information, there are 384 FFLs licensed to manufacture destructive devices. ATF does not have data on how many of these FFLs conduct business with the USG or how many have devices fall out of contract each year. However, the vast majority of destructive devices are manufactured for the USG. Although 100 percent of this population might not be impacted by this proposed change or have devices fall out of contract, it is the best available data for this purpose.

Based on information provided by a few industry members who manufacture destructive devices, destructive devices may fall out of contract between one and five times per year. There are two main methods of disposing of a destructive device: dismantling or destroying. A licensee can either dismantle the destructive device and reuse the viable pieces in new devices, or it can ship the device to be destroyed at another site. While these two methods differ in cost, ATF does not have a break-down of costs by method. But the licensees provided estimates of their disposal costs per occurrence (which are typically for lots or batches of devices at one time). The costs ranged from $330 for a small contract to $1.2 million for a large contract. So, combining the frequency range and cost range provided, a licensee could incur from $330 to $6 million per year in disposal costs for destructive devices that fall out of USG contract, depending on how often it occurs for that licensee and the size of the affected contract(s). 7

To estimate the annual disposal costs, ATF averaged the frequency estimates provided by the industry members, resulting in an average of twice per year that a manufacturer would have destructive devices fall out of contract (in lots or batches). ATF then averaged the cost estimates provided by these industry members over the average number of times firearms fall out of contract in a given year. 8 From this, ATF estimates an average annual disposal cost of $566,777 per year, per manufacturer, for purposes of this illustrative example. Multiplying this number by the number of destructive device manufacturers (384), ATF estimates that this proposed rule could result in $217.6 million annually in savings on disposal costs. 9

In addition to savings from disposal costs, these licensees would also be able to sell these destructive devices, primarily to another government entity. Depending on the type of contract the licensee had with the USG for the affected destructive devices, this might result in additional revenue (such as cases in which the USG paid for the devices and then did not take them) or could represent cost recoupment (such as cases in which the licensee manufactured more than the USG ended up needing in a task-order type of contract). ATF has no information on how often each type of situation might arise. However, based on estimates provided by the industry respondents, income (whether revenue or recoupment) from selling destructive devices that fall out of USG contract could range from $23,800 to $3.75 million annually, which, when calculating a weighted average using all the data points within that range, results in an estimated $ 1.6 million (rounded)  10 in income per year, per manufacturer. This would be a benefit from this proposed rule in addition to the disposal savings. Manufacturers of destructive devices would thus collectively accrue an estimated annual profit from selling these destructive devices of $611.3 million annually. 11 Combined with the $217.6 million annually in savings on disposal costs, this proposed rule would have an effect of $828.9 million in savings and profit just for manufacturers of destructive devices. 12 Overall, these savings and profit would be offset by the unknown amount of any profit manufacturers currently make from exporting these items rather than selling them under this proposed rule to the domestic market.

Although ATF does not have equivalent data for manufacturers of NFA firearms (other than destructive devices) for the USG, ATF believes they would also experience savings from no longer incurring disposal costs and would also earn additional income from being able to sell firearms that have fallen out of USG contract. Because of the specialized nature of destructive devices, it is likely that the disposal costs for other NFA firearms would differ from those for destructive devices. Likewise, because the secondary market for other firearms might be broader than the one for destructive devices, it is possible that income from reselling other NFA firearms might also differ for this population. ATF is not able to determine this factor and is requesting public comments on this proposed rule's impact for manufacturers of NFA firearms (other than destructive devices).

Manufacturers of NFA firearms for the USG would accrue savings from no longer incurring costs to destroy such firearms that fall out of USG contract (less profits from exporting abroad), and would increase income from selling such items. However, manufacturers would need to submit Form 2 to register any NFA firearms that fall out of government contract that they intend to retain or resell, which would give rise to a savings offset from this proposed rule in the form of monetized time burden.

To register manufactured NFA firearms, licensees must file Form 2 with ATF, listing the firearms, along with other information about them. In this case, manufacturers would submit Form 2 listing the NFA firearms they manufactured for the USG that have fallen out of the USG contract. There are no fees or other costs associated with licensees registering NFA firearms they manufactured.

The estimated hourly burden to complete Form 2 is 45 minutes (0.75 hours). Because ATF does not maintain a point of contact for representatives completing Form 2, for the purposes of this analysis, ATF estimates that a production, planning, and expediting clerk might complete and submit Form 2. 13 The Bureau of Labor Statistics (“BLS”) estimates such a clerk's salary at $27.70 per hour. 14 To account for fringe employment benefits paid by the employer, such as insurance, agencies multiply the estimated salary by a standard average load rate. ATF determined the average load rate based on BLS's calculated national hourly compensation (salaries/wages plus paid benefits) for all private-sector occupations (average of $44.20 for 2024)  15 divided by the national average hourly wages and salaries without benefits (average of $31.95 for 2024), 16 making a load rate of 1.42. 17 ATF then applied this load rate to the production, planning, and expediting clerk wage to calculate their total compensation. Multiplying BLS's estimated hourly wage rate for such a clerk ($27.70) by the load rate of 1.42, ATF estimates that an FFL would incur $39.33  18 (rounded to $39) costs in monetized time per hour for each Form 2.

Based on the loaded hourly wage rate ($39) and the hourly burden of 0.75 hours, ATF estimates that the costs manufacturers of NFA firearms would accrue under this proposed rule would be a rounded $29  19 per USG firearm that falls out of contract (or per-contract if all firearms for the contract fall out of contract, as they would register these firearms in one lot, which would be on one form).

This would result in an annual savings offset to destructive device manufacturers of $22,464. 20 Manufacturers of other NFA firearms would also incur the savings offset at a rate of $29 per Form 2 using the same numbers, but ATF cannot estimate their annual offset without data on how often this might occur for these manufacturers. ATF requests comments from manufacturers of NFA firearms (other than destructive devices) regarding how often firearms fall out of their USG contracts per year.

Overall, ATF estimates, on the basis of the limited data outlined in this analysis, that manufacturers of destructive devices would accrue under this proposed rule an estimated annual combined savings and profit of $828.9 million (and manufacturers of other types of NFA firearms would accrue an unknown additional amount) and would generate a savings offset for manufacturers of destructive devices of $22,464 per year (as well as an unknown amount for the same offset for manufacturers of other NFA firearms, and an unknown offset amount for any exporting profits they might earn under the existing situation). Even with the unknown savings/profits and savings offsets, this rule would save the industry a net $828.9 million annually, or a net $8.3 billion over the course of 10 years. These numbers might be much higher with data for manufacturers of other NFA firearms, but ATF estimates it would still result in a substantial net savings.

Alternative 1. Maintaining the status quo (the no-action alternative). This alternative would maintain the status quo in that licensees who deal in government contracts would have to destroy or export NFA firearms manufactured for the USG if they fall out of contract, rather than being able to register and repurpose or directly sell them. Destroying or exporting such items incurs a cost to the licensees which would represent lost additional income for licensees. No costs and no benefits were calculated for this alternative because of data limitations discussed above. This was rejected as more stringent than the proposed alternative without any incremental benefit.

Alternative 2. Rulemaking (the proposed alternative). This proposed alternative would address the concerns raised by licensees who have NFA firearms they manufacture for the USG that have fallen out of contract and are not registered. Manufacturers must either destroy such items or export them, under current regulatory requirements, which incurs costs. Manufacturers would like to sell such items for additional revenue instead. This would not only benefit them, but also possibly benefit state and local law enforcement organizations with less funding, who might be able to purchase such items at less cost than on the secondary market. This proposed rule would allow manufacturers to register these devices in the NFRTR and then sell them. This would address the need raised by these licensees. It would also assist in keeping costs lower, as they could reduce cost offsets for items that fall out of contract. 21

ATF does not believe permitting licensees to register these firearms within 15 days after they fall out of USG contract presents an increased risk of harm to the public; it simply treats them as newly manufactured and ensures they are registered so they can be retained for future contracts or repurposed or sold. ATF believes most of these firearms would be sold to other government law enforcement entities because of their nature. The annualized cost to register imported NFA firearms that fall out of USG contract, as estimated in this analysis, would be $22,464 for all manufacturers. The annualized benefit to manufacturers of destructive devices due to no longer destroying such items and accruing additional income from subsequent sales would be an estimated net annualized benefit of $828.9 million (plus an additional unknown benefit for manufacturers of other NFA firearms). This alternative was selected because the estimated benefits exceed estimated costs.

Alternative 3. Issuing guidance. ATF considered issuing guidance instead of a rulemaking. The guidance would have been a ruling that added the manufacturer exemption from registering NFA firearms they import for the USG, and that would have permitted manufacturers to register USG-government contracted firearms that fall out of contract. This alternative was considered because the Director's authority to grant relief from NFA requirements, such as registering firearms manufactured for the USG, is already in the regulations so a grant under that authority could be accomplished by guidance. However, ATF decided against guidance because the regulations contain the registration requirements. ATF decided it would be better to include the exemption and the later registration allowance in the same location so it would be easier for licensees and others to find and understand how they work together, particularly because multiple sections would be affected. In addition, administration priorities for these changes to have the longevity, force, and effect of a regulation also weighed against this alternative. As a result of these considerations, this alternative was rejected.

Executive Order 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation) requires an agency, unless prohibited by law, to identify at least ten existing regulations to be repealed or revised when the agency publicly proposes for notice-and-comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation that qualifies as an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action (defined in OMB Memorandum M-25-20 as a final significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 that imposes total costs greater than zero). In furtherance of this requirement, section 3(c) of Executive Order 14192 requires that any new incremental costs associated with such new regulations must, to the extent permitted by law, also be offset by eliminating existing costs associated with at least ten prior regulations. While this rule is an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because it is a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, ATF does not anticipate needing to identify ten regulations to repeal or revise because this proposed rule would provide the public net savings rather than imposing new costs. As discussed in the cost/benefit analysis above, this proposed rule would provide savings of over $100 million every year throughout its ten-year period of analysis. In addition, this proposed rule would remove registration obstacles for licensed manufacturers who conduct business with the USG and whose NFA firearms fall out of contract, thereby permitting these licensees to save the costs of destroying or exporting such items and allowing them to earn additional income from selling them, resulting in the mentioned savings. ATF therefore expects this rule, if finalized as proposed, to qualify as an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action (defined by OMB Memorandum M-25-20 as a final action that imposes total costs less than zero).

Executive Order 14294 (Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations) requires agencies promulgating regulations with criminal regulatory offenses potentially subject to criminal enforcement to explicitly describe the conduct subject to criminal enforcement, the authorizing statutes, and the mens rea standard applicable to each element of those offenses. This proposed rule would not create a criminal regulatory offense and is thus exempt from Executive Order 14294 requirements.

This proposed rule would not have substantial direct effects on the states, the relationship between the federal government and the states, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), the Director has determined that this proposed rule would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments, preempt state law, or meaningfully implicate federalism. It thus does not warrant preparing a federalism summary impact statement.

This proposed rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform).

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, agencies are required to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any proposed rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency head certifies, including a statement of the factual basis, that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include certain small businesses, small 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.

The Director certifies, after consideration, that this proposed rule would not have a significant negative economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Currently, manufacturers, including small businesses, must destroy or export NFA firearms that fall out of USG contract. They cannot sell them within the United States, and thus lose revenue for every such firearm (see cost-benefit analysis above for details), while also incurring costs to destroy or export them. This is an existing dynamic that affects small businesses, serving as a barrier to entry or a loss in revenue. This proposed rule would permit them to register these firearms, thereby removing those hurdles and such lost revenue, and providing a benefit and additional revenue to small businesses. However, that overall benefit would be slightly offset by the time burden of completing and submitting a Form 2 to register the firearms first. As described above, ATF estimates this offset cost to be de minimis —$58 annual cost per manufacturer.

This proposed rule is not likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 601 note and 15 U.S.C. 657. This rule would provide significant benefits for small businesses because they would no longer have to destroy NFA firearms they had invested money in manufacturing but that the government no longer needed. For small businesses, the cost of destroying or exporting extra firearms could present a significant hurdle to entering this market or a significant loss of revenue. Due to this proposed rule, they would no longer incur such risk. They would instead incur the time burden for registering these firearms, which is a minor burden that would not present the same obstacles or costs for small businesses. For more information regarding the impact on small businesses, refer to section III.F above.

This proposed rule does not include a federal mandate that might result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it would not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

Therefore, ATF has determined that no actions are necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, agencies are required to submit to OMB, for review and approval, any information collection requirements a rule creates or any impacts it has on existing information collections. As defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(c), an information collection includes any reporting, record-keeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, or other similar actions an agency requires of the public. This proposed rule would impact one existing information collection covered under the PRA. The title and description of the information collection impacted by this rule, a description of those who provide the information, and an estimate of the total annual burden follow. The estimate covers the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing sources of data, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection. This proposed rule would not change most of the information below, but it would likely increase the number of responses to this information collection. Currently, manufacturers do not register items that fall out of USG contract, but would be able to do so under the proposed rule, thereby increasing the number of responses.

Title: Notice of Manufactured or Imported NFA Firearms, ATF Form 5320.2 (“Form 2”).

OMB control number: 1140-0012.

Summary of the information collection: Each manufacturer and importer must register each NFA firearm they manufacture or import, as required by 27 CFR part 479. In general, under 26 U.S.C. 5822, no person can make an NFA firearm until they have applied for and received approval from the Attorney General (delegated to ATF). Section 5841(b) provides that each manufacturer and importer must register each firearm they manufacture or import. Section 5841(c) provides that each manufacturer must notify the Attorney General about a manufactured firearm, as provided by the regulations. Importers also must obtain authorization prior to importing a firearm. However, there are certain statutory exemptions, including firearms in the government's possession or imported for the government. 26 U.S.C. 5841(a). This proposed rule would add that manufacturers conducting business with the USG are exempt from registering firearms they manufacture for the USG, thereby reducing the number of respondents covered by this information collection. The proposed rule would also increase the number of respondents by permitting manufacturers to register USG firearms that fall out of contract, which they currently cannot do, but this increase would be smaller than the aforementioned decrease, resulting in a net decrease in respondents.

Need for information: ATF must collect certain information from applicants to register the firearms and to determine whether the person is authorized to possess a firearm. Not conducting this information collection would result in unregistered manufactured and imported firearms, which violate existing laws requiring manufacturers and importers to register all firearms not possessed or controlled by the USG. Firearms excepted from the requirement include those manufactured pursuant to a USG contract. However, sometimes such firearms are then not needed or otherwise fall out of contract. They then become NFA firearms that are no longer excepted from the registration requirement. This proposed rule would allow manufacturers to register such firearms when they fall out of contract. The consequence of not adding these registrations to this information collection would be that such firearms would remain unregistered and in violation of statutory requirements, increasing risk to the public, and causing the manufacturer to be unable to lawfully retain or sell them.

Proposed use of information: ATF uses Form 2 as the collection tool for information necessary to identify the firearms involved, to identify the person manufacturing or importing the firearm and whether the person is permitted to do so, and to register the firearm in the NFRTR. Registration in the NFRTR becomes the basis from which to verify any subsequent transfer of the NFA firearms and register them to the transferee.

Description of the respondents: Manufacturers and importers of NFA firearms.

Number of respondents: 14,384 (at last renewal); some of which are manufacturers who might be impacted by this proposed rule because they do business exclusively for or on behalf of the USG, or partly for or on behalf of the USG, if they have firearms that fall out of such contract.

Frequency of response: Twice a year.

Burden of response: 7,192 hours annually (at last renewal); pursuant to this proposed rule, a decrease of 576 hours stemming from 384 manufacturers of destructive devices no longer registering when they manufacture firearms for the USG. Although ATF does not have data on the number of manufacturers of NFA firearms (other than destructive devices) who would also decrease registrations for this reason, there would be an additional decrease in hourly burden from them. All the impacted manufacturers would also potentially have some firearms fall out of USG contract and be registered later, so the decreases above would be offset by a smaller increase, resulting in a net decrease to this information collection's hourly burden.

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., ATF anticipates that this proposed rule would meet the criteria in 5 U.S.C. 804(2) because it would result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more (in this case $100 million or more in savings); a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets. However, this rule would not cause a major increase in costs or prices, or a significant adverse effect on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or U.S. enterprises' ability to compete with foreign-based enterprises, as this rule would provide significant savings and benefit to the public rather than adding costs or adversely affecting the economy.

ATF requests comments on the proposed rule from all interested persons. ATF specifically requests comments on the clarity of this proposed rule and how it may be made easier to understand. In addition, ATF requests comments on the costs or benefits of the proposed rule and on the appropriate methodology and data for calculating those costs and benefits.

All comments must reference this document's RIN 1140-AA80 and, if handwritten, must be legible. If submitting by mail, you must also include your complete first and last name and contact information. If submitting a comment through the federal e-rulemaking portal, as described in section IV.C of this preamble, you should carefully review and follow the website's instructions on submitting comments. Whether you submit comments online or by mail, ATF will post them online. If submitting online as an individual, any information you provide in the online fields for city, state, zip code, and phone will not be publicly viewable when ATF publishes the comment on https://www.regulations.gov. However, if you include such personally identifying information (“PII”) in the body of your online comment, it may be posted and viewable online. Similarly, if you submit a written comment with PII in the body of the comment, it may be posted and viewable online. Therefore, all commenters should review section IV.B of this preamble, “Confidentiality,” regarding how to submit PII if you do not want it published online. ATF may not consider, or respond to, comments that do not meet these requirements or comments containing excessive profanity. ATF will retain comments containing excessive profanity as part of this rulemaking's administrative record, but will not publish such documents on https://www.regulations.gov. ATF will treat all comments as originals and will not acknowledge receipt of comments. In addition, if ATF cannot read your comment due to handwriting or technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, ATF may not be able to consider your comment.

ATF will carefully consider all comments, as appropriate, received on or before the closing date.

ATF will make all comments meeting the requirements of this section, whether submitted electronically or on paper, and except as provided below, available for public viewing on the internet through the federal e-rulemaking portal, and subject to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). Commenters who submit by mail and who do not want their name or other PII posted on the internet should submit their comments with a separate cover sheet containing their PII. The separate cover sheet should be marked with “CUI//PRVCY” at the top to identify it as protected PII under the Privacy Act. Both the cover sheet and comment must reference this RIN 1140-AA80. For comments submitted by mail, information contained on the cover sheet will not appear when posted on the internet, but any PII that appears within the body of a comment will not be redacted by ATF and may appear on the internet. Similarly, commenters who submit through the federal e-rulemaking portal and who do not want any of their PII posted on the internet should omit such PII from the body of their comment and any uploaded attachments. However, PII entered into the online fields designated for name, email, and other contact information will not be posted or viewable online.

A commenter may submit to ATF information identified as proprietary or confidential business information by mail. To request that ATF handle this information as controlled unclassified information (“CUI”), the commenter must place any portion of a comment that is proprietary or confidential business information under law or regulation on pages separate from the balance of the comment, with each page prominently marked “CUI//PROPIN” at the top of the page.

ATF will not make proprietary or confidential business information submitted in compliance with these instructions available when disclosing the comments that it receives, but will disclose that the commenter provided proprietary or confidential business information that ATF is holding in a separate file to which the public does not have access. If ATF receives a request to examine or copy this information, it will treat it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). In addition, ATF will disclose such proprietary or confidential business information to the extent required by other legal process.

Submit comments using either of the two methods described below (but do not submit the same comment multiple times or by more than one method). Hand-delivered comments will not be accepted.

• Federal e-rulemaking portal: ATF recommends that you submit your comments to ATF via the federal e-rulemaking portal at https://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions. Comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that is provided after you have successfully uploaded your comment.

• Mail: Send written comments to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. Written comments must appear in minimum 12-point font size, include the commenter's first and last name and full mailing address, and may be of any length. See also section IV.B of this preamble, “Confidentiality.”

Copies of this proposed rule and the comments received in response to it are available through the federal e-rulemaking portal, at https://www.regulations.gov (search for RIN 1140-AA80).

Consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act, the issues raised in this proposed rule may be finalized, or not, independently of each other, after consideration of comments received. ATF has determined that this proposed rule implements and is fully consistent with governing law. However, in the event this proposed rule is finalized, if any provision of that final rule, an amendment or revision made by that rule, or the application of such provision or amendment or revision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid or unenforceable by its terms, the remainder of that final rule, the amendments or revisions made by that rule, and application of the provisions of the rule to any person or circumstance shall not be affected and shall be construed so as to give them the maximum effect permitted by law.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, ATF proposes to amend 27 CFR part 479 as follows:

This proposed rule would amend the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's (PBGC) recoupment rules under PBGC's insurance program for single-employer terminated plans trusteed by PBGC to simplify the repayment of benefit overpayments. The amendments would provide clarity and predictability, making the repayment process easier to communicate to participants and for participants to understand. The amendments would also allow for greater administrative efficiency.

PBGC's legal authority for this rulemaking comes from section 4002(b)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), which authorizes PBGC to issue regulations to carry out the purposes of title IV of ERISA, and section 4022 of ERISA (Single-Employer Plan Benefits Guaranteed), which sets limits on the benefits PBGC guarantees and pays.

The major provisions of this proposed rule would amend PBGC's recoupment rules under subpart E of part 4022 as follows.

• Simplify the recoupment methodology to eliminate the actuarial reduction (capped, generally, at 10 percent of a participant's monthly benefit), and instead recoup at a flat rate of 5 percent of a participant's monthly benefit.

• Waive overpayment amounts of $250 or less.

• Eliminate recoupment of a participant's overpayment from a participant's surviving spouse or other designated beneficiary.

• Eliminate recoupment on a revised benefit determination, except under specified circumstances such as where there is a post-benefit determination qualified domestic relations order (QDRO).

Major provisions of the recoupment rules that are not changing are as follows.

• No interest is ever charged by PBGC on net overpayments.

• Recoupment ends one month early if the amount remaining to be recouped in the final month is less than the amount of the monthly reduction.

• Recoupment constitutes full repayment of the net overpayment.

The proposed rule would also codify PBGC's policy of administrative correction to correct payment errors and clarify when PBGC uses recovery methods instead of recoupment.

PBGC administers two insurance programs for private-sector defined benefit pension plans under title IV of ERISA: a single-employer plan termination insurance program and a multiemployer plan insolvency insurance program. In addition, PBGC administers a special financial assistance program for eligible financially distressed multiemployer plans. The proposed amendments in this rulemaking would apply only to the single-employer plan termination insurance program.

Under the single-employer plan termination insurance program, covered plans that are underfunded may terminate either in a distress termination under section 4041(c) of ERISA or in an involuntary termination (one initiated by PBGC) under section 4042 of ERISA. When such a plan terminates, PBGC typically is appointed statutory trustee of the plan and becomes responsible for paying benefits in accordance with the provisions of title IV.

The benefits paid by PBGC under a terminated trusteed plan are determined by several factors. The starting point is the plan—PBGC pays only those benefits that the plan provides under the plan's terms. Thus, PBGC begins by determining each participant's accrued plan benefit.

After PBGC determines the amount of the participant's plan benefit, PBGC determines the amount it can guarantee. There are limitations on the benefits that PBGC can guarantee. One limitation, under sections 4001(a)(8) and 4022(a) of ERISA, is that PBGC guarantees only those benefits that are “nonforfeitable.” For purposes of title IV, a benefit is nonforfeitable if the participant had satisfied the plan's (or ERISA's) requirements for the benefit by the plan's termination date (or, if applicable, by the bankruptcy filing date of a contributing plan sponsor).

Another limitation is the maximum guaranteeable benefit rule in section 4022(b)(3) of ERISA, which caps the amount that PBGC can guarantee. The cap for a participant in a plan with a termination date in 2025 (or, if applicable, a bankruptcy filing date of a contributing sponsor in 2025), who retires at age 65 under a straight-life annuity, is $7,431.82 per month. PBGC's guarantee is further limited by the phase-in rule, under which PBGC's guarantee of a plan's benefit increases during the 5-year period ending on the plan's termination date (or, if applicable, the bankruptcy filing date of a contributing sponsor) is phased in at the number of years the benefit increase has been in effect, multiplied by the greater of: (1) 20 percent of the amount of the benefit increase; or (2) $20 per month. The phase-in rule protects the insurance program from losses when the sponsor of an underfunded pension plan increases benefits shortly before the plan terminates. Another limitation is the accrued-at-normal limitation, which is equal to the dollar amount of a participant's benefit in the straight life annuity form at normal retirement age. The portion that exceeds this limitation is not a PBGC guaranteeable benefit.

In some cases, a participant may receive more than the participant's guaranteed benefit under title IV, depending on the allocation of the plan's assets under section 4044(a) of ERISA or the allocation of PBGC's recoveries under section 4022(c) of ERISA, or both.

Although PBGC's obligation to pay benefits at title IV levels arises on the plan termination date, it usually takes several months after becoming the statutory trustee of a plan before PBGC can take any action to reduce benefits to title IV levels.

In a distress termination, the plan administrator is required, beginning on the proposed termination date, to reduce benefits in pay status to the estimated levels payable under title IV. But compliance with this requirement does not always occur. When a plan is terminated in a distress termination, PBGC's preliminary review, upon becoming statutory trustee, focuses on whether the plan administrator's estimates of benefit entitlement were accurate, and PBGC adjusts benefits accordingly.

In a PBGC-initiated termination, the plan administrator does not reduce benefits to estimated title IV levels. Once PBGC becomes statutory trustee, PBGC undertakes a preliminary review of the benefits to which each participant in the plan is being paid. After this review is completed, PBGC makes a preliminary estimate of the title IV benefits to which each participant is entitled. If the amount previously paid exceeds this preliminary estimate, PBGC reduces the benefit to the amount estimated to be the participant's benefit entitlement under title IV. If the amount previously paid is lower than this preliminary estimate, PBGC increases the benefit to the amount estimated to be the participant's benefit entitlement under title IV and pays the participant the back underpayment amount with interest.

When PBGC pays the estimated title IV benefit amount, PBGC informs participants that their benefit payments at this preliminary stage are only estimates of the amounts to which they are entitled under title IV. PBGC also informs participants that, when PBGC completes its review of the pension plan and the plan's records, PBGC will issue a benefit determination that will set forth PBGC's determination of the amount to which the participant is entitled under title IV. PBGC further informs participants that when the benefit determination is issued, it may be appealed to the PBGC Appeals Board if the participant believes that PBGC's determination is incorrect.

PBGC may pay estimated benefits for an extended period (which can be several years) until PBGC finishes its plan valuation and determines final benefit amounts. In the period between trusteeship and determination of final benefit amounts, overpayments or underpayments may occur, even after the initial adjustments that PBGC implements based on the preliminary estimate. For example, overpayments can occur because the plan-level benefit is higher than the participant's benefit under title IV levels. Overpayments and underpayments may also occur because PBGC was not aware of relevant plan amendments or other information when initial reductions were made.

Since the late 1970s, PBGC has sought recoupment of benefit overpayments. Because ERISA does not authorize PBGC to pay benefits in excess of title IV levels and imposes on PBGC an obligation to maintain premiums at the lowest level consistent with its other duties (see section 4002(a) of ERISA), PBGC's position is that failure to recoup excess payments would be inconsistent with the statutory scheme. 1 In Bechtel v. PBGC, the United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, affirmed that PBGC may recoup benefit overpayments and that PBGC's obligation to pay benefits to participants in trusteed plans is clearly subject to limitations under ERISA. Because there may be a delay in the calculation of title IV guaranteed benefits, the Court stated that “it's likely that some payments may be made at levels above those guaranteed by ERISA,” creating overpayments. 2 The Court went on to say that “Congress did not intend such delays, even those involving negligence by the PBGC, to create a windfall for some ERISA beneficiaries at the expense of others and the guaranty system as a whole.”  3

PBGC's current recoupment methodology was established in a final rule published on January 29, 1985, at 50 FR 3892 and codified in subpart E of 29 CFR part 4022. A subsequent rule, published in 1998, amended the regulation to provide that recoupment ends once the total amount of the overpayment is repaid and gives PBGC discretion to waive recoupment of net overpayments that it determines to be de minimis. 4

PBGC's recoupment rules under § 4022.81(a) provide that if a participant has been paid more (on a net basis) than the amount to which the participant is entitled, and the participant is entitled to future benefit payments ( i.e., monthly annuity payments) as of the termination date, PBGC will seek to recoup this net overpayment. Section 4022.81(a) also provides that PBGC may, in its discretion, seek repayment of overpayments by methods other than recouping, but PBGC will not normally do so unless benefits paid after the termination date exceed the participant's benefit entitlement under the plan.

PBGC recoups overpayments by reducing future benefit payments by an actuarial reduction, which is the recoupment percentage. Net overpayments are determined using a month-to-month tally of overpayments and underpayments occurring after the plan's termination date or the date PBGC issues a notice of determination under section 4042 of ERISA, if later. Section 4022.82(a) of PBGC's current regulation provides that the recoupment percentage equals the net overpayment divided by the present value (as of the termination date) of the participant's title IV benefit entitlement and is capped at 10 percent in most cases. Recoupment ends at the earlier of when the net overpayment is repaid or when monthly benefit payments cease. Recoupment continues to apply to the survivor benefit if the participant dies before the net overpayment has been repaid. For example, if a participant's net overpayment is $4,000 and the present value as of the plan's termination date of the benefit entitlement is $100,000, the recoupment percentage is 4 percent (4,000/100,000), regardless of the start date for recoupment, which is often many years after PBGC assumes responsibility for benefit payments. Future monthly benefits are reduced by 4 percent until: (a) the sum of repayments equals $4,000, or (b) monthly benefits cease ( i.e., when the participant and any survivor beneficiary die).

Under § 4022.82(a)(2), PBGC generally limits recoupment of a net overpayment to the greater of either (i) 10 percent of a participant's monthly benefit payment, or (ii) for very large overpayments to a participant with a high benefit, the dollar amount per month in excess of the maximum guaranteeable benefit payable under section 4022(b)(3)(B) of ERISA, determined without adjustment for age and benefit form (what PBGC refers to as “the maximum insurance limitation”). Also, PBGC may recoup at a higher rate or seek repayment by recovery (in accordance with the rules under 29 CFR part 4903) where net benefits paid to a participant after the termination date exceed those to which the participant and any beneficiary is entitled under the terms of the plan, or where benefit payments were based on false information, error, or omission by the participant of information material to the benefit amount, benefit entitlement, or eligibility. PBGC may also recoup at a higher rate or seek repayment by recovery where PBGC has reason to believe that the person who received a benefit overpayment knew or should have known that the payment was made in error and failed to notify PBGC of the error.

PBGC does not charge interest on net overpayments subject to recoupment. In addition, PBGC has discretion under current § 4022.82(a)(4) to waive overpayments PBGC determines are de minimis.

In addition to recoupment and recovery, PBGC uses administrative correction to correct payment errors. Before PBGC determines there is an overpayment, PBGC first tries to immediately correct any payment errors ( e.g., duplicate monthly payments, payments to deceased participants or beneficiaries, and other clerical or arithmetic errors). Administrative correction includes methods such as reversal or reclamation of electronic payments ( e.g., through Automated Clearing House (ACH)), stop-payment orders, and benefit suspension for one to two months.

PBGC seeks repayment by recovery if administrative correction and recoupment do not apply, or if administrative correction is unsuccessful. These situations may include, for example, where a lump sum paid by PBGC exceeded the participant's benefit entitlement under the terms of the plan; where the participant was not entitled to a benefit from PBGC ( e.g., the participant was not vested, or the benefit amount was paid to the incorrect person); where payments were made to the participant after a communicated end date (such as with a term-certain annuity); or where payments were based on false information, error, or omission by the participant that materially affected the benefit amount, benefit entitlement, or eligibility.

Based on PBGC's experience and its review of the recoupment rules, PBGC determined that the current process of correcting benefit overpayments is unclear and unpredictable. In particular, PBGC is concerned that the recoupment methodology, which is based on actuarial concepts unfamiliar to many participants, makes the rules difficult to explain to participants and for participants to understand. The amendments in this proposed rule are designed to improve the repayment process for benefit overpayments by making that process clearer and predictable, and to allow for greater administrative efficiency.

PBGC proposes to amend its recoupment methodology by replacing the actuarial reduction subject to, generally, a 10 percent cap, with a flat rate of 5 percent. This revised method is straightforward, and therefore simpler to communicate to participants and easier for participants to understand. A flat rate also would be simpler to administer, decreasing the potential for multiple notices to participants about recoupment and their guaranteed benefit. The flat rate would recoup the vast majority of participants at 5 percent. Under the current methodology, a larger percentage of participants with small monthly benefits of $300 or less are recouped at 10 percent, compared to participants with larger monthly benefits of $1,500 or more who are often recouped at a lower rate. 5

PBGC estimates that changing to a flat rate of 5 percent would increase PBGC's expected repayment from participants and beneficiaries subject to recoupment. On average, PBGC collects 51% of a debt under its current method, which would increase to 65% under the proposal. The average, per-participant amount currently being repaid is $388 each year.

In addition to recoupment at a flat rate of 5 percent, PBGC would not seek to recoup net overpayments of $250 or less ( i.e., those amounts treated as de minimis). PBGC estimates that, under this proposed change, 500 payees will avoid a total of $5,000 in recoupments each year. Consistent with current § 4022.82(a)(4), under the proposed rule, PBGC would retain discretion to not recoup additional net overpayment amounts that it determines to be de minimis to ensure that, over time, the amount remains appropriate based on changing benefit and overpayment trends in PBGC-trusteed plans and the administrative cost of recouping small amounts.

The proposal also would provide that if a participant's net overpayment is equal to or less than the $250 de minimis amount and the net overpayment increases solely because unadjusted benefit payments are continuing during the pendency of the participant's appeal of their benefit determination to the PBGC Appeals Board, PBGC nevertheless will regard the participant's net overpayment as not having increased during the pendency of such appeal. This means the participant will not be treated as having lost out on the $250 or less de minimis exception because an appeal is pending. This provision would avoid a potential chilling effect on a participant considering an appeal of their benefit determination.

Under current § 4022.81(d), recoupment of a participant's net overpayment continues to the surviving spouse or other beneficiary receiving survivor benefits under the participant's pension, if the participant dies and the net overpayment has not been repaid. This is because, in most cases where the benefit is paid in a joint-life form, the actuarial reduction considers the lives of both the participant and the surviving beneficiary. PBGC proposes to eliminate this provision and not recoup any remaining portion of a participant's net overpayment from benefits payable to a surviving beneficiary. In such a case, the surviving beneficiary was not the individual who received the net overpayment and may not even know that there was a net overpayment. Eliminating recoupment of a participant's net overpayment from a surviving spouse or other designated surviving beneficiary would alleviate this unnecessary confusion and be more equitable. PBGC estimates that eliminating recoupment from a surviving beneficiary will save 4,000 beneficiaries approximately a total of $900,000 per year. In addition, under a flat 5 percent recoupment, the expected benefits to be paid to the participant's surviving beneficiary is not a factor in calculating the recoupment percentage. Finally, this proposed amendment would be consistent with a provision applicable to ongoing pension plans under section 206(h)(4)(E) of ERISA, as added by the SECURE 2.0 Act, under which recoupment of past overpayments to a participant may not be sought from any beneficiary of the participant. 6

Under § 4022.83(b)(1) of this proposed rule, recoupment would end at the date of death of the participant or beneficiary who received the net overpayment. The provision would be applicable for participants and beneficiaries with a date of death on or after the effective date of the final rule.

Under certain circumstances, PBGC will revise a benefit determination where the calculation later is found to be incorrect. For example, if after a benefit determination is sent to a participant, PBGC becomes aware of plan information affecting factors used by PBGC in calculating the participant's benefit, PBGC will revise the participant's benefit payment going forward accordingly. If the revision results in a net overpayment, PBGC initiates recoupment. If the participant is receiving benefits and there is a net overpayment on the original benefit determination that is being recouped, the net overpayment amount must be adjusted.

PBGC is proposing to eliminate recoupment on revised benefit determinations in most cases. This means that while future benefit payments must be adjusted to reflect the revised determination, PBGC generally will not initiate recoupment on the revised determination or increase the amount of the net overpayment to be recouped. While revising a benefit determination may be infrequent, it may cause confusion to participants, who rely on the benefit determination they initially received.

The proposed rule provides that PBGC generally will not recoup on revised benefit determinations unless any of the following circumstances exist:

• Benefit payments were made based on false information, error, or omission by the participant that materially affected the benefit amount, benefit entitlement, or eligibility.

• PBGC has reason to believe the person receiving the payment knew or should have known the payment was made in error and failed to notify PBGC of the error.

• Benefit payments were reduced by a settlement agreement.

In addition, the proposed change to recoupment on revised benefit determinations would not apply where the participant or beneficiary comes forward with new information that would change their title IV benefit entitlement. This occurs when a domestic relations order (such as a shared payment order or a child support order) is submitted and qualified (so that the order is a “QDRO”) after a benefit determination was issued. PBGC must revise the benefit determination and the net overpayment (if any) where there is a QDRO.

PBGC estimates that, by generally eliminating recoupment on revised benefit determinations, 270 payees will avoid a total of $8,640 in recoupments each year.

As described earlier in the preamble, PBGC's current regulation and policy allow for exceptions to the 10 percent cap on recoupment in several situations. PBGC is proposing to codify the policy exceptions that allow PBGC to recoup above the cap to provide more transparency to the recoupment process. The proposed rule provides that PBGC may recoup more than 5 percent of a monthly benefit or use recovery, but generally will not do so unless any of the following circumstances exist:

• Benefit payments were made based on false information, error, or omission by the participant that materially affected the benefit amount, benefit entitlement, or eligibility.

• PBGC has reason to believe the person receiving the payment knew or should have known the payment was made in error and failed to notify PBGC of the error.

• Benefit payments were reduced by a settlement agreement.

As described in the “Background” section earlier in the preamble, recoupment is not the only method of seeking repayment of a benefit overpayment. In appropriate cases, PBGC first tries to promptly correct a payment error before treating the payment error as a net overpayment subject to recoupment or recovery. This proposed rule would codify this policy of administrative correction. The proposed rule would also codify that if administrative correction was unsuccessful, such as where benefit payments are made after death and PBGC is unable to obtain the funds ( e.g., through ACH reclamation or stop payment order), the payment error would be treated as a net overpayment, and PBGC would seek return of the funds via recovery from the person holding the net overpayment, including a financial institution, estate, or other person.

Under the proposed rule, PBGC would also clarify that recovery applies if a participant or beneficiary is not entitled to future benefit payments when a net overpayment is determined ( e.g., in a benefit determination). In this situation, there is no payment stream from which to recoup. PBGC would have discretion to use recovery, which reflects current PBGC policy, and PBGC generally would do so in any of the following situations:

• Benefit payments were made after an unambiguous payment end date, that was communicated to the participant by PBGC or the plan administrator of the terminated plan (such as with a term-certain annuity ( e.g., a 10-year certain annuity)).

• Benefit payments were made based on false information, error, or omission by the participant that materially affected the benefit amount, benefit entitlement, or eligibility.

• PBGC has reason to believe the person receiving the payment knew or should have known the payment was made in error and failed to notify PBGC of the error.

PBGC is eliminating the discretion it had preserved to seek repayment “by methods other than recouping” where benefits paid after the termination date exceeded the participant's benefit entitlement under the terminated plan. PBGC has rarely, if ever, relied on this provision as it exists in § 4022.81(a). Eliminating it would enhance clarity for the regulated public and simplify the regulatory structure.

PBGC is proposing to reorganize subpart E of part 4022, which includes the regulations for calculating and processing net overpayments and net underpayments. There are no substantive changes to the rules for reimbursement of net underpayments. The rates used to credit interest on net underpayments for May 1998 and earlier are provided in a table to § 4022.82(b)(2). The table is derived from the rates historically used for lump sum valuations, which are posted on PBGC's website at www.pbgc.gov. The reorganization and table are only intended to improve the readability and understandability of subpart E.

In December 2022, Congress enacted SECURE 2.0. Division T of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, Public Law 117-328, 136 Stat. 4459. Section 301 addresses the fiduciary duties of ongoing plans regarding correction of benefit overpayments by any pension plan. In addressing plan fiduciaries' discretion for correcting overpayments, it places several limitations on ongoing plans where they decide to pursue collection. For example, a plan cannot seek recovery if the first overpayment occurred more than 3 years before written notification of the overpayment error to the participant or beneficiary, except in the case of fraud or misrepresentation by the participant or beneficiary. Section 301 amends title I of ERISA, adding section 206(h), and its text clearly applies to the duties of fiduciaries of ongoing plans—for example, it directs a fiduciary to take into account whether the “failure to recover all or part of the overpayment faster than required under [the] funding rules would materially affect the plan's ability to pay benefits due to other participants and beneficiaries[.]” It also amends section 414 of the Code, addressing benefit overpayments and a plan's satisfaction of qualification requirements such as minimum funding and compensation limitations under sections 401(a)(17) and 415(b).

SECURE 2.0, section 301 specifies no changes to PBGC's methodology. And PBGC concludes that section 301's rules for ongoing plans do not carry over to the title IV context. PBGC's termination and trusteeship program is not an individual ongoing pension plan but a government program that pays benefits to participants and beneficiaries of trusteed single employer plans using a combination of trusteed plan assets and government insurance funds. Unlike individual pension plans that pay benefits solely in accordance with plan terms, the PBGC program requires PBGC to determine a PBGC-payable benefit, taking into account the detailed limitations under sections 4022 and 4044 of ERISA. PBGC's work often requires years of processing before PBGC can determine final benefit amounts. Clearly PBGC's process for determining title IV benefits contains distinguishing elements not applicable to ongoing plans subject to title I. Lastly, as a government program, PBGC's corrections of overpayments are subject to laws—such as the Federal debt collection procedures and, in some areas, the Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019—which are not applicable to private, ongoing pension plans.

Notwithstanding the above, PBGC notes that both its current recoupment methodology and the one described in this proposed rule generally conform to the limitations Congress prescribed for ongoing plans in section 301 of SECURE 2.0. The proposed elimination of recoupment on survivor benefits would make this even more so. The special elements and timing in PBGC's determination of title IV benefits, however, prevent PBGC from including a 3-year rule as found in section 206(h)(4)(F) of ERISA.

Section 301 of the SECURE 2.0 Act added section 206(h) to title I of ERISA to address recoupment of inadvertent overpayments from pension plans under title I of ERISA. PBGC is considering to what extent, if any, section 206(h) interacts with this proposed rule and PBGC's recoupment or recovery of overpayments.

PBGC requests comments as to whether the rule should address recoupment or recovery by continuing the actions implemented by the former plan administrator of overpayments made before the termination date and, more broadly, where there is a series of overpayments, some of which occurred before the plan termination date.

Except as otherwise provided, the amendments described in this proposed rule would apply to recoupment, recovery, or administrative corrections initiated on or after the effective date of the final rule. Recoupment and recovery are initiated by the issuance of a benefit determination or other written notice sent to the participant or beneficiary. Administrative correction is initiated by PBGC action to correct a payment error. The amendments in § 4022.83(b)(1) that would end recoupment at the death of the participant or beneficiary who received the net overpayment would apply for participants and beneficiaries with a date of death on or after the effective date of the final rule. The amendments in § 4022.84(d) that would provide that PBGC will not seek recoupment on a revised benefit determination would apply to revised benefit determinations that are initiated on or after the effective date of the final rule.

However, some of the amendments codify policies and practices that PBGC has followed for many years, and PBGC will continue to follow these policies and practices in the interim.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this rulemaking is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed the proposed rule.

Executive Order 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). Although this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action, PBGC has examined the economic and policy implications of the rulemaking and has concluded that there would be no significant economic or policy impact because of the proposed rulemaking.

Some of the proposed amendments mentioned earlier in the preamble would merely codify existing PBGC policies and practices. Making these policies and practices more transparent should decrease uncertainty where PBGC has determined there is a benefit overpayment, reducing, in particular, the potential for a participant to be confused by the recoupment method or repayment process generally. Other amendments simplify the recoupment methodology, notably changing it to a flat rate of 5 percent and waiving recoupment on de minimis net overpayment amounts of $250 or less. PBGC estimates that this change in methodology would not significantly change the overall amount recouped. 7 A flat rate recoupment would improve overall communications with participants about net overpayments by making recoupment predictable and easier to understand. It would also make administration of recoupment less prone to error, thereby improving PBGC's ability to pay pension benefits on time and accurately.

Section 6 of Executive Order 13563 requires agencies to rethink existing regulations by periodically reviewing their regulatory programs for rules that “may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome.” These rules should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed as appropriate. This proposed rulemaking is consistent with the principles for review under Executive Order 13563 because it would improve PBGC's decades-old regulation on recoupment of benefit overpayments by clarifying and simplifying the repayment process and providing greater transparency for when PBGC may administratively correct payment errors and recover net overpayments.

Executive Order 14192 requires agencies to identify at least ten existing regulations to be repealed when the agency issues a new regulation and that new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with prior regulations. As OMB explains in its memorandum, “Guidance Implementing Section 3 of Executive Order 14192, Titled `Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,' ” an “Executive Order 14192 regulatory action” is defined as a significant regulatory action (as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866) that would impose total costs greater than zero. 8 Because this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, it is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action. However, PBGC believes this rule, if finalized, qualifies as an “Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action” (as defined in M-25-20), by simplifying the recoupment methodology, improving communications to participants, and promoting transparency, which are intended to reduce any regulatory burden on the public. This includes eliminating a provision, under current rules, for administrative discretion in cases where benefits paid after the termination date exceeded the participant's benefit entitlement under the terminated plan.

Moreover, the proposed rule would satisfy the goal of “reduc[ing] the real resources used by Federal agencies to accomplish their goals,” with estimated annual cost savings to PBGC of $356,000 due to limiting recoupment from surviving beneficiaries. The estimated savings are from letters not sent to participants; time not spent calculating recoupment; and time not spent answering questions from participants. And the proposed rule would further reduce costs on the regulated community, with estimated annual cost savings of $4,480 due to reduced attorney time and fees where a participant disagrees with PBGC's application of recoupment or recovery and uses an attorney in preparing an appeal. The proposed rule's switch to a flat-rate methodology, its removal of the ambiguous discretionary provision, and its clarifications regarding when PBGC will use recovery instead of recoupment (currently described only in internal agency manuals), will reduce attorney review time and the need to obtain documents beyond the regulation.

This rulemaking affects only individuals. Therefore, PBGC certifies that, if adopted, the amendments will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, as provided in section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, sections 603 and 604 do not apply.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, PBGC proposes to amend 29 CFR part 4022 to read as follows:

This action provides information that is directed to the public in general.

EPA regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities are established under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), requires EPA to publish a notice of receipt of these petitions in the Federal Register and provide an opportunity for public comment on the requests.

As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA is publishing notice of the receipt of pesticide petitions filed under FFDCA section 408 that request the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comments on the requests before responding to the petitioner. Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition identified in this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a docket. EPA has determined that the pesticide petitions described in this document contain data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2), and 40 CFR 180.7(b); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting the pesticide petitions. After considering the public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on these pesticide petitions.

Based upon review of the data supporting these petitions and in accordance with its authority under FFDCA section 408(d)(4)(A)(i), EPA may establish a final tolerance or tolerance exemption that “may vary from that sought by the petitioner.” For example, EPA may determine that it is appropriate to vary the commodity name for consistency with EPA's Food and Feed Commodity Vocabulary, which is located here https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-tolerances/food-and-feed-commodity-vocabulary, or vary the tolerance level based on available data, harmonization interests, or the trailing zeros policy. In addition, when evaluating a petition's requests for a tolerance or exemption, EPA will consider how use of the pesticide on a crop for which a tolerance is requested may result in residues in or on commodities related to that requested commodity ( e.g., whether use on sugar beets for which a tolerance was requested on sugar beet root also requires a tolerance on sugar beet tops or whether use on a cereal grain for which a grain tolerance was requested also requires a tolerance on related animal feed commodities derived from that cereal grain). Public commenters should consider the possibility of such revisions in preparing comments on these petitions.

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI to EPA through https://www.regulations.gov or email. If you wish to include CBI in your comment, please follow the applicable instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets#rules and clearly mark the information that you claim to be CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes CBI, a copy of the comment without CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at https://www.epa.gov//epa-dockets.

This unit provides the following information about the petitions:

• The Pesticide Petition (PP) Identification (IN) number.

• EPA docket ID number for the petition.

• Information about the petition ( i.e., name of the petitioner, name of the pesticide chemical residue and the commodities for which a tolerance or exemption is sought).

• The analytical method available to detect and measure the pesticide chemical residue or the petitioner's statement about why such a method is not needed; and

• The division to contact for that petition.

Additional information on the petitions may be obtained through the petition summaries that were prepared by the petitioners pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2)(A)(i)(I) and 40 CFR 180.7(b)(1), which are included in the docket for the petition as identified in this unit.

• PP IN-12499. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2025-3954). Evonik Corporation, 2 Turner Place, Piscataway, NJ 08854, requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of Silane, trimethoxyoctyl-, hydrolysis products with silica (CAS Reg. No. 92797-60-9) when used as a pesticide inert ingredient (dispersant) in pesticide formulations under 40 CFR 180.920. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because it is not required for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact: RD.

• PP 5E9203. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2026-0628). Valent U.S.A. LLC, 4600 Norris Canyon Road, San Ramon, CA 94583, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide mandestrobin in or on cherry subgroup 12-12A at 3.0 parts per million (ppm) and peach subgroup 12-12B at 2.0 ppm. LC-MS/MS (liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry) methods are used to measure and evaluate the chemical mandestrobin. Contact: RD.

• PP 5E9215. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2026-1783). Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide, nematocide cyclobutrifluram in or on coffee at 0.15 ppm and banana at 0.05. The GRM076.07A and GRM076.11A methods is/are used to measure and evaluate the chemical cyclobutrifluram. Contact: RD.

• PP 5E9225. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2025-1905). Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) Project Headquarters, NC State University, 1730 Varsity Drive, Venture IV, Suite 210, Raleigh, NC 27606, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the herbicide cycloate in or on quinoa at 1.0 ppm. The LC-MS/MS and GC-MS/MS methods are used to measure and evaluate the chemical cycloate. Contac t: RD.

• PP 5F9192. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2025-2500). Bayer CropScience LLC, 800 N. Lindbergh Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63167, requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the herbicide bromoxynil in or on the raw agricultural commodities crop subgroup 20A (rapeseed, except flax, seed), crop subgroup 6-22E (vegetable, legume, pulse, bean, dried shelled, except soybean), and crop subgroup 6-22F (vegetable, legume, pulse, pea, dried shelled) at 0.01 ppm. The (GLC/MCD), (GC/ECD), or GC/MCD methods are used to measure and evaluate the chemical bromoxynil. Contact: RD.

• PP 5F9212. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2026-1783). Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide, nematocide cyclobutrifluram in or on tuberous and corm vegetables (except ginseng) (CSG 1A) at 1.0 ppm; tuberous and corm (CSG 1C) at 0.2 ppm; tuberous and corm (CSG 1D) at 1.0 ppm; vegetable, leaves of root and tuber (CG2) at 1.5 ppm; bulb vegetables (CG 3-07); onion, bulb (CSG 3-07A) at 0.5 ppm; onion, green (CSG 3-07B) at 0.8 ppm; leafy vegetables (CG 4-16) at 2.0 ppm; brassica, head and stem (CG 5-16) at 0.8 ppm; legume vegetable (CG 6-22) (except soybean); edible podded peas and beans at 2.0m ppm; succulent peas and beans at 2.0 ppm; dried peas and beans at 2.0 ppm; pea and bean, forage/vines at 2.0 ppm; pea and bean, hay at 6.0 ppm; fruiting vegetables (CG 8-10) at 0.7 ppm; cucurbit vegetables (CG 9) at 0.7 ppm; citrus fruit (CG 10-10) at 0.08 ppm; pome fruit (CG 11-10) at 0.05 ppm; stone fruit (CG 12-12) at 0.07 ppm; small fruit vine climbing (except fuzzy kiwifruit) (CSG 13-07F) at 0.08 ppm; low growing berry (CSG 13-7G) (except cranberry) at 0.7 ppm; tree nut (CG 14) at 0.05 ppm; almond hulls at 0.3 ppm; grain, cereal (CG 15-22) at 1.5 ppm; grain, cereal, forage, hay, stover, and straw, group 16-22, forage at 5.0 ppm; grain, cereal, forage, hay, stover, and straw, group 16-22, hay at 6.0 ppm; grain, cereal, forage, hay, stover, and straw, group 16-22, stover at 0.5ppm; grain, cereal, forage, hay, stover, and straw, group 16-22, straw at 0.5ppm; cotton, undelinted seed (CSG 20C) at 2.0 ppm; cotton, gin byproducts at 6.0 ppm; leaf petiole vegetable (CSG 22B) at 0.6 ppm; sugarcane at 0.1 ppm; peanut, nutmeat at 0.2 ppm; peanut, hay at 5.0 ppm; cattle fat at 0.02 ppm; cattle meat at 0.1 ppm; cattle meat byproducts at 0.1 ppm; eggs at 0.1 ppm; goat fat at <0.03 ppm; goat meat at 0.1 ppm; goat meat byproducts at 0.1 ppm; goat liver at 0.5 ppm; goat kidney at 0.09 ppm; hog fat at <0.03 ppm; hog meat at 0.1 ppm; hog meat byproducts at 0.1 ppm; hog liver at 0.5 ppm; hog kidney at 0.09 ppm; horse fat at <0.03 ppm; horse meat at 0.1 ppm; horse meat byproducts at 0.1 ppm; horse liver at 0.5 ppm; horse kidney at 0.09 ppm; milk at 0.3 ppm; poultry fat at <0.03 ppm; poultry meat at 0.1 ppm; poultry meat byproducts at 0.1 ppm; poultry liver at 0.5 ppm; poultry kidney at 0.09 ppm; sheep fat at <0.03 ppm; sheep meat at 0.1 ppm; sheep meat byproducts at 0.1 ppm; sheep liver at 0.5 ppm; sheep kidney at 0.09 ppm; inadvertent tolerances for grass, forage, fodder and hay (CG 17) forage at 5.0 ppm; grass, forage, fodder and hay (CG 17) hay at 6.0 ppm; animal feed, non-grass (CG 18), forage at 4.0 ppm; animal feed, non-grass (CG 18), hay at 8.0 ppm and herb group (CG 25) at 2.0 ppm. The GRM076.07A and GRM076.11A methods is/are used to measure and evaluate the chemical cyclobutrifluram. Contact: RD.

• PP 5F9219. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2026-1784) Nissan Chemical Corporation, 5-1, Nihonbashi 2-Chome, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 103-6119, Japan, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the herbicide, iptriazopyrid, as measured by the sum of 1,2,4-Triazolo[4,3-a]pyridine-8-carboxamide, 3-[[(1-methylethyl)sulfonyl] methyl]-N-(5-methyl-1,3,4-oxadiazol-2-yl)-5-(trifluoromethyl)- and 5-methyl-1,3,4-oxadiazol-2-amine, expressed as 1,2,4-Triazolo[4,3-a]pyridine-8-carboxamide, 3-[[(1-methylethyl)sulfonyl]methyl]-N-(5-methyl-1,3,4-oxadiazol-2-yl)-5-(trifluoromethyl)- equivalent in or on rice, grain at 0.60 ppm; rice, straw at 0.02 ppm, cattle, fat at 0.01 ppm; cattle, kidney at 0.10 ppm; cattle, liver at 0.10 ppm; cattle, meat at 0.01 ppm; fish, shellfish, crustacean at 0.04 ppm; goat, fat at 0.01 ppm; goat, kidney at 0.10 ppm; goat, liver at 0.10 ppm; goat, meat at 0.01 ppm; horse, fat at 0.01 ppm; horse, kidney at 0.10 ppm; horse, liver at 0.10 ppm; horse, meat at 0.01 ppm; hog, fat at 0.01 ppm; hog, kidney at 0.08 ppm; hog, liver at 0.08 ppm; hog, meat at 0.01 ppm; milk at 0.01 ppm; poultry, eggs at 0.01 ppm; poultry, fat at 0.01 ppm; poultry, liver at 0.40 ppm; poultry, muscle at 0.01 ppm; sheep, fat at 0.01 ppm; sheep, kidney at 0.10 ppm; sheep, liver at 0.10 ppm; and sheep, meat at 0.01 ppm. Liquid Chromatography-MS/MS is used to measure and evaluate the chemical iptriazopyrid. Contact: RD

This is a summary of the Commission's document, in SB Docket No. 25-157; Report No. 3234, released June 23, 2026. The full text of the Petition can be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. The Commission will not send a Congressional Review Act (CRA) submission to Congress or the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because no rules are being adopted by the Commission.

Subject: Modernizing Spectrum Sharing for Satellite Broadband (SB Docket No. 25-157).

Number of Petitions Filed: 1.