Section 18(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act), which codifies the Bank Merger Act (BMA), prohibits an insured depository institution (IDI) from engaging in a merger transaction except with the prior approval of the responsible agency. 1 The FDIC has jurisdiction to act on merger transactions that solely involve IDIs in which the acquiring, assuming, or resulting institution is an FDIC-supervised institution. 2 The FDIC also has jurisdiction to act on merger transactions that involve an IDI and any non-insured entity, notwithstanding the IDI's charter. 3

On March 11, 2025, the FDIC published a request for comment  4 in the Federal Register on a proposal to rescind the 2024 Statement of Policy issued on September 27, 2024  5 and to reinstate the FDIC's prior Bank Merger Statement of Policy, which was initially adopted in 1998 and amended most recently in 2008. 6

Having considered the comments received, the FDIC Board of Directors is rescinding the 2024 Statement of Policy and reinstating the Bank Merger Statement of Policy as described in this Supplementary Information .

The FDIC proposed to rescind the 2024 Statement of Policy and reinstate the Bank Merger Statement of Policy due to concerns that the 2024 Statement of Policy added considerable uncertainty to the merger application process and raised additional questions regarding when merger applications would be required. 7 The 2024 Statement of Policy also deemphasized the use of the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) thresholds in the competitive effects analysis, which had long served as a predictable proxy for determining whether a proposed transaction is anticompetitive, 8 and replaced those thresholds with more subjective criteria. In addition, the 2024 Statement of Policy placed an affirmative burden on applicants to demonstrate that a merger transaction would enable the resulting institution to better meet the convenience and needs of the community to be served than would otherwise occur in the absence of the merger, without offering any objective or quantifiable criteria regarding how the FDIC would evaluate this factor. 9 There were also concerns that the 2024 Statement of Policy made the FDIC's merger review process less transparent and predictable and left prospective applicants unclear about the prospects for approval and the resources and time necessary to complete the merger application process. Based on these concerns, in March of 2025, the FDIC proposed a return to its historical approach by seeking comment on the reinstatement of the prior Bank Merger Statement of Policy, which is well-understood by the public and market participants. Reinstatement of the Bank Merger Statement of Policy would serve as an interim measure while the agency develops future policy regarding merger transactions.

The Bank Merger Statement of Policy was first published in 1998 and was subsequently amended several times without public comment, 10 most recently in 2008. The Bank Merger Statement of Policy being reinstated is essentially  11 identical to the 2008 document. It includes a general introduction, followed by an overview of application procedures, a discussion of the FDIC's evaluation of the statutory factors required for consideration under the BMA, 12 and concludes with a list of related considerations. The discussion of the BMA statutory factors addresses the competitive factors, the prudential considerations related to financial and managerial resources and future prospects, the convenience and needs of the community to be served, and the effectiveness of each IDI involved in the proposed merger transaction in combatting money-laundering activities.

Although the Bank Merger Statement of Policy does not directly address the BMA's statutory factor related to the risk to the stability of the United States banking or financial system, which was added to the BMA by the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010, 13 the FDIC has articulated its approach to evaluating this factor in the context of merger transactions in the FDIC's Applications Procedures Manual. 14

The FDIC received 12 comment letters from 10 commenters on its proposal to rescind the 2024 Statement of Policy and reinstate the Bank Merger Statement of Policy. Two of the commenters sent two letters each writing separately first to request an extension of the comment period and then to discuss the proposal. Commenters included academics, advocacy groups, trade associations, and an individual.

Four commenters requested an extension of the 30-day comment period to allow for additional time for more robust public feedback. The FDIC decided not to extend the comment period given the extensive consideration of, and public feedback on, the 2024 Statement of Policy, which centered on the same issues. The FDIC desires to provide greater clarity for applicants in a timely manner as to how the FDIC would consider the BMA statutory factors in the context of a merger application, and reinstatement of the prior Bank Merger Statement of Policy supports this objective as it is well-understood by the public and market participants.

Five commenters supported the proposed rescission of the 2024 Statement of Policy and the reinstatement of the Bank Merger Statement of Policy, and five commenters were opposed. Commenters who supported rescission and reinstatement objected to certain aspects of the 2024 Statement of Policy and noted IDIs' familiarity and experience with the Bank Merger Statement of Policy. For example, one commenter believed that the 2024 Statement of Policy introduced uncertainty and subjectivity into the merger review process that potentially deterred beneficial transactions and appropriate corporate reorganizations. This commenter believed that reinstatement of the Bank Merger Statement of Policy would help restore clarity and predictability for these transactions. Another commenter considered it a prudent measure for the FDIC to return to the previous, well-understood framework for reviewing merger transactions as an interim measure while it considered more comprehensive revisions to its merger policy. All five commenters in support of rescission and reinstatement also generally supported a comprehensive review of the FDIC's evaluation of merger transactions.

Commenters who opposed the proposal generally expressed support for the 2024 Statement of Policy and stated that rescission would be regressive, counterproductive, and unnecessary. These commenters stated that the 2024 Statement of Policy provided more clarity regarding considerations that are not addressed in the Bank Merger Statement of Policy, including for example, the community and economic impacts of branch closures and the FDIC's adjudication of a merger application under the financial stability factor. Commenters who opposed reinstatement of the Bank Merger Statement of Policy also generally supported the 2024 Statement of Policy's treatment of the convenience and needs statutory factor, as well as the FDIC's expectations regarding public hearings for transactions where the resultant institution would have total assets of $50 billion or more, heightened financial stability standards for merger transactions where the resultant institution would have total assets of $100 billion or more, and references to community benefit agreements.

As discussed previously in this Supplementary Information section, the FDIC believes that the 2024 Statement of Policy has added considerable uncertainty to the merger application process. Accordingly, and in view of the comments received in support of the proposal, the FDIC believes it would be appropriate and beneficial to the public to rescind the 2024 Statement of Policy and reinstate the long-standing Bank Merger Statement of Policy that is both more familiar to, and better understood by, key stakeholders in the merger application process.

Several commenters made recommendations to the FDIC in the context of its future review of the agency's merger policy, including ensuring closer adherence to the statutory criteria, reducing automatic bars to approval based on supervisory ratings alone, promoting greater interagency coordination, providing concrete timelines for approval, and improving transparency. Commenters also urged consideration of a streamlined application process for certain transactions based on their size or nature, such as internal reorganizations or transfers involving a small number of deposits. Other commenters recommended implementing a de minimis exception for mergers of small IDIs in rural markets, modernizing the competitive effects analysis to consider competition from nonbanks and financial services firms, re-evaluating how the FDIC utilizes Summary of Deposits data when measuring market concentration, and ensuring closer coordination with State regulators. These comments will be considered, and the FDIC will seek additional public comments, in connection with a future proposal to comprehensively revise merger policy.

Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14215, directs certain agencies to assess costs and benefits of significant regulatory actions and to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Pursuant to section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget has determined that the rescission of the 2024 Statement of Policy and the reinstatement of the FDIC's Bank Merger Statement of Policy that was in effect prior to 2024 is a “significant regulatory action.”

In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 15 the FDIC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

The Bank Merger Statement of Policy does not create any new or revise any existing collections of information under the PRA. Therefore, no information collection request will be submitted to the OMB for review.

The text of the Bank Merger Statement of Policy is as follows:

Section 18(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1828(c)), popularly known as the “Bank Merger Act,” requires the prior written approval of the FDIC before any insured depository institution may:

(1) Merge or consolidate with, purchase or otherwise acquire the assets of, or assume any deposit liabilities of, another insured depository institution if the resulting institution is to be a state nonmember bank, or

(2) Merge or consolidate with, assume liability to pay any deposits or similar liabilities of, or transfer assets and deposits to, a noninsured bank or institution.

Institutions undertaking one of the above described “merger transactions” must file an application with the FDIC. Transactions that do not involve a transfer of deposit liabilities typically do not require prior FDIC approval under the Bank Merger Act, unless the transaction involves the acquisition of all or substantially all of an institution's assets.

The Bank Merger Act prohibits the FDIC from approving any proposed merger transaction that would result in a monopoly, or would further a combination or conspiracy to monopolize or to attempt to monopolize the business of banking in any part of the United States. Similarly, the Bank Merger Act prohibits the FDIC from approving a proposed merger transaction whose effect in any section of the country may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly, or which in any other manner would be in restraint of trade. An exception may be made in the case of a merger transaction whose effect would be to substantially lessen competition, tend to create a monopoly, or otherwise restrain trade, if the FDIC finds that the anticompetitive effects of the proposed transaction are clearly outweighed in the public interest by the probable effect of the transaction in meeting the convenience and needs of the community to be served. For example, the FDIC may approve a merger transaction to prevent the probable failure of one of the institutions involved.

In every proposed merger transaction, the FDIC must also consider the financial and managerial resources and future prospects of the existing and proposed institutions, the convenience and needs of the community to be served, and the effectiveness of each insured depository institution involved in the proposed merger transaction in combating money-laundering activities, including in overseas branches.

1. Application filing. Application forms and instructions may be obtained from the appropriate FDIC office. Completed applications and any other pertinent materials should be filed with the appropriate FDIC office. The application and related materials will be reviewed by the FDIC for compliance with applicable laws and FDIC rules and regulations. When all necessary information has been received, the application will be processed and a decision rendered by the FDIC.

2. Expedited processing. Section 303.64 of the FDIC rules and regulations (12 CFR 303.64) provides for expedited processing, which the FDIC will grant to eligible applicants. In addition to the eligible institution criteria provided for in § 303.2 (12 CFR 303.2), § 303.64 provides expedited processing criteria specifically applicable to proposed merger transactions.

3. Publication of notice. The FDIC will not take final action on a merger application until notice of the proposed merger transaction is published in a newspaper or newspapers of general circulation in accordance with the requirements of section 18(c)(3) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. See § 303.65 of the FDIC rules and regulations (12 CFR 303.65). The applicant must furnish evidence of publication of the notice to the appropriate FDIC office following compliance with the publication requirement. See § 303.7(b) of the FDIC rules and regulations (12 CFR 303.7(b)).

4. Reports on competitive factors. As required by law, the FDIC will request a report on the competitive factors involved in a proposed merger transaction from the Attorney General. This report must ordinarily be furnished within 30 days, and the applicant upon request will be given an opportunity to submit comments to the FDIC on the contents of the competitive factors report.

5. Notification of the Attorney General. After the FDIC approves any merger transaction, the FDIC will immediately notify the Attorney General. Generally, unless it involves a probable failure, an emergency exists requiring expeditious action, or it is solely between an insured depository institution and one or more of its affiliates, a merger transaction may not be consummated until 30 calendar days after the date of the FDIC's approval. However, the FDIC may prescribe a 15-day period, provided the Attorney General concurs with the shorter period.

6. Merger decisions available. Applicants for consent to engage in a merger transaction may find additional guidance in the reported bases for FDIC approval or denial in prior merger transaction cases compiled in the FDIC's annual “Merger Decisions” report. Reports may be obtained from the FDIC Public Information Center, 3501 North Fairfax Drive, Room E-1005, Arlington, VA 22226. Reports may also be viewed at https://www.fdic.gov.

The FDIC's intent and purpose is to foster and maintain a safe, efficient, and competitive banking system that meets the needs of the communities served. With these broad goals in mind, the FDIC will apply the specific standards outlined in this Statement of Policy when evaluating and acting on proposed merger transactions.

In deciding the competitive effects of a proposed merger transaction, the FDIC will consider the extent of existing competition between and among the merging institutions, other depository institutions, and other providers of similar or equivalent services in the relevant product market(s) within the relevant geographic market(s).

1. Relevant geographic market. The relevant geographic market(s) includes the areas in which the offices to be acquired are located and the areas from which those offices derive the predominant portion of their loans, deposits, or other business. The relevant geographic market also includes the areas where existing and potential customers impacted by the proposed merger transaction may practically turn for alternative sources of banking services. In delineating the relevant geographic market, the FDIC will also consider the location of the acquiring institution's offices in relation to the offices to be acquired.

2. Relevant product market. The relevant product market(s) includes the banking services currently offered by the merging institutions and to be offered by the resulting institution. In addition, the product market may also include the functional equivalent of such services offered by other types of competitors, including other depository institutions, securities firms, or finance companies. For example, share draft accounts offered by credit unions may be the functional equivalent of demand deposit accounts. Similarly, captive finance companies of automobile manufacturers may compete directly with depository institutions for automobile loans, and mortgage bankers may compete directly with depository institutions for real estate loans.

3. Analysis of competitive effects. In its analysis of the competitive effects of a proposed merger transaction, the FDIC will focus particularly on the type and extent of competition that exists and that will be eliminated, reduced, or enhanced by the proposed merger transaction. The FDIC will also consider the competitive impact of providers located outside a relevant geographic market where it is shown that such providers individually or collectively influence materially the nature, pricing, or quality of services offered by the providers currently operating within the geographic market.

The FDIC's analysis will focus primarily on those services that constitute the largest part of the businesses of the merging institutions. In its analysis, the FDIC will use whatever analytical proxies are available that reasonably reflect the dynamics of the market, including deposit and loan totals, the number and volume of transactions, contributions to net income, or other measures. Initially, the FDIC will focus on the respective shares of total deposits  16 held by the merging institutions and the various other participants with offices in the relevant geographic market(s), unless the other participants' loan, deposit, or other business varies markedly from that of the merging institutions. Where it is clear, based on market share considerations alone, that the proposed merger transaction would not significantly increase concentration in an unconcentrated market, a favorable finding will be made on the competitive factor.

Where the market shares of the merging institutions are not clearly insignificant, the FDIC will also consider the degree of concentration within the relevant geographic market(s) using the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI)  17 as a primary measure of market concentration. For purposes of this test, a reasonable approximation for the relevant geographic market(s) consisting of one or more predefined areas may be used. Examples of such predefined areas include counties, the Bureau of the Census Metropolitan-Statistical Areas (MSAs), or Rand-McNally Ranally Metro Areas (RMAs).

The FDIC normally will not deny a proposed merger transaction on antitrust grounds (absent objection from the Department of Justice) where the post-merger HHI in the relevant geographic market(s) is 1,800 points or less or, if it is more than 1,800, it reflects an increase of less than 200 points from the pre-merger HHI. Where a proposed merger transaction fails this initial concentration test, the FDIC will consider more closely the various competitive dynamics at work in the market, taking into account a variety of factors that may be especially relevant and important in a particular proposal, including:

• The number, size, financial strength, quality of management, and aggressiveness of the various participants in the market;

• The likelihood of new participants entering the market based on its attractiveness in terms of population, income levels, economic growth, and other features;

• Any legal impediments to entry or expansion; and

• Definite entry plans by specifically identified entities.

In addition, the FDIC will consider the likelihood that new entrants might enter the market by less direct means, for example, electronic banking with local advertisement of the availability of such services. This consideration will be particularly important where there is evidence that the mere possibility of such entry tends to encourage competitive pricing and to maintain the quality of services offered by the existing competitors in the market.

The FDIC will also consider the extent to which the proposed merger transaction likely would create a stronger, more efficient institution able to compete more vigorously in the relevant geographic markets.

4. Consideration of the public interest. The FDIC will deny any proposed merger transaction whose overall effect likely would be to reduce existing competition substantially by limiting the service and price options available to the public in the relevant geographic market(s), unless the anticompetitive effects of the proposed merger transaction are clearly outweighed in the public interest by the probable effect of the transaction in meeting the convenience and needs of the community to be served. For this purpose, the applicant must show by clear and convincing evidence that any claimed public benefits would be both substantial and incremental and generally available to seekers of banking services in the relevant geographic market(s) and that the expected benefits cannot reasonably be achieved through other, less anticompetitive means.

Where a proposed merger transaction is the least costly alternative to the probable failure of an insured depository institution, the FDIC may approve the merger transaction even if it is anticompetitive.

The FDIC does not wish to create larger weak institutions or to debilitate existing institutions whose overall condition, including capital, management, and earnings, is generally satisfactory. Consequently, apart from competitive considerations, the FDIC normally will not approve a proposed merger transaction where the resulting institution would fail to meet existing capital standards, continue with weak or unsatisfactory management, or whose earnings prospects, both in terms of quantity and quality, are weak, suspect, or doubtful. In assessing capital adequacy and earnings prospects, particular attention will be paid to the adequacy of the allowance for loan and lease losses. In evaluating management, the FDIC will rely to a great extent on the supervisory histories of the institutions involved and of the executive officers and directors that are proposed for the resultant institution. In addition, the FDIC may review the adequacy of management's disclosure to shareholders of the material aspects of the merger transaction to ensure that management has properly fulfilled its fiduciary duties.

In assessing the convenience and needs of the community to be served, the FDIC will consider such elements as the extent to which the proposed merger transaction is likely to benefit the general public through higher lending limits, new or expanded services, reduced prices, increased convenience in utilizing the services and facilities of the resulting institution, or other means. The FDIC, as required by the Community Reinvestment Act, will also note and consider each institution's Community Reinvestment Act performance evaluation record. An unsatisfactory record may form the basis for denial or conditional approval of an application.

In every case, the FDIC will take into consideration the effectiveness of each insured depository institution involved in the proposed merger transaction in combating money-laundering activities, including in overseas branches. In this regard, the FDIC will consider the adequacy of each institution's programs, policies, and procedures relating to anti-money laundering activities; the relevant supervisory history of each participating institution, including their compliance with anti-money laundering laws and regulations; and the effectiveness of any corrective program outstanding. The FDIC's assessment may also incorporate information made available to the FDIC by the Department of the Treasury, other Federal or State authorities, and/or foreign governments. Adverse findings may warrant correction of identified problems before consent is granted, or the imposition of conditions. Significantly adverse findings in this area may form the basis for denial of the application.

If the institution that is the subject of the application is, or will be, affiliated with a company engaged in insurance activities that is subject to supervision by a state insurance regulator, the applicant must submit the following information as part of its application: (1) the name of insurance company; (2) a description of the insurance activities that the company is engaged in and has plans to conduct; and (3) a list of each state and the lines of business in that state which the company holds, or will hold, an insurance license. Applicant must also indicate the state where the company holds a resident license or charter, as applicable.

1. Interstate bank merger transactions. Where a proposed transaction is an interstate merger transaction between insured banks, the FDIC will consider the additional factors provided for in section 44 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. 1831u.

2. Interim merger transactions. An interim institution is a state- or federally-chartered institution that does not operate independently, but exists, normally for a very short period of time, solely as a vehicle to accomplish a merger transaction. In cases where the establishment of a new or interim institution is contemplated in connection with a proposed merger transaction, the applicant should contact the FDIC to discuss any relevant deposit insurance requirements. In general, a merger transaction (other than a purchase and assumption) involving an insured depository institution and a federal interim depository institution will not require an application for deposit insurance, even if the federal interim depository institution will be the surviving institution.

3. Branch closings. Where banking offices are to be closed in connection with the proposed merger transaction, the FDIC will review the merging institutions' conformance to any applicable requirements of section 42 of the FDI Act concerning notice of branch closings as reflected in the Interagency Policy Statement Concerning Branch Closing Notices and Policies. See 64 FR 34844 (Jun. 29, 1999).

4. Legal fees and other expenses. The commitment to pay or payment of unreasonable or excessive fees and other expenses incident to an application reflects adversely upon the management of the applicant institution. The FDIC will closely review expenses for professional or other services rendered by present or prospective board members, major shareholders, or other insiders for any indication of self-dealing to the detriment of the institution. As a matter of practice, the FDIC expects full disclosure to all directors and shareholders of any arrangement with an insider. In no case will the FDIC approve an application where the payment of a fee, in whole or in part, is contingent upon any act or forbearance by the FDIC or by any other federal or state agency or official.

5. Trade names. Where an acquired bank or branch is to be operated under a different trade name than the acquiring bank, the FDIC will review the adequacy of the steps taken to minimize the potential for customer confusion about deposit insurance coverage. Applicants may refer to the Interagency Statement on Branch Names for additional guidance. See FDIC, Financial Institution Letter, 46-98 (May 1, 1998).

EDA's enabling statute is the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (PWEDA) and EDA's regulations are codified at 13 CFR Chapter III. The CEQ issued an interim final rule, (90 FR 10610, February 25, 2025; 90 FR 12690, March 19, 2025), effective April 11, 2025, to remove the existing implementing regulations for the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., as amended (NEPA). This action was necessitated by and is consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14154, Unleashing American Energy (90 FR 8353; January 29, 2025), in which President Trump rescinded President Carter's E.O. 11991, Relating to Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality (42 FR 26967; May 24, 1977), which was the basis CEQ had invoked for its authority to make rules to begin with.

EDA's environmental regulation at 13 CFR 302.1 is intended to inform prospective and current grant recipients of their environmental responsibilities under all federal environmental laws, regulations, and Executive Orders. The current regulation also contains a specific reference to CEQ's NEPA implementing regulations and discusses some requirements under NEPA generally. In light of CEQ's removal of its NEPA implementing regulations and the fact that EDA has its own NEPA policies at Directive 17-02.2, it is necessary to update EDA's environmental regulation to remove references to CEQ's NEPA implementing procedures.

In addition, EDA is updating language in the regulation to make it consistent with EDA's internal staffing practices. The regulation formerly discussed that an EDA Environmental Officer is associated with an EDA regional office. However, due to staffing changes, EDA no longer necessarily assigns an Environmental Officer on a regional basis, but instead on a case-by-case basis. This regulation does not provide any additional guidance and only clarifies an internal staffing practice.

This rule is part of the overall package of updates to EDA's environmental practices to ensure consistency with CEQ's rescission of its implementing regulations and with governmentwide updates to agency NEPA procedures, which EDA is executing through a separate action to Directive 17.02-2. EDA is revising Directive 17.02-2 in response to E.O. 14154 as well as Congressional amendments to NEPA and recent court cases.

Congress amended NEPA in significant part in the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (FRA), Public Law 118-5, signed on June 3, 2023, adding substantial detail and direction in Title I of NEPA, including in particular on procedural issues that CEQ and individual acting agencies had previously addressed in their own procedures. EDA recognized the need to update its NEPA implementing procedures in light of these significant legislative changes. Since EDA's procedures were originally designed as a supplement to CEQ's NEPA regulations, the EDA had been awaiting CEQ action before revising its procedures, consistent with CEQ direction. See 40 CFR 1507.3(b) (2024); see also 86 FR 34154 (June 29, 2021). However, with CEQ's regulations now rescinded, and with EDA's NEPA implementing procedures still unmodified more than two years after this significant legislative overhaul, it is exigent that EDA move quickly to conform its procedures to the statute as amended.

Additionally, the Supreme Court on May 29, 2025 issued its decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, 145 S.Ct. 1497 (2025), in which it described the “transform[ation]” of NEPA from its roots as “a modest procedural requirement,” into a significant “substantive roadblock” that “paralyze[s]” “agency decisionmaking.” Id. at 1507, 1513 (quotations omitted). The Supreme Court explained that part of that problem had been caused by decisions of lower courts, which it rejected, issuing a “course correction” mandating that courts give “substantial deference” to reasonable agency conclusions underlying its NEPA process. Id. at 1513-14. But the Court also acknowledged, and through its course correction sought to address, the effect on “litigation-averse agencies” which, in light of judicial “micromanage[ment],” had been “tak[ing] ever more time and [ ] prepar[ing] ever longer EISs for future projects.” Id. at 1513. EDA, thus, is issuing this final rule as part of its project of revising its NEPA implementing procedures to align its actions with the Supreme Court's decision and streamline its process of ensuring reasonable NEPA decisions.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), notice and comment are not required because this is a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice inasmuch as it updates an internal staffing structure. This rule also does not substantively affect EDA's implementation of NEPA which EDA administers through Directive 17-02.2, not the regulation at 13 CFR 302.1. As previously stated, the Directive is being updated in response to E.O. 14154 as well as Congressional amendments to NEPA and recent court cases. Rather, EDA is simply removing a cross-reference to a set of CEQ NEPA implementing procedures that CEQ rescinded.

In addition, to the extent that prior notice and solicitation of public comment would otherwise be required, EDA finds that there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment are unnecessary. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). The APA authorizes agencies to issue regulations without notice and public comment when an agency finds, for good cause, that notice and comment is “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest,” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), and to make the rule effective immediately for good cause. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This rule amends an environmental regulation to remove references to regulations that are no longer in force and updates an internal staffing structure so that is consistent with current practices. Therefore, public comment would serve no purpose and is unnecessary, and there is accordingly good cause to forgo notice-and-comment-procedures. There is also good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness. As this rule does not alter the rights or responsibilities of any party, delaying implementation of this rule serves no purpose. Moreover, EDA is removing references to regulations that are no longer in force, against the backdrop of an executive-branch wide revision of NEPA regulations, which includes EDA separately promulgating new NEPA procedures in its Directive 17-02.2. Confusion would result if part 302's references to defunct regulations remained on the books; good cause lies in promptly conforming it instead to the existing state of law.

Because prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis has not been prepared.

This final rule was drafted in accordance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14192. OMB has determined that this rule is significant for purposes of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, and has reviewed. This final rule is an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action.

This final rule is not a “major rule” under the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ).

This final rule does not contain policies that have federalism implications.

This final rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, EDA amends 13 CFR part 302 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, removes Class E airspace extending from 1,200 feet above the surface, and updates the airport's legal description, to support IFR operations at Wrangell Airport, AK.

The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2025-0182 in the Federal Register (90 FR 14217; March 31, 2025), proposing to modify Class E airspace at Wrangell Airport, Wrangell, AK. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace areas are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11J, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11J, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by modifying the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface at Wrangell Airport, Wrangell, AK, to more appropriately contain flight procedures. This action also expands Class E airspace coverage to the north-northwest and southeast, removes unnecessary Class E coverage to the west-northwest, and removes redundant Class E airspace areas that extend upward from 1,200 feet above the surface.

The terrain-driven airspace design resulting from the modifications above better contains departing IFR operations until reaching 1,200 feet above the surface to the south and southwest on the LASOE TWO Area Navigation (RNAV) (Required Navigation Performance [RNP]) Runway (RWY) 10 DEPARTURE, LASOE TWO RNAV (RNP) RWY 28 DEPARTURE, KAJBU FIVE RNAV (RNP) RWY 10 DEPARTURE, LEVEL ISLAND THREE DEPARTURE (OBSTACLE), and SUMNER TWO (RNAV) DEPARTURE procedures. The action also accommodates arriving IFR operations below 1,500 feet above the surface to the north on the RNAV (Global Positioning System [GPS]) P RWY 10 and RNAV (GPS)-E approach procedures.

Additionally, this action removes redundant Class E airspace areas that extend upward from 1,200 and 5,700 feet above the surface at Wrangell Airport as the Southeast En Route Domestic Airspace Area provides sufficient airspace containment.

Finally, references to the Wrangell nondirectional beacon, Wrangell localizer, and Level Island very high frequency omnidirectional range/distance measuring equipment are removed from line three of the legal description's text header as they are no longer needed to describe the airspace.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the Class E airspace and updates the airport's legal description to support IFR operations at Petersburg James A. Johnson Airport, Petersburg, AK.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA 2025-0183 in the Federal Register (90 FR 14223; March 31, 2025), proposing to modify the Class E airspace Petersburg James A. Johnson Airport, Petersburg, AK. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Subsequent to the publication of the NPRM, the FAA identified that the word “from” was inadvertently omitted from the end of the Class E airspace legal description regarding the northern airspace extension. Accordingly, this action corrects the text to read “extending from 1.7 miles”. This is a ministerial change that does not alter the airspace boundaries or operating requirements. Therefore, the FAA has determined that good cause exists for not recirculating the proposal for public comment.

Class E5 airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11J, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by modifying the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface and updating the administrative portion of the legal description at Petersburg James A. Johnson Airport, AK.

While the existing airspace contains widespread Class E coverage over an approximate 75 by 25-mile area, only that airspace within 6.5 miles of the airport extends upward from 700 feet. This action expands that airspace to within 12.3 miles of the airport and adds a narrow segment that extends 16.2 miles north of the airport. These changes will appropriately contain arriving IFR operations below 1,500 feet above the surface and departing and missed approach IFR operations until reaching 1,200 feet above the surface.

Next, this proposal removes multiple segments of Class E airspace that extend upward from 1,200 feet above the surface to the north and southeast, 3,300 feet above the surface to the south, 4,200 feet above the surface to the south and southeast, and 5,700 feet above the surface to the northwest. These airspace areas are redundant given that the existing southeast E6 domestic airspace that blankets the region provides sufficient controlled airspace for aircraft to transition into and out of the terminal and en route environments.

Finally, administrative changes are made to lines two and three of the text header for the airport's legal description. The airport name in line two is incorrect and is changed to “Petersburg James A. Johnson Airport” to align with the FAA's database. Line three removes unnecessary descriptive references to the Fredericks Point nondirectional beacon, Petersburg localizer, and Level Island very high frequency omnidirectional range/distance measuring equipment.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority, as it amends Class D, E2, E4, and E5 airspace in New Bern, NC.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA 2025-0769 in the Federal Register (90 FR 18826; May 2, 2025), proposing to amend Class D, E2, E4, and E5 airspace at Coastal Carolina Regional Airport, New Bern, NC. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. One comment was received, stating that the coordinates for CarolinaEast Medical Center Heliport had an error. See “Differences from the NPRM” for corrective action taken in response.

An editorial change was made to correct the spelling of CarolinaEast Medical Center Heliport removing the space between Carolina and East in the NPRM. Additionally, the coordinates for CarolinaEast Medical Center Heliport were published in the NPRM incorrectly. The latitude for CarolinaEast Medical Center Heliport should not be (“W”); it should be an (“N”) and has been corrected in this final rule. As this constitutes a ministerial change that does not alter legal obligations associated with the airspace, the FAA has determined that good cause exists for not re-circulating the NPRM for public notice and comment.

Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11J, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11J, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 to amend Class D, E2, E4, and E5 airspace for Coastal Carolina Regional Airport, New Bern, NC.

This action amends both the Class D and Class E2 airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,500 feet MSL for Coastal Carolina Regional Airport, New Bern, NC, by increasing it to a 4.3-mile radius as the current radius of 4.0-miles does not properly contain instrument flight rules operations. These airspace areas encompass the same airspace but are separately activated by NOTAM.

Additionally, this action amends the Class E4 airspace by removing that airspace that extends upward from the surface within 2.4 miles each side of the New Bern VOR/DME 210° radial, extending from the 4-mile radius to 7 miles southwest of the VOR/DME. The Class E4 airspace will also be amended from the surface within 2.4 miles each side of the New Bern VOR/DME 038° radial, by extending from the 4.3-mile radius to 7 miles northeast of the New Bern VOR/DME.

Lastly, this action amends Class E5 airspace extending from 700 feet above the surface upward and within 2 miles each side of the New Bern VOR/DME 210° radial, extending from the 7-mile radius of the New Bern VOR/DME to the 10-mile radius of the New Bern VOR/DME for Coastal Carolina Regional Airport, New Bern, NC. This reconfiguration will properly contain the currently published standard instrument approach procedures. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations for existing instrument approaches at Coastal Carolina Regional Airport, New Bern, NC.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant the preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

This document and all comments received may be viewed online through the Federal eRulemaking portal at www.regulations.gov using the docket number listed above. Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are also available at www.regulations.gov. 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.

All comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above will be considered and will be available for examination in the docket at the above address. Comments received after the comment closing date will be filed in the docket and will be considered to the extent practicable. In addition to late comments, the agencies will also continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes available after the comment period closing date, and interested persons should continue to examine the docket for new material. A final rule may be published at any time after close of the comment period and after DOT has had the opportunity to review the comments submitted.

FHWA, FRA, and FTA are publishing this interim final rule (IFR) modifying their implementing regulations (Part 771) for the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, as amended (NEPA). The regulations at 23 CFR part 771 were promulgated to supplement the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ's) NEPA regulations. Executive Order (E.O.) 14154, Unleashing American Energy (90 FR 8353; January 29, 2025), rescinded E.O. 11991, Relating to Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality (42 FR 26967; May 24, 1977),) which was the authority CEQ had relied upon to issue its regulations. The CEQ's regulations have been repealed, effective April 11. See Removal of National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations (90 FR 10610; Feb. 25, 2025).

As a result of the foregoing, the regulations at 23 CFR part 771, which implement NEPA for FHWA, FRA, and FTA, must be modified to remove cross-references to the defunct CEQ regulations. Prior to their removal, FHWA, FRA, and FTA followed the procedures contained in the CEQ implementing regulations for any topics not addressed by 23 CFR part 771. Now, Part 771 needs to be revised to stand on its own.

In addition to removing cross-references to the CEQ regulations, this IFR revises 23 CFR part 771 to reflect amendments to NEPA included in the section of the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FR Act) of 2023 known as the BUILDER Act of 2023, Public Law 118-5, Div. C, Tit. III, § 321 (June 3, 2023) (NEPA Amendments), which streamlines the environmental review process for Federal agencies, and to reflect amendments to Title 23 of the U.S. Code, Sections 139 and 203(e), regarding efficient environmental reviews, included in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law 117-58 (Nov. 15, 2021) (IIJA). Consistent with the NEPA Amendments, for instance, the phrase “reasonably foreseeable” has been inserted before the terms “impact” and “effect” throughout the regulation. Footnotes were removed to reduce redundant information that can be found elsewhere. FHWA, FRA, and FTA have supplementary guidance on environmental documents and procedures for their programs available on the internet through the DOT Guidance Portal at https://transportation.gov/guidance and https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov, https://railroads.dot.gov, and https://www.transit.dot.gov. Revisions to specific sections of the regulation are identified and discussed below, as appropriate. The agencies intend to pursue a future deregulatory rulemaking to further expedite the environmental review process.

This section of the regulation is revised to remove references to the CEQ regulations, as well as to modify references to authorities based on amendments to Title 23 of the U.S. Code in the IIJA. Reference to 23 U.S.C. 203(e) has been added to reflect IIJA amendments relating to NEPA implementation and the Federal Lands Transportation Program. Reference to 23 U.S.C. 325 is removed as the statute is repealed. Reference to 49 U.S.C. 5323(c) has also been added to clarify that the procedures set forth in 23 CFR part 771 comply with the statute.

This section is revised to reflect changes in terminology introduced by the NEPA Amendments. Section 771.105(a) has been revised to state “a single environmental document” in place of “the environmental review document.” Section 771.105(c) is revised to add “reasonably foreseeable” as the standard for evaluating the social, economic, and environmental impacts of a proposed transportation improvement.

This section incorporates new definitions for consistency with the NEPA Amendments and 23 U.S.C. 139. The definition “cooperating agency” has been added consistent with the definition provided in NEPA and requirements related to cooperating agencies found in 23 U.S.C. 139. Similarly, the definition “environmental document” has been added to the section as it is defined in NEPA, except that the definition of an environmental document includes a notice of intent and a record of decision (ROD), consistent with the definition of “environmental document” under 23 U.S.C. 139. A combined final environmental impact statement (EIS)/ROD document is not included in the definition but is treated as an environmental document since both the final EIS and the ROD are environmental documents. The definitions “finding of no significant impact (FONSI),” “major federal action,” and “special expertise” have also been added, consistent with definitions provided in NEPA. The definition for “major project,” as provided at 23 U.S.C. 139(a)(7), has been incorporated to distinguish between requirements in NEPA and 23 U.S.C. 139 throughout 23 CFR part 771.

This section also revises several existing definitions for consistency with the statutory definitions and requirements provided in NEPA and 23 U.S.C. 139. The definition for “applicant” has been revised to clarify that applicants may also be the “project sponsor” as the term is defined in the section. 23 U.S.C. 139(a)(10) defines “project sponsor” to mean “the agency or other entity, including any private or public-private entity, that seeks approval of the Secretary for a project.” This revision harmonizes the definition of “project sponsor” in 23 U.S.C. 139 with the definition for “applicant” as defined in the section. The definition of “environmental studies” has been revised to clarify that investigations of environmental impacts relevant to the environmental review process assess the “reasonably foreseeable” impacts associated with the proposed actions. The definition for “lead agencies” has been revised for consistency with the statutory definition provided at 23 U.S.C. 139(a)(6) and in NEPA.

Revisions to this section also remove reference to 23 U.S.C. 325 in the definition for “Administration,” as the statute was repealed, as well as references to the CEQ regulations, and incorporate terminology and references to relevant statutory provisions in NEPA as appropriate.

Consistent with the NEPA Amendments, this section clarifies that the requirements of 23 CFR part 771 apply only to major Federal actions. The section then identifies actions that are excluded from NEPA review because they are not major Federal actions. The actions identified in this section are those which FHWA, FRA, and FTA most commonly undertake, but are not the only actions that the agencies undertake that are not major Federal actions. This section is not intended to be exhaustive, and FHWA, FRA, and FTA are seeking comments on other actions that may not be major Federal actions.

Sections 771.109(a)(3) and (a)(4), as renumbered, have been revised to insert dates establishing the effective dates for the changes introduced by this IFR with respect to when a final agency action occurs or when an environmental document is accepted or initiated. The paragraph previously numbered (a)(4) has been removed as it is no longer relevant.

Revisions to language in §§ 771.109(c)(1) and (c)(2) are meant to clarify that it is ultimately the Federal lead agency that is responsible for managing the environmental review process and the contents of environmental documents, and any joint lead agency may prepare environmental review documents under the Federal lead agency's supervision and subject to the Federal lead agency's independent evaluation of such documents. Section 771.109(c)(1) has also been revised to replace “preparation” with “contents” for consistent terminology with NEPA.

Section 771.109(c)(6) has been removed to be consistent with the amendments to NEPA that allow all project sponsors, regardless of whether the project sponsor is a private entity, to prepare environmental documents under the supervision of the lead agency.

Revisions to § 771.109(c)(6), formerly subparagraph (c)(7), clarify the role of participating agencies in the environmental review process, as identified in 23 U.S.C. 139 and NEPA.

For FRA, § 771.109(e) is revised for consistency with the NEPA Amendments providing for an agency to develop procedures for private entities to allow a project sponsor to prepare environmental documents.

Revisions to this section also include the removal of references to the CEQ regulations and the insertion of terminology and statutory references from NEPA as appropriate.

Section 771.111(a)(2)(iii) was added to incorporate the passenger rail planning process FRA undertakes as part of the Corridor Identification and Development Program authorized under the IIJA and codified at 49 U.S.C. 25101, or other Administration-approved planning efforts. Revisions to paragraph (g) clarify that tiering is a form of programmatic environmental document.

Section 771.111(i)(2) is revised to clarify the factors relevant to soliciting comments in a notice of intent, including “impacts and relevant information, studies, or analyses with respect to the proposed agency action,” see 42 U.S.C. 4336a(c).

Revisions to this section also include the removal of references to the CEQ regulations and the insertion of terminology and statutory references from NEPA as appropriate. Section 771.111(j) has also been revised to include updated contact information for FRA and FTA.

This section includes a minor revision to the title of the section to emphasize that the requirements that follow are only applicable if NEPA applies.

Paragraph (c) is revised to clarify that FRA may issue letters of intent prior to completion of the NEPA process for projects receiving funding under the Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail grant program pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 24911(g), which stipulates that the contingent commitment is not an obligation of the Federal government and is subject to the availability of appropriations for the grant program.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Agencies revise Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, part 771, and Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, parts 264 and 622 to read as follows:

In accordance with the requirements of section 4 of the Federal Civil Monetary Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, Public Law 101-410 (the “Inflation Adjustment Act”), as amended, (28 U.S.C. 2461 note) Justice is required periodically to adjust for inflation the civil monetary penalties assessed or enforced by the Department by publishing a rule in the Federal Register .

Section 701 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, Public Law 114-74 (Nov. 2, 2015) (“BBA”), substantially revised the prior provisions of the Inflation Adjustment Act and substituted a different statutory formula for calculating inflation adjustments on an annual basis.

The BBA further requires agencies to adjust their civil penalties on January 15 of each year thereafter to account for inflation during the preceding year.

Pursuant to the Inflation Adjustment Act, as amended, the Department has promulgated a series of rules adjusting the civil money penalties for inflation. Readers may refer to the Supplementary Information (also known as the preamble) of the Department's prior inflation adjustment rules for additional background information regarding the statutory authority for adjustments of civil monetary penalty amounts to take account of inflation and the Department's past implementation of inflation adjustments.

Most recently, the Department published a final rule on February 12, 2024 (89 FR 9764), to adjust the civil money penalties to account for inflation occurring since 2023.

As required, the Department is publishing this final rule to adjust for 2025 the Department's current civil penalties. Under the statutory formula, the adjustments made by this rule are based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index for October 2024. M-25-02 (Dec. 17, 2024) https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/M-25-02.pdf (last visited Dec. 26, 2024) instructs that the applicable inflation factor for this adjustment is 1.02598.

Accordingly, this rule adjusts the civil penalty amounts in 28 CFR 85.5 by applying this inflation factor mechanically to each of the civil penalty amounts listed (rounded to the nearest dollar).

• In 2016, the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act penalty was increased to $10,781 in accordance with the adjustment requirements of the BBA.

• For 2017, where the applicable inflation factor was 1.01636, the existing penalty of $10,781 was multiplied by 1.01636 and revised to $10,957.

• For 2024, where the applicable inflation factor was 1.03241 the existing penalty of $13,508 was multiplied by 1.03241 and revised to $13,946.

• For this final rule in 2025, where the applicable inflation factor is 1.02598 the existing penalty of $13,946 is multiplied by 1.02598 and revised to $14,308.

This rule adjusts for inflation civil monetary penalties within the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice for purposes of the Inflation Adjustment Act, as amended. Other agencies are responsible for the inflation adjustments of certain other civil monetary penalties that the Department's litigating components bring suit to collect. The reader should consult the regulations of those other agencies for inflation adjustments to those penalties.

Under this rule, the adjusted civil penalty amounts for 2025 are applicable only to civil penalties assessed after July 3, 2025, with respect to violations occurring after November 2, 2015, the date of enactment of the BBA.

The penalty amounts set forth in the existing provisions of 28 CFR 85.5, and its accompanying table, are applicable to all covered civil penalties assessed after August 1, 2016, and on or before July 3, 2025, with respect to violations occurring after November 2, 2015.

The revised table in this rule lists the civil penalty amounts as adjusted in 2025 and 2024. For civil penalty amounts as adjusted in years prior to 2024, readers should refer to the appropriate previously-published rule. 1

Civil penalties for violations occurring on or before November 2, 2015, and assessments made on or before August 1, 2016, continue to be subject to the civil monetary penalty amounts set forth in the Department's regulations in 28 CFR parts 20, 22, 36, 68, 71, 76, and 85 as such regulations were in effect prior to August 1, 2016 (or as set forth by statute if the amount had not yet been adjusted by regulation prior to August 1, 2016). See 83 FR 3944.

The BBA provides that, for each annual adjustment made after the initial adjustments of civil penalties in 2016, the head of an agency shall adjust the civil monetary penalties each year notwithstanding 5 U.S.C. 553. Accordingly, this rule is being issued as a final rule without prior notice and public comment, and without a delayed effective date.

Only those entities that are determined to have violated Federal law and regulations would be affected by the increase in the civil penalty amounts made by this rule. A Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis is not required for this rule because publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking was not required. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).

This final rule has been drafted in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” section 1(b), The Principles of Regulation, and in accordance with Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” section 1, General Principles of Regulation. The Department of Justice has determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” section 3(f), and, accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This final rule implements the BBA by making an across-the-board adjustment of the civil penalty amounts in 28 CFR 85.5 to account for inflation since the adoption of the Department's final rule published on January 30, 2023 (88 FR 5776).

Further, as this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” pursuant to Executive Order 12866, it is not an “Executive Order 14192 action” and, accordingly, it is it is fully exempt from the numerical 10-for-1 and cost offset requirements of Executive Order 14192.

This rule 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 Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

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

This rule will not 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 (as adjusted for inflation), and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

This rule is not a major rule as defined by the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804.

Inspection of Public Comments: All comments received before the close of the comment period are available for viewing by the public. We post all comments received before the close of the comment period on the following website as soon as possible after the comments have been received: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the search instructions on that website to view public comments. DoD will not post on https://www.regulations.gov public comments that make threats to individuals or institutions, or that suggest the commenter will take actions to harm an individual.

Plain Language Summary: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a plain language summary of this rule may be found at https://www.regulations.gov.

Title 32 CFR part 651 provides guidance for implementing NEPA in the Army. It applies to the Department of the Army, including the Active Army, the Army Reserve, Joint Bases for which the Army is the lead component, the Army's acquisition process, functions of the Army National Guard involving Federal funding, and functions for which the Army is the DoD executive agent. This part does not apply to civil works functions of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or to combat or combat-related activities in a combat or hostile-fire zone. Title 32 CFR part 651 was intended to be used as a “supplement[ ] . . . in conjunction with” the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) at 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508. 32 CFR 651.1(c).

However, the CEQ's regulations have been repealed, effective April 11. See Removal of National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations (90 FR 10610; Feb. 25, 2025). This action was necessitated by and consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14154, Unleashing American Energy (90 FR 8353; January 20, 2025), in which President Trump rescinded President Carter's E.O. 11991, Relating to Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality (42 FR 26967; May 24, 1977), which was the basis CEQ had invoked for its authority to make rules to begin with. The Army's regulations, which were a “supplement[ ] . . . to be used in conjunction with” those CEQ regulations, thus stand in obvious need of fundamental revision. President Trump in E.O. 14154 further directed agencies to revise their NEPA implementing procedures, consistent with the E.O., including its direction to CEQ to rescind its regulations.

In addition, Congress recently amended NEPA in significant part, in the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (FRA), Public Law 118-5, signed on June 3, 2023, in which Congress added substantial detail and direction in Title I of NEPA, including in particular on procedural issues that CEQ and individual acting agencies had previously addressed in their own procedures. The Army recognized the need to update its regulations in light of these significant legislative changes. Since the Army's regulations were originally designed as a supplement to CEQ's NEPA regulations, the Army had been awaiting CEQ action before revising its regulations, consistent with CEQ direction. See 40 CFR 1507.3(b) (2024); see also 86 FR 34154 (June 29, 2021). However, with CEQ's regulations now rescinded, and with the Army's NEPA implementing procedures still unmodified more than two years after this significant legislative overhaul, it is exigent that the Army move quickly to conform its procedures to the statute as amended.

Finally, the Supreme Court on May 29, 2025 issued a landmark decision, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, 145 S. Ct. 1497 (2025), in which it decried the “transform[ation]” of NEPA from its roots as “a modest procedural requirement,” into a significant “substantive roadblock” that “paralyze[s]” “agency decisionmaking.” Id. at 1507, 1513 (quotations omitted). The Supreme Court explained that part of that problem had been caused by decisions of lower courts, which it rejected, issuing a “course correction” mandating that courts give “substantial deference” to reasonable agency conclusions underlying its NEPA process. Id. at 1513-14. But the Court also acknowledged, and through its course correction sought to address, the effect on “litigation-averse agencies” which, in light of judicial “micromanage[ment],” had been “tak[ing] ever more time [] prepar[ing] ever longer EISs for future projects.” Id. at 1513. The Army, thus, is issuing this IFR to align its actions with the Supreme Court's decision and streamline its process of ensuring reasonable NEPA decisions. This revision has thus been called for, authorized, and directed by all three branches of government at the highest possible levels.

DoD has elected to respond to these instructions by promulgating Department-wide NEPA procedures, Department of Defense National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures, which will guide the Army's NEPA process henceforth. The Supreme Court could not have been clearer in Seven County that NEPA is a procedural statute. See 145 S. Ct. at 1507 (“NEPA is a purely procedural statute.”); see also id. at 1510 (“NEPA is purely procedural. . . . NEPA does not mandate particular results, but simply prescribes the necessary process' for an agency's environmental review of a project;”) (internal quotation omitted); id. at 1511 (NEPA is a purely procedural statute” ); id. at 1513 (NEPA is properly understood as “a modest procedural requirement”); id. at 1514 (“NEPA's status as a purely procedural statute”); see also id. at 1507 (“Simply stated, NEPA is a procedural cross-check, not a substantive roadblock.”). Mindful of this, DoD has decided that the flexibility to respond to new developments in this fast-evolving area of law, afforded by using non-codified procedures, outweighs the public-transparency virtues of codifying its regulations going forward. Notably, DoD can—and will—ensure that accessibility to the public by posting these procedures online, which removes the upside of codification. By contrast, not codifying its procedures will enable it to rapidly update these procedures in response to future court decisions (such as Seven County ), Presidential directives, or the needs of the services. The use of non-codified procedures is, moreover, consistent with the approach that several other Federal agencies have used for decades.

DoD has, correspondingly, directed all military departments to repeal their respective NEPA implementing regulations by June 30, 2025, per a May 21, 2025, memorandum. Thus, the Army is rescinding its NEPA implementing regulations at 32 CFR part 651. The Army is furthermore taking this action because the CEQ NEPA regulations, which the Army regulations were intended to supplement, have been rescinded and the Army regulations are incomplete on their own. The authority under which the CEQ regulations were promulgated, Executive Order (E.O.) 11991 (42 FR 26967, May 24, 1977), has been rescinded by E.O. 14154 (90 FR 8353, Jan. 29, 2025). Therefore, the Army is rescinding 32 CFR part 651 to conform to CEQ's rescission of its regulations. The Army intends to continue to rely on categorical exclusions previously published in appendix B of 32 CFR part 651 or adopted by public notice in the Federal Register , all of which have now been incorporated into the Appendix to Department of Defense National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures.

The Army acknowledges that third parties may claim to have reliance interests in the Army's existing NEPA procedures. But revised agency procedures will have no effect on ongoing NEPA reviews, where the Army, following CEQ guidance, has held it will continue to apply existing applications. Moreover, as the Supreme Court has just explained, NEPA “is a purely procedural statute” that “imposes no substantive environmental obligations or restrictions.” Seven County, 145 S. Ct. at 1507. Any asserted reliance interests grounded in substantive environmental concerns, such interests are not in accord with the best meaning of the law and are entitled to “no. . . weight.” Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of California, 140 S. Ct. 1891, 1914 (2020).

Because reliance interests are inherently backward-looking, it is unclear how any party could assert reliance interests in prospective procedures. To the extent such interests exist, the Army concludes that they are “outweigh[ed]” by “other interests and policy concerns.” Id. Namely, the complex web of regulations preexisted the 2023 amendments to NEPA and the new Procedures repeatedly “led to more agency analysis of separate projects, more consideration of attenuated effects, more exploration of alternatives to proposed agency action, more speculation and consultation and estimation and litigation,” which in turn has meant that “[f]ewer projects make it to the finish line,” or even “to the starting line.” Seven County, 145 S. Ct. at 1513-14. This has increased the cost of projects dramatically, “both for the agency preparing the EIS and for the builder of the project,” resulting in systemic harms to America's infrastructure and economy. Id. at 1514. Correspondingly, the wholesale revision and simplification of this regime, effectuated by the DoD's new Procedures, is necessary to assure ensure efficient and predictable reviews, with significant upsides for the economy and for projects of all sorts. This set of policy considerations drastically outweighs any claimed reliance interests in the preexisting procedures.

The Army has taken this action as part of DoD's broader approach to revising its implementation of NEPA, in which DoD and its components have revised their NEPA implementing procedures to conform to the 2023 statutory amendments, to respond to President Trump's direction in E.O. 14154 to, “[c]onsistent with applicable law, prioritize efficiency and certainty over any other objectives, including those of activist groups, that do not align with the policy goals set forth in section 2 of [that] order or that could otherwise add delays and ambiguity to the permitting process,” and to address the pathologies of the NEPA process and NEPA litigation as identified by the Supreme Court. Where DoD and its components have retained an aspect of their preexisting NEPA implementing procedures, it is because that aspect is compatible with these guiding principles; where DoD and its components have revised or removed an aspect, it is because that aspect is not so compatible.

The Army is repealing its prior procedures and practices for implementing NEPA, a “purely procedural statute” which “`simply prescribes the necessary process' for an agency's environmental review of a project—a review that is, even in its most rigorous form, “only one input into an agency's decision and does not itself require any particular substantive outcome.” Seven County, 145 S. Ct. at 1507, 1511 (internal quotation omitted). “NEPA imposes no substantive constraints on the agency's ultimate decision to build, fund, or approve a proposed project,” and “is relevant only to the question of whether an agency's final decision”— i.e., that decision to authorize, fund, or otherwise carry out a particular proposed project or activity—“was reasonably explained.” Id. at 1511. As such, notice and comment procedures are not required because this revision falls within the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) exception for “rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). The Army's existing regulations do not dictate what outcomes such consideration must produce, nor do they impose binding legal obligations on private citizens. Rather, they prescribe how the Army will conduct its NEPA reviews: detailing the structure of environmental impact statements, specifying submission requirements, and directing the timing of public comment periods. These are procedural provisions, not ones that impose substantive environmental obligations or restrictions. Thus, because procedural rules do not require notice and comment, they do not require notice and comment to be removed from the Code of Federal Regulations. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). 1

Moreover, even if (and to the extent that) the Army regulations were not procedural rules, they may be characterized as interpretative rules or general statements of policy under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). An interpretative rule provides an interpretation of a statute, rather than making discretionary policy choices that establish enforceable rights or obligations for regulated parties under delegated congressional authority. Part II of Appendix F to Part 651, for instance, may be classified as such. General statements of policy provide notice of an agency's intentions as to how it will enforce statutory requirements, again without creating enforceable rights or obligations for regulated parties under delegated congressional authority. 32 CFR 651.5 (“Army policies”), for instance, may be classified as general statements of policy. Both of these types of agency action are expressly exempted from notice and comment by statute, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), and do not require notice and comment for removal.

Accordingly, although the Army is voluntarily providing notice and an opportunity to comment on this interim final rule, the agency has determined that notice-and-comment procedures are not required. The fact that the Army previously undertook notice-and-comment rulemaking in promulgating these regulations is immaterial: As the Supreme Court has held, where notice-and-comment procedures are not required, prior use of them in promulgating a rule does not bind the agency to use such procedures in repealing it. Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass'n, 575 U.S. 92, 101 (2015).

Moreover, the Army also finds that, to the extent that prior notice and solicitation of public comment would otherwise be required or this action could not immediately take effect, the need to expeditiously replace its existing rules satisfies the “good cause” exceptions in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d). The APA authorizes agencies to issue regulations without notice and public comment when an agency finds, for good cause, that notice and comment is “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest,” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), and to make the rule effective immediately for good cause. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). As discussed in Section I, above, the Army's prior rules were promulgated to supplement CEQ's NEPA regulations. Following the rescission of CEQ's regulations, the Army's current rules are left hanging in air, supplementing a NEPA regime that no longer exists. The Army, thus far and as a temporary, emergency measure, has been continuing to operate under its prior procedures as if the CEQ NEPA regime still existed. This is not, however, tenable in the long term. As soon as proper procedures are available—which they now are, in the form of DoD's Department-wide procedures—this makeshift regime needs to be rescinded immediately. Because of this need for speed and certainty, notice-and-comment is, to the extent it was required at all, impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

For the same reasons stated in the present section, above, the Army finds that “good cause” exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay of the effective date that would otherwise be required. This IFR will accordingly be effective immediately.

As explained above, notice and comment is not required prior to issuing this rule because the Army's NEPA procedures were procedural and because, even if comment were required under the APA, good cause exists to forego it. Nevertheless, the Army has elected voluntarily to solicit comment on this action. The Army is soliciting comment on this interim final rule, and may make further revisions to this action, if the Army's review of any comments submitted suggests that further revisions are warranted. Commenters have 30 days from the date of publication of this interim final rule to submit comments.

EOs 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, and safety effects, distribution of impacts, and equity). The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has determined that this rulemaking, while not “economically significant,” is “significant” under section 3(f)(4) of E.O. 12866.

E.O. 14192 was issued on January 31, 2025, and requires that “any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations.” This rule is expected to be an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action. Rescinding this part will enable the Army to update its internal Army procedures, ensuring consistent and streamlined implementation of NEPA responsibilities across all Army operations. This action will allow the Army to finalize the establishment of previously-proposed and publicly-reviewed categorical exclusions (CXs) that will reduce government spending on environmental compliance and will shorten project timelines for those activities that do not need a detailed analysis. The Army currently prepares approximately 10,000 CXs annually. The Army expects the new and revised CXs to increase use of CXs and to shorten project-approval timelines. Application of each new and revised CX will reduce the need to complete environmental assessments. Each environmental assessment costs approximately $500,000 and takes six months to one year to complete. The new and revised CX list will greatly reduce government spending on environmental site assessments.

OIRA has determined that this rulemaking does not meet the criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C. 804(2) under Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (also known as the Congressional Review Act). This action, in any event, is not a “rule” at all under 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(C). Therefore, this rule is not major under the Congressional Review Act.

This interim final rule does not contain any information-collection provisions that require OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

The Senior Official Performing the Duties of Under Secretary of the Army certified that this interim final rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) because it will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, does not require the Army to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 604(a).

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532) requires agencies to assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that mandates spending in any one year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. This rulemaking will not result in an expenditure by State, local, or Tribal Governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, in excess of the above threshold. Thus, no written assessment of unfunded mandates is required.

This interim final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with E.O. 13132, the Senior Official Performing the Duties of Under Secretary of the Army has determined that this rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a federalism assessment.

E.O. 13175 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a rule that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on one or more Indian Tribes, preempts Tribal law, or affects the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. This interim final rule will not have a substantial effect on Indian Tribal Governments.

Inspection of Public Comments: All comments received before the close of the comment period are available for viewing by the public. We post all comments received before the close of the comment period on the following website as soon as possible after they have been received: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the search instructions on that website to view public comments. DON will not post on http://www.regulations.gov public comments that make threats to individuals or institutions or suggest that the commenter will take actions to harm an individual. We will post acceptable comments from multiple unique commenters even if the content is identical or nearly identical to other comments.

Plain Language Summary: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a plain language summary of this rule may be found at https://www.regulations.gov/.

Title 32 CFR part 775 provides guidance for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA for the DON. The regulation is applicable to the DON, including the Office of the Secretary of the Navy, and Navy and Marine Corps commands, operating forces, shore establishments, and reserve components. The purpose of 32 CFR part 775 was to implement the provisions of NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), the CEQ's NEPA implementing regulations (formerly codified at 40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) on Environmental Planning and Analysis (DoDI 4715.9). See 32 CFR 775.1(a). However, the CEQ's regulations have been repealed, effective April 11. See Removal of National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations, (90 FR 10610; Feb. 25, 2025). This action was necessitated by and is consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14154, Unleashing American Energy (90 FR 8353; January 20, 2025), in which President Trump rescinded President Carter's E.O. 11991, Relating to Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality (42 FR 26967; May 24, 1977) which was the basis CEQ had invoked for its authority to make rules to begin with. DON's regulations, which were designed to implement those CEQ regulations, thus stand in obvious need of fundamental revision. President Trump in E.O. 14154 further directed agencies to revise their NEPA implementing procedures, consistent with the E.O., including its direction to CEQ to rescind its regulations.

In addition, Congress recently amended NEPA in significant part, in the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, Public Law 118-5, signed on June 3, 2023, in which Congress added substantial detail and direction in Title I of NEPA, including in particular on procedural issues that CEQ and individual acting agencies had previously addressed in their own procedures. The DON recognized the need to update its regulations in light of these significant legislative changes. Since the DON's regulations were originally designed as a supplement to CEQ's NEPA regulations, the DON had been awaiting CEQ action before revising its regulations, consistent with CEQ direction. See 40 CFR 1507.3(b) (2024); see also 86 FR 34154 (June 29, 2021). However, with CEQ's regulations now rescinded, and with the DON's NEPA implementing procedures still unmodified more than two years after this significant legislative overhaul, it is exigent that the DON move quickly to conform its procedures to the statute as amended.

Finally, the Supreme Court on May 29, 2025 issued a landmark decision, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, 145 S. Ct. 1497 (2025), in which it decried the “transform[ation]” of NEPA from its roots as “a modest procedural requirement,” into a significant “substantive roadblock” that “paralyze[s]” “agency decisionmaking.” Id. at 1507, 1513 (quotations omitted). The Supreme Court explained that part of that problem had been caused by decisions of lower courts, which it rejected, issuing a “course correction” mandating that courts give “substantial deference” to reasonable agency conclusions underlying their NEPA processes. Id. at 1513-14. But the Court also acknowledged, and through its course correction sought to address, the effect on “litigation-averse agencies” which, in light of judicial “micromanage[ment],” had been “tak[ing] ever more time and . . . prepar[ing] ever longer EISs for future projects.” Id. at 1513. The DON, thus, is issuing this interim final rule to align its actions with the Supreme Court's decision and streamline its process of ensuring reasonable NEPA decisions. This revision has thus been called for, authorized, and directed by all three branches of government at the highest possible levels. DoD has elected to respond to these instructions by promulgating Department-wide NEPA procedures, Department of Defense National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures, which will guide the DON's NEPA process henceforth. The Supreme Court could not have been clearer in Seven County that NEPA is a procedural statute. See 145 S. Ct. at 1507 (“NEPA is a purely procedural statute.”); id. at 1510 (“NEPA is purely procedural . . . . NEPA `does not mandate particular results, but simply prescribes the necessary process' for an agency's environmental review of a project;”); id. at 1511 (NEPA is a purely procedural statute ”); id. at 1513 (NEPA is properly understood as “a modest procedural requirement”); id. at 1514 (“NEPA' status as a purely procedural statute”); see also id. at 1507 (“Simply stated, NEPA is a procedural cross-check, not a substantive roadblock.”). Mindful of this, DoD has decided that the flexibility to respond to new developments in this fast-evolving area of law, afforded by using non-codified procedures, outweighs the public-transparency virtues of codifying its regulations going forward. Notably, DoD can—and will—ensure that accessibility to the public by posting these procedures online, which removes the upside of codification. By contrast, not codifying its procedures will enable it to rapidly update these procedures in response to future court decisions (such as Seven County ), Presidential directives, or the needs of the services. The use of non-codified procedures is, moreover, consistent with the approach that several other Federal agencies have used for decades.

DoD has, correspondingly, directed all military departments to repeal their respective NEPA implementing regulations by June 30, 2025, per a May 21, 2025, memorandum. Thus, the DON is rescinding its NEPA implementing regulations at 32 CFR part 775. The DON is furthermore taking this action because the CEQ NEPA regulations, which the DON regulations were intended to supplement and implement, were rescinded and thus the DON's regulations are incomplete on their own. Therefore, the DON is rescinding 32 CFR part 775. Concurrent with this action, DoD plans to issue separate DoD-wide NEPA procedures, which will apply to DON. Those DoD-wide NEPA procedures will include the list of categorical exclusions that are currently listed in 32 CFR 775.6(f), which will continue to be used by DON in its implementation of NEPA.

The DON acknowledges that third parties may claim to have reliance interests in the DON's existing NEPA procedures. But revised agency procedures will have no effect on ongoing NEPA reviews, where the DON, following CEQ guidance, has held it will continue to apply existing applications. Moreover, as the Supreme Court has just explained, NEPA “is a purely procedural statute” that “imposes no substantive environmental obligations or restrictions.” Seven County, 145 S. Ct. at 1507. Any asserted reliance interests grounded in substantive environmental concerns are not in accord with the best meaning of the law and are entitled to “no . . . weight.” Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of California, 140 S. Ct. 1891, 1914 (2020).

Because reliance interests are inherently backward-looking, it is unclear how any party could assert reliance interests in prospective procedures. To the extent such interests exist, the DON concludes that they are “outweigh[ed]” by “other interests and policy concerns.” Id. Namely, the complex web of regulations that preexisted the 2023 amendments to NEPA and the new Procedures repeatedly “led to more agency analysis of separate projects, more consideration of attenuated effects, more exploration of alternatives to proposed agency action, more speculation and consultation and estimation and litigation,” which in turn has meant that “[f]ewer projects make it to the finish line,” or even “to the starting line.” Seven County, 145 S. Ct. at 1513-14. This has increased the cost of projects dramatically, “both for the agency preparing the EIS and for the builder of the project,” resulting in systemic harms to America's infrastructure and economy. Id. at 1514. Correspondingly, the wholesale revision and simplification of this regime, effectuated by the DoD's new NEPA procedures, is necessary to ensure efficient and predictable reviews, with significant upsides for the economy and for projects of all sorts. This set of policy considerations drastically outweighs any claimed reliance interests in the preexisting procedures.

The DON has taken this action as part of DoD's broader approach to revising its implementation of NEPA, in which DoD and its components have revised their NEPA implementing procedures to conform to the 2023 statutory amendments, to respond to President Trump's direction in E.O. 14154 to, “[c]onsistent with applicable law, prioritize efficiency and certainty over any other objectives, including those of activist groups, that do not align with the policy goals set forth in section 2 of [that] order or that could otherwise add delays and ambiguity to the permitting process,” and to address the pathologies of the NEPA process and NEPA litigation as identified by the Supreme Court. Where DoD and its components have retained an aspect of their preexisting NEPA implementing procedures, it is because that aspect is compatible with these guiding principles; where DoD and its components have revised or removed an aspect, it is because that aspect is not so compatible.

The DON is repealing its prior procedures and practices for implementing NEPA, a “purely procedural statute” which “ ‘simply prescribes the necessary process' for an agency's environmental review of a project—a review that is, even in its most rigorous form, “only one input into an agency's decision and does not itself require any particular substantive outcome.” Seven County, 145 S. Ct. at 1507, 1511. “NEPA imposes no substantive constraints on the agency's ultimate decision to build, fund, or approve a proposed project,” and “is relevant only to the question of whether an agency's final decision”— i.e., that decision to authorize, fund, or otherwise carry out a particular proposed project or activity—“was reasonably explained.” Id. at 1511. As such, notice and comment procedures are not required because this revision falls within the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) exception for “rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). DON's existing regulations do not dictate what outcomes such consideration must produce, nor do they impose binding legal obligations on private citizens. Rather, the DON's NEPA-implementing regulations at 32 CFR part 775 are procedural, outlining the policies and responsibilities of the DON, including the Office of the Secretary of the Navy, and Navy and Marine Corps commands, operating forces, shore establishments, and reserve components. These regulations describe the DON responsibilities for preparation, review, and approval of environmental documents prepared under NEPA, rather than establishing substantive requirements binding the public. As such, they do not require notice and comment for removal or replacement.

These are procedural provisions, not ones that impose substantive environmental obligations or restrictions. Thus, because procedural rules do not require notice and comment, they do not require notice and comment to be removed from the Code of Federal Regulations. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). 1

Moreover, even if (and to the extent that) DON's regulations were not procedural rules, they may be characterized as interpretative rules or general statements of policy under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). An interpretative rule provides an interpretation of a statute, rather than making discretionary policy choices that establish enforceable rights or obligations for regulated parties under delegated congressional authority. 32 CFR 775.2 (“Definitions”), for instance, may be classified as such. General statements of policy provide notice of an agency's intentions as to how it will enforce statutory requirements, again without creating enforceable rights or obligations for regulated parties under delegated congressional authority. The prefatory sections DON's procedures, for instance, such as 32 CFR 775.3 (“Policy”), may be classified as general statements of policy. Both of these types of agency action are expressly exempted from notice and comment by statute., 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), and do not require notice and comment for removal.

Accordingly, although DON is voluntarily providing notice and an opportunity to comment on this interim final rule, the agency has determined that notice-and-comment procedures are not required. The fact that DON previously undertook notice-and-comment rulemaking in promulgating these regulations is immaterial: As the Supreme Court has held, where notice-and-comment procedures are not required, prior use of them in promulgating a rule does not bind the agency to use such procedures in repealing it. Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass'n, 575 U.S. 92, 101 (2015).

Moreover, the DON also finds that, to the extent that prior notice and solicitation of public comment would otherwise be required or this action could not immediately take effect, the need to expeditiously replace its existing rules satisfies the “good cause” exceptions in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d). The APA authorizes agencies to issue regulations without notice and public comment when an agency finds, for good cause, that notice and comment is “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest,” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), and to make the rule effective immediately for good cause. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). As discussed in Section I, above, DON's prior rules were promulgated to supplement CEQ's NEPA regulations. Following the rescission of CEQ's regulations, the DON's current rules are left hanging in air, supplementing a NEPA regime that no longer exists. The DON, thus far and as a temporary, emergency measure, has been continuing to operate under its prior procedures as if the CEQ NEPA regime still existed. This is not, however, tenable in the long term. As soon as proper procedures are available—which they now are, in the form of DoD's Department-wide procedures—this makeshift regime needs to be rescinded immediately. Because of this need for speed and certainty, notice-and-comment is, to the extent it was required at all, impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

For the same reasons stated in the present section, above, DON finds that “good cause” exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay of the effective date that would otherwise be required. This interim final rule will accordingly be effective immediately.

As explained above, notice and comment is not required prior to issuing this rule because DON's NEPA procedures were procedural and because, even if comment were required under the APA, good cause exists to forego it. Nevertheless, DON has elected voluntarily to solicit comment on this action. DON is soliciting comment on this interim final rule, and may make further revisions to this action, if DON's review of any comments submitted suggests that further revisions are warranted. Commenters have 30 days from the date of publication of this interim final rule to submit comments.

E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, and safety effects; distribution of impacts; and equity). The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has determined that this rulemaking is significant under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.

E.O. 14192 was issued on January 31, 2025, and requires that “any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations.” This rule is expected to be an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.

OIRA has determined that this rulemaking does not meet the criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C. 804(2) under Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (also known as the Congressional Review Act). This action, in any event, is not a rule at all under 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(C).

The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

The Secretary of the Navy certified that this rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) because it will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Also, the rule repeals the DON's NEPA implementing regulations at 32 CFR part 775, which are procedural, outlining procedures for environmental impact analysis for all DON activities and programs. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, does not require us to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a).

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532) requires agencies to assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. That threshold is currently approximately $206 million. This rulemaking will not result in the expenditure by State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, in excess of the threshold. Thus, no written assessment of unfunded mandates is required.

The DON has determined that this action does not contain policies with federalism or “takings” implications as those terms are defined in E.O. 13132 and E.O. 12630, respectively. This action does not have federalism implications. It 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. This action contains no Federal mandates for State and local Governments and does not impose any enforceable duties on State and local Governments. This action addresses only internal DON procedures for implementing NEPA.

E.O. 13175 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates an interim final rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on one or more Indian Tribes, preempts Tribal law, or effects the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. This rule will not have a substantial effect on Indian Tribal Governments.

The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone regulation in 33 CFR 165.929 for the Lakeshore State Park fireworks event in item 2 in Table 4 to § 165.929 from 8:45 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on Friday July 4, 2025. The regulation for recurring marine events within the State of Wisconsin in item 2 in Table 4 to § 165.929, specifies the location of the regulated area for this event. All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port (COTP) Lake Michigan, or designated on-scene representative to enter, move within, or exit this safety zone during the enforcement time listed in this notice of enforcement. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone must obey all lawful orders or directions of the COTP Lake Michigan or designated representative. Upon being hailed by the U.S. Coast Guard by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of a vessel must proceed as directed.

In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with notification of this enforcement period via Broadcast Notice to Mariners. The COTP Lake Michigan may be reached by contacting the Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan Command Center at (414) 747-7182. An on-scene designated representative may be reached via VHF-FM Channel 16.

The Maryland Transportation Authority (MDTA) has notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting demolition and construction activities on the Patapsco River at the site of the Francis Scott Key Bridge, which was hit by a container ship on March 26, 2024, see 89 FR 24385 (April 8, 2024). Debris removal and hydrographic surveying will be conducted on the Hawkins Point side of the remaining bridge segments. Marine equipment, including barges, positioned in the Patapsco River will be used to support bridge demolition and debris removal operations. This operation requires the use of a temporary commercial mooring buoy in the Patapsco River, in the vicinity of the old bridge. This operation will not prevent vessels from using the federal navigation channel.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable to publish an NPRM without delaying promulgation of the final rule establishing this safety zone past July 7, 2025, when demolition operations will begin.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable because the rule must be in effect by July 7, 2025 to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with demolition operations at the old Francis Scott Key (US-695) Bridge.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port, Sector Maryland-National Capital Region (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with bridge demolition, which are scheduled to start July 7, 2025, will be a safety concern for anyone near the old Francis Scott Key Bridge (US-695) demolition site. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the bridge is being demolished.

The COTP is establishing a safety zone from 12:01 a.m. on July 7, 2025, to 11:59 p.m. on August 30, 2025. The safety zone will cover the following area: all navigable waters of the Patapsco River, encompassed by a line connecting the following points beginning at 39°12.81 N, 076°32.08′ W, thence northeast to 39°12.99′ N, 076°31.90′ W, thence southeast to 39°12.90′ N, 076°31.77′ W, thence southwest to 39°12.72′ N, 076°31.95′″ W, and thence northwest along the shoreline back to the beginning point, located in the vicinity of Hawkins Point.

The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled demolition and debris removal. Except for marine equipment and vessels operated by MDTA or its subcontractors, no vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The term designated representative also includes a supervisor or contractor on site for the sole purposes of designating and establishing safe transit corridors, to permit passage into or through the safety zone, or to notify vessels and individuals that they have entered the safety zone and are required to leave.

In accordance with 33 CFR 165.7(a), the COTP will notify the public by all appropriate means that the safety zone will be enforced. Such means of notification will also include, but are not limited to, Broadcast Notice to Mariners. Vessels or persons violating this rule are subject to the penalties set forth in 46 U.S.C. 70036 and 46 U.S.C. 70052. The regulatory text appears at the end of this document.

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

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location and time of year of the safety zone. The temporary safety zone is approximately 1000 feet in width and 1500 feet yards in length. This safety zone would impact a small, designated area of the Patapsco River for a total of 62 days, but we do not anticipate there will be any vessels that will be unable to conduct business as a result of the safety zone. Excursion vessels and commercial fishing vessels are not impacted by this rulemaking. Excursion vessels do not operate in this area, and commercial fishing vessels are not impacted because the waters in this area are too shallow to accommodate them. Some towing vessels may be impacted, but bridge project personnel have been conducting outreach throughout the project to coordinate with those vessels. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue Local Notices to Mariners and a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone.

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

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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

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

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

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety zone lasting 32 total days that would prohibit entry within a portion of the Potomac River. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule under the authority in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This statutory provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable to provide notice, consider any comments received, and publish a final rule by July 12, 2025, when the rule must be in place to serve its intended purpose.

Also, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . To serve its intended purpose, the rule must be in effect in less than 30 days. It is therefore impracticable to delay the effective date.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port, Sector Maryland-National Capital Region (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with this fireworks display would be a safety concern for anyone within a 500-yard radius of the fireworks discharge site. Such hazards include premature detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the display is occurring.

Tim's II Rivershore Restaurant, of King George, Virgina, will sponsor a fireworks display launched from a barge located in the Potomac River, near Fairview Beach, Virginia, on Saturday, July 12, 2025, at approximately 10 p.m. If necessary, due to inclement weather, the display will be held on July 13, 2025. This rule establishes a temporary safety zone which will be enforced from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 12, 2025, or from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 13, 2025 (if the event is postponed due to inclement weather on July 12). The duration of the safety zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 10 p.m.-10:30 p.m. fireworks display. This temporary safety zone will cover all navigable waters within a 500 ft radius of a barge in the Potomac River, approximately 700 ft from the shoreline at Fairview Beach, Virginia. The approximate position of the barge is latitude 38°19′56.69″ N, longitude 077°14′40.46″ W, (NAD 1983). No person or vessel will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. Vessels will be allowed to transit the waters of the Potomac River outside the safety zone.

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

Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct 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 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it.

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone, which will impact a small, designated area of the Potomac River or less than 3 hours during the evening, when vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 to notify mariners about enforcement of the safety zone.

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

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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

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

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

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting only 3 hours that will prohibit entry within 500 yards of the fireworks discharge site. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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

A. Title 33 CFR part 230 provides guidance for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA for the Army Civil Works Program. It “supplements” the CEQ regulations at 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508 and is intended to be used only in conjunction with the CEQ regulations. See 33 CFR 230.1. The regulation is applicable to all Corps Headquarters elements and all Field Operating Activities responsible for preparing and processing environmental documents in support of Civil Works functions, except for the processing of permit applications. See 33 CFR 230.2. Section 230.9 provides a list of categorical exclusions (CXs) in current use by the Corps for Civil Works projects and for processing requests for 33 U.S.C. 408 permissions. The regulations at part 230 are not used for processing Department of the Army permits, which are addressed at 33 CFR part 325, appendix B and will be updated in another rule.

The CEQ regulations, however, have been repealed, effective April 11. See Removal of National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations (90 FR 10610; Feb. 25, 2025). This action was necessitated by and consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14154, Unleashing American Energy (90 FR 8353; January 20, 2025), in which President Trump rescinded President Carter's E.O. 11991, Relating to Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality (42 FR 26967; May 24, 1977), which was the basis CEQ had invoked for its authority to make rules to begin with. The Corps' regulations, which were a “supplement[ ]” to those CEQ regulations, thus stand in obvious need of fundamental revision. President Trump in E.O. 14154 further directed agencies to revise their NEPA implementing procedures consistent with the E.O., including its direction to CEQ to rescind its regulations.

In addition, Congress recently amended NEPA in significant part, in the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (FRA), Public Law 118-5, signed on June 3, 2023, in which Congress added substantial detail and direction in Title I of NEPA, including in particular on procedural issues that CEQ and individual acting agencies had previously addressed in their own procedures. The Corps recognized the need to update its regulations in light of these significant legislative changes. Since the Corps' regulations were originally designed as a supplement to CEQ's NEPA regulations, the Corps had been awaiting CEQ action before revising its regulations, consistent with CEQ direction. See 40 CFR 1507.3(b) (2024); see also 86 FR 34154 (June 29, 2021). However, with CEQ's regulations now rescinded, and with the Corps' NEPA implementing procedures still unmodified more than two years after this significant legislative overhaul, it is exigent that the Corps move quickly to conform its procedures to the statute as amended.

Finally, the Supreme Court on May 29, 2025 issued a landmark decision, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, 145 S. Ct. 1497 (2025), in which it decried the “transform[ation]” of NEPA from its roots as “a modest procedural requirement,” into a significant “substantive roadblock” that “paralyze[s]” “agency decisionmaking.” Id. at 1507, 1513 (quotations omitted). The Supreme Court explained that part of that problem had been caused by decisions of lower courts, which it rejected, issuing a “course correction” mandating that courts give “substantial deference” to reasonable agency conclusions underlying its NEPA process. Id. at 1513-14. But the Court also acknowledged, and through its course correction sought to address, the effect on “litigation-averse agencies” which, in light of judicial “micromanage[ment],” had been “tak[ing] ever more time and [ ] prepar[ing] ever longer EISs for future projects.” Id. at 1513. The Army, thus, is issuing this interim final rule (IFR) as part of its and DoD's effort to align its actions with the Supreme Court's decision and streamline its process of ensuring reasonable NEPA decisions. This revision has thus been called for, authorized, and directed by all three branches of government at the highest possible levels.

The DoD has elected to respond to these instructions by promulgating Department-wide NEPA procedures, Department of Defense National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures, which will guide the NEPA process henceforth for the Corps' civil works program, while the Corps' permitting programs and the 33 U.S.C. 408 request for permission program will remain subject to Corps-level procedures that will be updated in a separate action. The Supreme Court could not have been clearer in Seven County that NEPA is a procedural statute. See 145 S. Ct. at 1507 (“NEPA is a purely procedural statute.”); see id. at 1510 (“NEPA is purely procedural. . . . NEPA does not mandate particular results, but simply prescribes the necessary process' for an agency's environmental review of a project;”) (internal quotation omitted); id. at 1511 (NEPA is a purely procedural statute” ); id. at 1514 (NEPA is properly understood as “a modest procedural requirement”); id. (“NEPA's status as a purely procedural statute”); see also id. at 1507 (“Simply stated, NEPA is a procedural cross-check, not a substantive roadblock.”). Mindful of this, DoD has decided that the flexibility to respond to new developments in this fast-evolving area of law, afforded by using non-codified procedures, outweighs the public-transparency virtues of codifying its regulations going forward. Notably, DoD can—and will—ensure that accessibility to the public by posting these procedures online, which removes the upside of codification. By contrast, not codifying its procedures will enable it to rapidly update these procedures in response to future court decisions (such as Seven County ), Presidential directives, or the needs of the services. The use of non-codified procedures is, moreover, consistent with the approach that several other Federal agencies have used for decades.

DoD has, correspondingly, directed all military departments to repeal their respective NEPA implementing regulations by June 30, 2025, per a May 21, 2025, memorandum. Thus, the Army is rescinding its NEPA implementing regulations for Army Civil Works at 33 CFR part 230, except §§ 230.2 and 230.9. The Army is also rescinding Engineering Regulation 200-2-2, Procedures for Implementing NEPA (Mar. 4, 1988), which contains the same provisions as Part 230. The Army Civil Works program implemented by the Corps of Engineers, except for the permitting programs and the 33 U.S.C. 408 request for permission program, will follow NEPA implementation guidance issued by the DoD and any applicable guidance issued by the Army in implementing NEPA. Actions that were ongoing as of the effective date of this rule will continue to use the rule in place at the time the action was started. The NEPA implementation procedures for the Army Civil Works permitting programs and the 33 U.S.C. 408 request for permission program will be addressed in a separate action.

Army Civil Works is retaining its CXs and related requirements in regulation (33 CFR 230.2 and 230.9) to avoid any uncertainty about the continuation of its already-established CXs or the procedural mechanism through which the Corps established them. The 2023 revisions to NEPA and the 2025 repeal of CEQ's NEPA procedures do not require reconsideration or repeal of the Corps' previous determinations as to which of its actions normally do not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, which is the basis for an agency's establishment of a CX, see NEPA § 111(1).

The Army has taken this action as part of DoD's broader approach to revising its implementation of NEPA, in which DoD and its components have revised their NEPA implementing procedures to conform to the 2023 statutory amendments, to respond to President Trump's direction in E.O. 14154 to, “[c]onsistent with applicable law, prioritize efficiency and certainty over any other objectives, including those of activist groups, that do not align with the policy goals set forth in section 2 of [that] order or that could otherwise add delays and ambiguity to the permitting process,” and to address the pathologies of the NEPA process and NEPA litigation as identified by the Supreme Court. Where DoD and its components have retained an aspect of their preexisting NEPA implementing procedures, it is because that aspect is compatible with these guiding principles; where DoD and its components have revised or removed an aspect, it is because that aspect is not so compatible.

The Army is repealing the Corps' prior procedures and practices for implementing NEPA, a “purely procedural statute” which “`simply prescribes the necessary process' for an agency's environmental review of a project—a review that is, even in its most rigorous form, “only one input into an agency's decision and does not itself require any particular substantive outcome.” Seven County, 145 S. Ct. at 1507, 1511. “NEPA imposes no substantive constraints on the agency's ultimate decision to build, fund, or approve a proposed project,” and “is relevant only to the question of whether an agency's final decision,” i.e., that decision to authorize, fund, or otherwise carry out a particular proposed project or activity, “was reasonably explained.” Id. at 1511. As such, notice and comment procedures are not required because this revision falls within the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) exception for “rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). The Corps' existing regulations do not dictate what outcomes such consideration must produce, nor do they impose binding legal obligations on private citizens. The Corps' NEPA implementing regulations for the Civil Works program at 33 CFR part 230 are procedural, outlining how District Engineers conduct NEPA reviews for Army Civil Works projects. These regulations describe the structure of environmental documents, specify procedures, and guide District Engineer decision-making, rather than establishing substantive requirements binding the public. These are procedural provisions, not substantive environmental ones. As such, they do not require notice and comment for removal. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). 1

Moreover, even if (and to the extent that) the Corps' regulations were not procedural rules, they may be characterized as interpretative rules or general statements of policy under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). An interpretative rule provides an interpretation of a statute, rather than making discretionary policy choices that establish enforceable rights or obligations for regulated parties under delegated congressional authority. 33 CFR 230.2 & 230.3, for instance, may be classified as such. General statements of policy provide notice of an agency's intentions as to how it will enforce statutory requirements, again without creating enforceable rights or obligations for regulated parties under delegated congressional authority. 33 CFR 230.1 (“Purpose”), for instance, may be classified as general statements of policy. Both of these types of agency actions are expressly exempted from notice and comment by statute. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), and do not require notice and comment for removal. Accordingly, although the Corps is voluntarily providing notice and an opportunity to comment on this interim final rule, the agency has determined that notice-and-comment procedures are not required. The fact that the Corps previously undertook notice-and-comment rulemaking in promulgating these regulations is immaterial: As the Supreme Court has held, where notice-and-comment procedures are not required, prior use of them in promulgating a rule does not bind the agency to use such procedures in repealing it. Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass'n, 575 U.S. 92, 101 (2015).

Moreover, the Army also finds that, to the extent that prior notice and solicitation of public comment would otherwise be required or this action could not immediately take effect, the need to expeditiously replace its existing rules satisfies the “good cause” exceptions in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), (d). The APA authorizes agencies to issue regulations without notice and public comment when an agency finds, for good cause, that notice and comment is “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest,” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), and to make the rule effective immediately for good cause. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). As discussed in Section I, above, the Corps' prior rules were promulgated to supplement CEQ's NEPA regulations. Following the rescission of CEQ's regulations, the Corps' current rules are left hanging in air, supplementing a NEPA regime that no longer exists.

The Army, thus far and as a temporary, emergency measure, has been continuing to operate under its prior procedures as if the CEQ NEPA regime still existed. This is not, however, tenable in the long term. As soon as proper procedures are available—which they now are, in the form of DoD's Department-wide procedures—this makeshift regime needs to be rescinded immediately. Because of this need for speed and certainty, notice-and-comment is, to the extent it was required at all, impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

For the same reasons stated in the present section, above, the Army finds that “good cause” exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay of the effective date that would otherwise be required. This IFR will accordingly be effective immediately.

As explained above, comment is not required because the Corps' NEPA procedures were procedural and because, even if comment were required under the APA, good cause exists to forego it. Nevertheless, the Corps has elected voluntarily to solicit comment. The Army is soliciting comment on this interim final rule, and may make further revisions to this action, if the Army's review of any comments submitted suggests that further revisions are warranted. Commenters have 30 days from the date of publication of this interim final rule to submit comments.

This interim final rule is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule, because it is a rule of agency procedure or under the “good cause” exemption in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required, and none has been prepared.

The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rulemaking does not meet the criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C. 804(2) under Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (also known as the Congressional Review Act), and, in any event, is not a rule at all under 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(C). Therefore, this rule is not major under the Congressional Review Act.

E.O. 14192 was issued on January 31, 2025, and requires that “any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations.” This rule is expected to be an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action. Rescinding this part will enable the Army to update its internal Army procedures, ensuring consistent and streamlined implementation of NEPA responsibilities across all Army operations. This action will allow the Army Civil Works program to finalize the establishment of previously-proposed and publicly-reviewed CXs that will reduce government spending on environmental compliance and will shorten project timelines for those activities that do not need a detailed analysis. The Army Civil Works program currently prepares approximately 10,000 CXs annually. The Army Civil Works program expects the new and revised CXs to increase use of CXs and to shorten project-approval timelines.

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532) requires agencies to assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that mandates spending in any one year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. This rulemaking will not result in an expenditure by State, local, or Tribal Governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, in excess of the above threshold. Thus, no written assessment of unfunded mandates is required.

This interim final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with E.O. 13132, the Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works has determined that this rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a federalism assessment.

E.O. 13175 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a rule that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on one or more Indian Tribes, preempts Tribal law, or affects the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. This interim final rule will not have a substantial effect on Indian Tribal Governments.

E.O. 14192 was issued on January 31, 2025, and requires that “any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations.” This rule is not subject to E.O. 14192, because this rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866.

For the reasons state in the preamble, the Army Corps of Engineers amends 33 CFR part 230 as follows:

A. The Army Civil Works Regulatory Program is authorized to issue permits for certain activities in jurisdictional waters and wetlands under the following statutory authorities: 33 U.S.C. 1344 (Clean Water Act (CWA), section 404); 33 U.S.C. 401 (Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) of 1899, section 9); 33 U.S.C. 403 (RHA of 1899, section 10); and 33 U.S.C. 1413 (Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, section 103). Title 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 325, appendix B, outlines the NEPA implementation procedures for the Regulatory Program of the Corps. Appendix B supplements the Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations, 40 CFR 1500-1508, as well as relying on the Corps NEPA regulation at 33 CFR part 230 “[f]or additional guidance.” Appendix B.2. Part 230 in turn also rested on, and supplemented, the CEQ NEPA regulations. Appendix B also provides guidance on public involvement, the preparation of Environmental Assessments (EA), Findings of No Significant Impact (FONSI), and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). The appendix also addresses the scope of analysis for NEPA documents, including the determination of lead and cooperating agencies.

B. CEQ's NEPA regulations been repealed, effective April 11. See Removal of National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations, (90 FR 10610; Feb. 25, 2025). This action was necessitated by and consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14154, Unleashing American Energy (90 FR 8353; January 20, 2025), in which President Trump rescinded President Carter's E.O. 11991, Relating to Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality (42 FR 26967; May 24, 1977), which was the basis CEQ had invoked for its authority to make rules to begin with. The Corps' regulations, which were a supplement to those CEQ regulations, thus stand in obvious need of fundamental revision. President Trump in E.O. 14154 further directed agencies to revise their NEPA implementing procedures consistent with the E.O., including its direction to CEQ to rescind its regulations.

In addition, Congress recently amended NEPA in significant part, in the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (FRA), Public Law 118-5, signed on June 3, 2023, in which Congress added substantial detail and direction in Title I of NEPA, including in particular on procedural issues that CEQ and individual acting agencies had previously addressed in their own procedures. The Corps recognized the need to update is regulations in light of these significant legislative changes. Since the Corps' regulations were originally designed as a supplement to CEQ's NEPA regulations, the Corps had been awaiting CEQ action before revising its regulations, consistent with CEQ direction. See 40 CFR 1507.3(b) (2024); see also 86 FR 34154 (June 29, 2021). However, with CEQ's regulations now rescinded, and with the Corps' NEPA implementing procedures still unmodified more than two years after this significant legislative overhaul, it is exigent that the Army move quickly to conform its procedures to the statute as amended.

Finally, the Supreme Court on May 29, 2025 issued a landmark decision, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, 145 S. Ct. 1497 (2025), in which it decried the “transform[ation]” of NEPA from its roots as “a modest procedural requirement” into a significant “substantive roadblock” that “paralyze[s]” “agency decisionmaking.” Id. at 1507, 1513 (quotations omitted). The Supreme Court explained that part of that problem had been caused by decisions of lower courts, which it rejected, issuing a “course correction” mandating that courts give “substantial deference” to reasonable agency conclusions underlying its NEPA process. Id. at 1513-14. But the Court also acknowledged, and through its course correction sought to address, the effect on “litigation-averse agencies” which, in light of judicial “micromanage[ment],” had been “tak[ing] ever more time and [ ] preparing ever longer EISs for future projects.” Id. at 1513. The Corps, thus, is issuing this IFR to align its actions with the Supreme Court's decision and streamline its process of ensuring reasonable NEPA decision. This revision has thus been called for, authorized, and directed by all three branches of government at the highest possible levels.

C. Therefore, the Corps is replacing 33 CFR part 325, appendix B with 33 CFR part 333—Procedures for Complying with the National Environmental Policy Act. Title 33 CFR part 333 will provide the implementation procedures for the Army Civil Works Regulatory Program and for the Army Civil Works, 33 U.S.C. 408, permission process. In addition to the Regulatory program authorities originally covered by appendix B, Congress also authorized the Corps to provide permission for “the temporary occupation or use of [Civil Works projects] . . . when . . . such occupation or uses will not be injurious to the public interest” and for “the alteration or permanent occupation or use of any [Civil Works project] . . . when . . . such occupation or use will not be injurious to the public interest and will not impair the usefulness of such work.” 33 U.S.C. 408(a). The 33 U.S.C. 408 permission program had relied on NEPA implementation procedures in 33 CFR part 230. While appendix B did not apply to 33 U.S.C. 408 authorizations, 33 CFR part 333 will be the NEPA procedures the Corps will follow when deciding whether to grant permission under 33 U.S.C. 408(a) because the procedural aspects of NEPA analysis supporting evaluations of requests for section 408 permissions are more like the regulatory program than other aspects of the Civil Works program covered by part 230. The Corps is publishing NEPA implementing procedures consistent with NEPA as amended by the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023.

The Army's new NEPA implementing procedures, as adopted via this interim final rule, are a more faithful implementation of the statute as amended in 2023 than its old procedures. They implement major structural features of the 2023 amendments, such as deadlines and page limits for environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, as directed at NEPA Section 107(g), and provide that the Corps will complete preparation of these documents within the maximum length and on the timeline that Congress intends. They incorporate Congress's definition of “major Federal action” and the exclusions thereto, as codified at NEPA Section 111(10). They incorporate Congress's mandated procedure for determining the appropriate level of review under NEPA, as codified in NEPA Section 106. They incorporate Congress's direction with respect to establishment, adoption, and application of categorical exclusions, as codified at NEPA Section 111(10). They provide procedures governing project-sponsor-prepared environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, as directed at NEPA Section 107(f). And they incorporate Congress's revision to the requirements for what an agency must address in its environmental impact statements, as codified at NEPA Section 102(2)(C), and Congress's requirement that public notice and solicitation of comment be provided when issuing a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement, as directed at NEPA Section 107(c). All of these are crucial features of Congress's policy design and its purpose in the 2023 amendments that NEPA review be more efficient and certain.

Moreover, all of these respond to the President's directive in E.O. 14154; and all of these reflect the Supreme Court's recent and unequivocal statement that NEPA is a purely procedural statute. The Army is conscious of the Supreme Court's admonition that NEPA review has grown out of all proportion to its origins of a “modest procedural requirement,” creating, “under the guise of just a little more process,” “[d]elay upon delay, so much so that the process seems to `borde[r] on the Kafkaesque.' ” Seven County, 145 S. Ct. at 1513 (internal quotation omitted). These new procedures, therefore, are intended to align NEPA with its Congressionally mandated dimensions, reflecting the guidance given also by the President and the Supreme Court, and making review under it faster, more flexible, and more efficient.

The Army acknowledges that third parties may claim to have reliance interests in the Corps' existing NEPA procedures. But revised agency procedures will have no effect on ongoing NEPA reviews, where the Army, following CEQ guidance, has determined it will continue to apply to existing applications. Moreover, as the Supreme Court just explained, NEPA “is a purely procedural statute” that “imposes no substantive environmental obligations or restrictions.” Seven County, 145 S. Ct. at 1507. Any asserted reliance interests grounded in substantive environmental concerns are not in accord with the best meaning of the law and are entitled to “no . . . weight.” Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of California, 140 S. Ct. 1891, 1914 (2020).

Because reliance interests are inherently backward-looking, it is unclear how any party could assert reliance interests in prospective procedures. To the extent such interests exist, the Army concludes that they are outweighed by other interests and policy concerns. The Army's new NEPA procedures, is necessary to ensure efficient and predictable reviews, with significant upsides for the economy and for projects with activities needing Corps authorization. This set of policy considerations drastically outweighs any claimed reliance interests in the preexisting procedures.

The Army has taken this action as part of DoD's broader approach to revising its implementation of NEPA, in which DoD and its components have revised their NEPA implementing procedures to conform to the 2023 statutory amendments, to respond to President Trump's direction in E.O. 14154 to, “[c]onsistent with applicable law, prioritize efficiency and certainty over any other objectives, including those of activist groups, that do not align with the policy goals set forth in section 2 of [that] order or that could otherwise add delays and ambiguity to the permitting process,” and to address the pathologies of the NEPA process and NEPA litigation as identified by the Supreme Court. Where Army has retained an aspect of their preexisting NEPA implementing procedures, it is because that aspect is compatible with these guiding principles; where the Army has revised or removed an aspect, it is because that aspect is not so compatible.

This section outlines the integration of NEPA into the Corps' decision-making processes for evaluating applications from other entities for authorization by the Corps, ensuring that impacts to the human environment are considered early to facilitate informed decision-making and timely reviews. It establishes procedures for Corps District Engineers to fulfill NEPA requirements and clarifies that it does not govern individual rights but sets forth the Corps' practices for implementing NEPA.

This section states that the procedures apply to all Corps elements processing Department of the Army Permit applications under 33 U.S.C. 1344 (Clean Water Act (CWA), section 404); 33 U.S.C. 401 (Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) of 1899, section 9); 33 U.S.C. 403 (RHA of 1899, section 10); and 33 U.S.C. 1413 (Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, section 103) and when granting permissions under 33 U.S.C. 408 (RHA of 1899, section 14). This section clarifies that NEPA imposes procedural requirements and is supplementary to the Corps' other existing legal authorities or responsibilities. This section discusses the responsibilities of satisfying NEPA requirement as resting with the District Engineer. This is because for most permitting actions decision making authority has been delegated to the District Engineer (see e.g., 33 CFR 325.8(b)). However, some decisions are required to be elevated to the Division Engineer or other higher authority (see e.g., 33 CFR 325.8(c)). In cases in which decision making authority is elevated to a higher authority, the responsibilities ascribed to the District Engineer in this Part are similarly elevated to that higher authority making the decision.

This section outlines the circumstances under which NEPA does not apply to proposed agency permitting actions. NEPA is not applicable when activities do not result in final agency action, are exempted by law, conflict with other legal requirements, or when Congress has prescribed decisional criteria that leave no discretion for environmental considerations. Additionally, NEPA does not apply if another statute fulfills its function, if the action is not a “major Federal action,” or if it involves non-Federal actions with minimal Federal involvement.

This section identifies a number of Corps activities that are not subject to NEPA: preliminary jurisdictional determinations; approved jurisdictional determinations; determination on whether an activity requires a Corps permit or permission; aquatic resource delineation concurrence or non-concurrence determinations; or determinations that the modification of unimproved real estate of a project would not affect the function and usefulness of the project. These determinations are not permits; they answer jurisdictional questions about whether specific regulatory regimes apply to an area or activity. Specifically, they address whether an area or activity is subject to Corps jurisdiction, which is made through the application of a standard established in statute or regulation to the physical circumstances of the site. In each of those cases, the law or regulation limits the factors that the Corps can use in making these determinations and does not give the Corps authority or discretion to consider the effects on the environment when making the determination, or to formulate and weigh decision alternatives based upon their comparative environmental effects. Because the Corps does not have authority or discretion to take environmental factors into account when making these determinations, the Corps is not required to prepare a NEPA document (42 U.S.C. 4336(a)(4)) and 4336e(10)(vii)) when conducting these actions.

Preliminary jurisdictional determination. A preliminary jurisdictional determination is a written indication that there may be waters of the United States on a parcel or indications of the approximate location(s) of waters of the United States on a parcel (33 CFR 331.2). A preliminary jurisdictional determination identifies the limits of all aquatic resources on a parcel without determining the jurisdictional status of such aquatic resources (Regulatory Guidance Letter 16-01, Subject: Jurisdictional Determinations (October 2016)). A preliminary jurisdictional determination is a purely technical evaluation of what constitutes an aquatic resource. There is no discretion to consider the environmental effects of decisions about what constitutes an aquatic resource.

Approved jurisdictional determination. An approved jurisdictional determination is a Corps document stating the presence or absence of waters of the United States on a parcel or a written statement and map identifying the limits of waters of the United States on a parcel (33 CFR 331.2). What constitutes waters of the United States is defined in regulation (33 CFR 328.3(a)) and that regulation does not allow for any discretion to consider the environmental effects of the determination. The regulations require a strict application of the technical standard to the facts on the ground.

Determination of whether an activity requires a permit. The determination whether an activity requires a Corps permit or permission requires applying jurisdictional standards including whether an activity constitutes a discharge of dredged material or fill material (33 CFR 323.3), is exempted by subsection 404(f) of the Clean Water Act, is a structure or work in or affecting navigable waters of the United States (33 CFR 322.3), involves the transportation of dredged material for the purpose of dumping it in ocean waters (33 CFR 324.3), or constitutes an alteration of a Civil Works project (Engineer Circular 1165-2-220, paragraph 9). Each of these determinations is an evaluation of a jurisdictional standard rooted in law against the facts of a specific circumstance. The standards do not provide for the consideration of environmental effects. That consideration of environmental effects occurs only after it's determined that the activity is jurisdictional and the Corps is determining whether to authorize the work. When a determination has been made that the activity is not jurisdictional, the Corps can issue a letter documenting that determination and that no permit is required.

Aquatic resource delineation. During the Corps' coordination with potential permit applicants the Corps is sometimes asked to review aquatic resource delineations prepared by landowners or their consultations. Aquatic resource delineation reports identify and map the extent of aquatic resources (such as rivers, streams, and wetlands) within a specified review area using scientific methods. This is similar to what is documented in a preliminary jurisdictional determination but in a different, less formal, format. Just like a preliminary jurisdictional determination, this is a purely technical evaluation of what constitutes an aquatic resource. There is no discretion to consider the environmental effects of decisions about what constitutes an aquatic resource. Any feedback provided by the Corps, including concurrence or non-concurrence with the report, is not subject to NEPA.

Modification of unimproved real estate. The Section 408 statute provides that “the term `work' shall not include unimproved real estate owned or operated by the Secretary as part of a water resources development project if the Secretary determines that modification of such real estate would not affect the function and usefulness of the project” (33 U.S.C. 408(e)). If an activity is determined to not constitute “work,” then it is not subject to review and approval under the Section 408 authority. It is a jurisdictional standard to determine whether Section 408 applies to an activity. The law provides that determining whether an activity is “work” is determined solely on the basis of whether the activity occurs on unimproved real estate owned or operated by the Secretary as part of a water resources development project and whether the activity would affect the function and usefulness of the project. The law does not give the Corps discretion to consider the environmental effects of the activity when determining whether it constitutes “work.”

This section describes the process for determining the appropriate level of NEPA review if NEPA applies. The District Engineer will consider whether a particular proposed activity is excluded pursuant to a categorical exclusion, and, if not, whether to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement based on the proposed activity's potential effects. The section also details the analysis of the affected environment and the degree of effects to determine significance.

This section explains how the District Engineer incorporates public input and existing environmental analyses into the NEPA process. It also outlines limitations on actions during the NEPA process and coordination with applicants to ensure compliance and information gathering.

This section outlines the process used by the Corps to establish, revise, and apply categorical exclusions, including adopting exclusions from other agencies. To establish or revise a categorical exclusion, the Chief of Engineers must determine that the actions do not significantly affect the human environment, and this process involves consultation with the CEQ and public notice. The Corps can rely on a determination from other Federal agencies that a proposed action is excluded pursuant to a categorical exclusion if the proposed action before the Corps and the proposed action before the other agency or agencies are substantially the same, and this reliance must be documented. The section also details the removal process of categorical exclusions, which requires justification, consultation, and public notice. This section recodifies the existing categorical exclusions from Appendix B and includes a reference to the list of categorical exclusions that the Corps relies on when evaluating requests for permissions. Finally, it describes how the District Engineer evaluates proposed actions for extraordinary circumstances and documents the applicability of categorical exclusions to exclude a particular proposed activity from the obligation to prepare an environmental document.

This section outlines the procedures for preparing environmental assessments under NEPA, specifying that if an activity is not excluded pursuant to a categorical exclusion from the requirement to prepare an EA or EIS, the District Engineer must prepare an assessment unless an environmental impact statement is clearly required. The assessment should discuss the purpose, need, and alternatives for the proposed activity, and conclude with a finding of no significant impact or a determination that an environmental impact statement is necessary. Environmental assessments are typically required for activities not excluded pursuant to categorical exclusions or involving extraordinary circumstances where the District Engineer does not determine and document that, notwithstanding the presence of extraordinary circumstances, it is appropriate to exclude the proposed activity pursuant to a categorical exclusion, and they must adhere to specific page limits and formatting guidelines. The District Engineer is responsible for certifying that the assessment meets NEPA's requirements. This section also provides deadlines for preparing environmental assessments. These deadlines derive from Congress's establishment of deadlines in the 2023 revision of NEPA, which supplied the measure of the “rule of reason” which the Supreme Court has repeatedly held must govern NEPA analysis.

This section details the preparation of a finding of no significant impact when an environmental assessment indicates no significant effects. It includes documentation requirements and the conclusion of the NEPA process if no environmental impact statement is needed.

This section discusses the roles of the Corps as a lead or cooperating agency in the NEPA process. It outlines responsibilities for managing the NEPA process and providing environmental information, as well as coordination with other agencies.

This section describes the publication of a notice of intent for an environmental impact statement and the scoping process to determine the scope of issues for analysis. It emphasizes the District Engineer's responsibility to define the scope based on legal authority and control over the proposed activity. This section details what factors District Engineers will use to determine the proper scope for NEPA documents. The rescinded Appendix B contained a provision addressing “scope of analysis” and that provision has been recodified in this section. The “scope of analysis” provision in the revised Corps Regulatory Program NEPA regulations is essentially identical with the provision that has existed in the Corps' NEPA regulations since 1988. The Corps does not have legal authority to regulate activities outside jurisdictional water bodies. The limited extent of the Corps' authority is an essential consideration in determining what scope of analysis to use. Therefore, the Corps is adding the expression “legal authority” to the list of considerations that Corps officials must consider as they determine the appropriate NEPA scope of analysis to use for any particular permit application. The section also includes language to reflect that it applies to requests for permission under 33 U.S.C. 408.

This section outlines the process for determining if an environmental impact statement is required based on the likelihood of significant effects. It emphasizes the timing of this determination and the notification process to the applicant.

This section details the process of preparing an environmental impact statement, including obtaining comments from relevant agencies. It ensures that the process does not violate deadlines and addresses significant comments received.

This section explains the requirement to state the purpose and need for the proposed agency action, informed by the applicant's goals and the Corps' statutory authority.

This section specifies that the environmental impact statement must include a detailed analysis of the reasonably foreseeable environmental effects, reasonably foreseeable unavoidable adverse effects, and a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed agency action. It also addresses the relationship between short-term uses and long-term productivity, any irreversible commitments of resources, and potential mitigation measures, while emphasizing the need for concise and significant-focused discussions.

This section sets page limits for environmental impact statements, including the availability of an extended page limit for complex actions, and outlines formatting requirements.

This section provides deadlines for preparing environmental impact statements. These deadlines derive from Congress's establishment of deadlines in the 2023 revision of NEPA, which supplied the measure of the “rule of reason” which the Supreme Court has repeatedly held must govern NEPA analysis.

This section requires the publication of the environmental impact statement on a public website. This section also allows District Engineers to publish predecisional drafts where appropriate to assist in fulfilling NEPA responsibilities, but publication of a draft is not required.

This section provides guidelines for holding any public hearings related to environmental impact statements and coordinating with other agencies when necessary.

This section requires the District Engineer to consider and respond to any substantive comments on any published predecisional draft of environmental impact statements, forwarding them to higher authorities if needed.

This section addresses the Corps' review of another agencies' environmental impact statements.

This section allows for tiered environmental documents for multi-phased reviews under 33 U.S.C. 408. Multi-phased reviews are used to analyze complex proposed alterations through successive levels of review through an iterative process established for the particular activity. The goal of the process is to identify larger-scale issues, such as with project siting or basic design, early in the project development process before investments are made in more detailed levels of design. In this multi-phased process, the Corps evaluates each successive level of design to determine if there are issues with the design that would prevent authorization of the alteration. If no impediments are identified at a given phase, the proponent is allowed to move to the next milestone and level of development. (Approval of earlier phases does not guarantee approval of a subsequent alteration or further level of development.) A key consideration of the evaluation of each phase is the likely impacts on the environment given the level of planning and detail, and tiered levels of NEPA would be conducted for each phase of the multi-phase review. Just as the level of design increases with each successive phase of the multi-phase review, the level of detail in the environmental analysis would increase and build off earlier tiers. This multi-phase review, and the inclusion of environmental consideration at each phase, allows the parties to identify and avoid unnecessary impacts on the environment and better build-in environmental considerations into the development path of the project while acknowledging financing, scheduling, and informational constraints along the way.

This section permits the District Engineer to rely on existing environmental documents if they meet NEPA standards, with modifications as necessary. This section replaces the concept of adopting other NEPA documents by using the term “reliance,” to avoid confusion with Congress's use in the 2023 NEPA amendments of the term “adoption” in new Section 109 in the special context of an agency adopting a categorical exclusion established by another agency.

This section allows for the incorporation of relevant materials into environmental documents by reference to reduce bulk while ensuring accessibility for review. The District Engineer will not use incorporation as a means to evade the statutory page limits.

This section provides the process for the preparation of supplemental environmental documents if significant changes to the proposed action occur or if new relevant information arises. It specifies that supplements are necessary only if a major Federal action is still pending.

This section states that the District Engineer will rely on existing data for analyses unless new research is essential and cost-effective. It also requires the disclosure of any incomplete or unavailable information in environmental documents.

This section emphasizes the integration of NEPA documents with other federal environmental requirements to minimize duplication. It allows for the combination of NEPA documents with other agency documents and includes a section for listing necessary consultations and permits.

This section encourages cooperation with State, Tribal, and local agencies to reduce duplication in environmental documentation. It outlines potential collaborative efforts, such as joint planning and public hearings, to streamline processes.

This section requires the assignment of unique identification numbers to all environmental documents for tracking purposes. It ensures coordination with the CEQ and other Federal agencies for uniformity in identification numbers.

This section outlines procedures for proposed agency actions related to emergency response without observance of full NEPA documentation as otherwise applicable under the provisions of these NEPA implementing procedures, considering environmental consequences and consulting with CEQ for actions with likely significant impacts. This does not provide an exception from compliance with the NEPA statute, but rather an alternative means of complying with the statute in emergency situations.

This section describes the preparation and publication of decision documents at the conclusion of the NEPA process, certifying that all relevant information has been considered. It clarifies that the record of decision is separate from the final EIS and informs the final agency action but is not the final action itself.

This section outlines the responsibility of the District Engineer to file environmental impact statements, along with comments and responses, with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for publication in the Federal Register .

This section describes the procedures for the preparation of environmental documents by applicants or contractors under the supervision of the District Engineer, in accordance with NEPA section 107(f). The District Engineer is responsible for independently evaluating the environmental document and providing guidance to applicants and contractors. The section also details the collaboration between the District Engineer and the applicant in defining the purpose and need, developing alternatives, and scheduling the preparation of the draft environmental document. Additionally, the District Engineer may request environmental information from the applicant and require resubmission with adequate or accurate data, documenting the Corps' independent evaluation.

This section provides definitions of terms used in this part.

The section address severability should a court invalidate a section of this part.

The Army is repealing, revising, and replacing its procedures and practices for implementing NEPA, a “purely procedural statute” which “`simply prescribes the necessary process' for an agency's environmental review of a project”—a review that is, even in its most rigorous form, “only one input into an agency's decision and does not itself require any particular substantive outcome.” Seven County, 145 S. Ct. at 1511. “NEPA imposes no substantive constraints on the agency's ultimate decision to build, fund, or approve a proposed project,” and “is relevant only to the question of whether an agency's final decision”— i.e., that decision to authorize, fund, or otherwise carry out a particular proposed project or activity—“was reasonably explained.” Id. As such, notice and comment procedures are not required because this revision falls within the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) exception for “rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). Procedures for implementing a purely procedural statute must be, by their nature, procedural rules. Surely they cannot be legislative rules; as such, they do not need to be promulgated via notice-and-comment rulemaking. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). And even if that were not universally true, the new rules adopted in this notice are purely procedural.

Thus, unsurprisingly, both the prior portions of part 325 and the new part 333 do not dictate what outcomes the Corps' consideration of information analyzed under NEPA must produce, nor do they impose binding legal obligations on private citizens. Rather, the Army's NEPA-implementing regulations for the Corps Regulatory Program and the section 408 permission program, including Appendix B and, now, part 333, are procedural, outlining how District Engineers or Division Engineers conduct NEPA reviews. These regulations describe the structure of environmental documents, specify procedures, and guide District Engineer decision-making, rather than establishing substantive requirements binding the public. These are procedural provisions, not substantive environmental ones. As such, they do not require notice and comment for removal or replacement. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A).

Moreover, even if (and to the extent that) the regulations were not procedural rules, they may be characterized as interpretative rules or general statements of policy, neither of which necessitates notice and comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). They offer the Corps' interpretations of NEPA, a procedural statute itself, and guidance on agency practice, without creating enforceable rights or obligations for the regulated public. General statements of policy provide notice of an agency's intentions as to how it will enforce statutory requirements, again without creating enforceable rights or obligations for regulated parties under delegated congressional authority. The former Appendix B contains many paragraph-length explanations of the Corps' interpretations of NEPA and/or policies that the Corps considers in applying it. Similarly, the definitions and policy sections of the new Part 333 are clearly interpretive and policy statements, respectively. All such material is expressly exempted from notice and comment by statute, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), and does not require notice and comment for removal or replacement.

Accordingly, although the Army is voluntarily providing notice and an opportunity to comment on this interim final rule, the agency has determined that notice-and-comment procedures are not required. The fact that the Corps previously undertook notice-and-comment rulemaking in promulgating these regulations is immaterial: As the Supreme Court has held, where notice-and-comment procedures are not required, prior use of them in promulgating a rule does not bind the agency to use such procedures in repealing it. Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass'n, 575 U.S. 92, 101 (2015).

Moreover, the Army also finds that, to the extent that prior notice and solicitation of public comment would otherwise be required or this action could not immediately take effect, the need to expeditiously replace its existing rules satisfies the “good cause” exceptions in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d). The APA authorizes agencies to issue regulations without notice and public comment when an agency finds, for good cause, that notice and comment is “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest,” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), and to make the rule effective immediately for good cause. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). As discussed in Section I, above, the Corps' prior rules were promulgated to supplement the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ's) NEPA regulations. Following the rescission of CEQ's regulations, the Corps' current rules are left hanging in air, supplementing a NEPA regime that no longer exists. The Corps, thus far and as a temporary, emergency measure, has been continuing to operate under its prior procedures as if the CEQ NEPA regime still existed. This is not, however, tenable. As soon as proper procedures are available—which they now are, in the form of Part 333—this makeshift regime needs to be rescinded immediately. The section 408 permission program will also now follow a set of up-to-date NEPA implementing procedures and not 33 CFR part 230. The status of 33 CFR part 230 will be addressed in a separate action, but the section 408 program will follow 33 CFR part 333. Because of this need for speed and certainty in replacing a defunct NEPA regime, notice-and-comment is, to the extent it was required at all, impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

For the same reasons stated in the present section, above, the Army finds that “good cause” exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay of the effective date that would otherwise be required.

As explained above, comment is not required because the Corps' NEPA procedures were procedural and because, even if comment were required under the APA, good cause exists to forego it. Nevertheless, the Corps has elected voluntarily to solicit comment. The Army is soliciting comment on this interim final rule, and may make further revisions to its NEPA implementing procedures, if the Army's review of any comments submitted suggests that further revisions are warranted. Commenters have 30 days from publication of this interim final rule to submit comments.

This rule becomes effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register and applies to permit applications or requests for permission submitted on or after the effective date. Permit applications or requests for permission submitted before the effective date of this rule will continue to use the rule in place at the time the application or request was submitted. In situations where the Corps has not published a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement or a public notice under 33 CFR 325.3 for applications or requests ongoing before the effective date of these regulations, the District Engineer may elect to follow these procedures with the agreement of the applicant.

This interim final rule is a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was reviewed under E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

This interim final rule is not subject to E.O. 14192, because this rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866.

Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under the “good cause” exemption in 5 U.S.C. 553(b), the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) are not applicable. In any event, this interim final rule is not subject to that Act because it will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required, and none has been prepared. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 604(a).

The interim final rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Corps amends 33 CFR chapter II as set forth below:

The final rule published on June 18, 2025, at 90 FR 25895, regarding amendments to the rules of practice that govern all proceedings before the Postal Service Board of Contract Appeals, contains an error. It inadvertently added the subparagraph number “(ii)” twice for § 955.29(c)(1). The Postal Service makes this change below to correct the error.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, 39 CFR part 955 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:

Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this document the use of “we,” “us,” or “our” is intended to refer to the EPA. We use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:

Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is organized as follows:

Submit your written comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083, at https://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or by the other methods identified in the ADDRESSES section. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from the docket. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit to the EPA's docket at https://www.regulations.gov any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. This type of information should be submitted as discussed in the Submitting CBI section of this document. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission ( i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). Please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets for additional submission methods; the full EPA public comment policy; information about CBI or multimedia submissions; and general guidance on making effective comments.

Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA through https://www.regulations.gov. Clearly mark the part or all the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, note the docket ID, mark the outside of the digital storage media as CBI, and identify electronically within the digital storage media the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI directly to the public docket through the procedures outlined in the Public Participation section of this document. If you submit any digital storage media that does not contain CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage media clearly that it does not contain CBI and note the docket ID. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2.

Our preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol (FTP), or other online file sharing services ( e.g., Dropbox, OneDrive, Google Drive). Electronic submissions must be transmitted directly to the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) CBI Office at the email address oaqpscbi@epa.gov, and as described above, should include clear CBI markings and note the docket ID. If assistance is needed with submitting large electronic files that exceed the file size limit for email attachments, and if you do not have your own file sharing service, please email oaqpscbi@epa.gov to request a file transfer link. If sending CBI information through the postal service, please send it to the following address: U.S. EPA, Attn: OAQPS Document Control Officer, Mail Drop: C404-02, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055, RTP, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083. The mailed CBI material should be double wrapped and clearly marked. Any CBI markings should not show through the outer envelope.

As defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under Section 112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576; July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the Initial Source Category List, Final Report (see EPA-450/3-91-030; July 1992), the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities source category includes any facility engaged in producing steel from refined iron ore (also known as taconite pellets). These facilities first produce iron from iron ore taconite pellets, sinter, coke, and other raw materials using blast furnaces (BFs), then produce steel from the hot liquid iron produced from the blast furnaces, along with coke, lime, alloys, steel scrap, and other raw materials using basic oxygen process furnaces (BOPFs). Integrated iron and steel manufacturing includes the following processes: sinter production, iron production, iron preparation (hot metal desulfurization), and steel production. The iron production process includes the production of iron in BFs by the reduction of iron-bearing materials with a very hot gas. The steel production process includes BOPFs and ladle metallurgy operations. The 2022 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for the source category is 331110 for “Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing.” The NAICS code serves as a guide for readers outlining the type of entities that this interim final action is likely to affect. Currently there are eight operating facilities in this source category.

The information provided in this section on potentially affected entities is not intended to be exhaustive. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Statutory authority to issue the amendments finalized in this action is provided by the same Clean Air Act (CAA) provision that provided authority to issue the regulations being amended: CAA section 112, 42 U.S.C. 7412. Statutory authority for the rulemaking procedures followed in this action is provided by Administrative Procedure Act (APA) section 553(b)(B), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by September 2, 2025. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements.

The EPA initially set maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for the Integrated Iron and Steel (II&S) Manufacturing Facilities source category on May 20, 2003 (68 FR 27646), codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF, and as part of a residual risk and technology review, finalized amendments to the standards on July 13, 2020 (85 FR 42074). Subsequently, on April 3, 2024, the EPA completed a second technology review under a court-ordered deadline  1 by finalizing amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF (89 FR 23294). The amendments included: (1) MACT standards to address previously unregulated emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from the II&S Manufacturing Facilities source category pursuant to our interpretation of Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (“ LEAN ”); and (2) revised emissions standards based on new information regarding developments in practices, processes, and control technologies pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).

Relevant to this action, the 2024 rule finalized the following: (1) new MACT standards, in the form of numeric emission limits, for five previously unregulated HAP (carbonyl sulfide, carbon disulfide, mercury, hydrogen chloride (HCl), and hydrogen fluoride) emitted from the sinter plants located at II&S manufacturing facilities; (2) new MACT standards, in the form of opacity limits and work practice standards, for five previously unregulated sources of unmeasured fugitive and intermittent particulate emissions: Unplanned bleeder valve openings, planned bleeder valve openings, beaching, bell leaks, and slag processing, handling and storage; and (3) new MACT standards, in the form of numeric emission limits, for unregulated pollutants from BF stoves and BOPFs: total hydrocarbons (THC) (as a surrogate for non-dioxin and non-furan organic HAP), HCl, and dioxins/furans (D/F); and for unregulated pollutants for BFs: THC (as a surrogate for non-dioxin and non-furan organic HAP) and HCl. Additionally, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), the 2024 rule also finalized: (1) work practice standards for the BOPF shops; (2) a requirement that facilities conduct EPA Method 9 readings two times per month at the BOPF Shop and BF casthouse; (3) a fenceline monitoring requirement for chromium for the stated purpose of ensuring that the work practice standards and opacity limits are achieving the anticipated reductions; and (4) revised standards for D/F and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) from sinter plants to reflect the installation and operation of activated carbon injection (ACI) technology.

Following the issuance of the 2024 rule, the EPA was notified by industry parties that there were several errors in the final regulatory text and certain items that the EPA had not properly raised for comment during the proposal. The United States Steel Corp. and Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. submitted administrative petitions for reconsideration on June 3, 2024, detailing those errors, requesting corrections, and expressing concerns regarding the technical feasibility of certain new requirements. The industry parties additionally submitted requests for an administrative stay of the 2024 rule pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(7)(B). Earthjustice on behalf of environmental petitioners challenging the 2020 and 2024 II&S rules  2 also submitted a petition for reconsideration regarding alleged improper notice related to several of the new requirements finalized in the rules.

The Agency responded to the petitions for reconsideration on August 14, 2024, granting discretionary reconsideration of three issues (the numeric emission limit for HCl from BF casthouses and the work practice standards for unplanned bleeder valve openings and beaching) and expressing the intention to issue a correction notice to do the following:

1. clarify that the definition of an “unplanned bleeder valve opening” includes only those openings that are not located downstream from a control device ( i.e., “dirty bleeder valve openings”);

2. clarify the timing of planned openings and how they may affect opacity readings;

3. clarify the definition of a “single bleeder valve opening event;”

4. delete from 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF, Table 2 the emission standard for “windbox exhaust stream” for BF casthouses, BF stoves, and BOPF shops because these sources do not have a windbox exhaust stream; and

5. clarify the method that must be used to measure opacity for bell leaks.

The EPA also committed to continue reviewing additional issues raised in the petitions for reconsideration.

After receiving the EPA's August 14, 2024 response letter, industry petitioners contacted EPA staff to provide additional information regarding the five correction items. These further discussions resulted in a determination by the Agency that some of the corrections and discretionary reconsideration items instead warranted mandatory reconsideration under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B). 3

As a result, on March 5, 2025, the EPA issued a second letter modifying the scope of the already convened discretionary reconsideration proceeding by identifying several items from the petitions for reconsideration as appropriate for mandatory reconsideration based on the criteria in CAA section 307(d)(7)(B): (1) work practice standards for unmeasured fugitive and intermittent particulate from unplanned bleeder valve openings; (2) the opacity limit for planned bleeder valve openings; (3) work practice standards for bell leaks; and (4) the opacity limit for slag processing and handling. 4

Considering the need for additional time for the EPA's mandatory reconsideration of some aspects of the 2024 rule, on March 31, 2025, we determined that a partial stay of the final rule was necessary and issued the Partial Administrative Stay of National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities Technology Review, 90 FR 14207 (March 31, 2025). With that action, the EPA stayed the April 3, 2025, compliance deadlines contained in the 2024 rule until July 1, 2025.

Most of the items identified for reconsideration in the two response letters have compliance deadlines of April 3, 2025, or April 3, 2026. After further consideration of all the reconsideration issues, the parties' petitions for reconsideration, and further discussion with stakeholders, the EPA has determined to revise the 2025 and 2026 compliance deadlines in the II&S Manufacturing Facilities NESHAP to April 3, 2027, for unplanned bleeder valve openings, planned bleeder valve openings, bell leaks, slag processing and handling, beaching, and BF/BOPF work practices. The revision of these compliance deadlines will avoid documented issues regarding compliance with the 2024 rule with respect to the items being reconsidered and corrected. When the EPA promulgated the standards at issue in this action with compliance deadlines in 2025—opacity standards for planned openings, work practice standards for bell leaks, and the monitoring frequency for BOPF/BF—the EPA concluded that these standards could be met without the need for installation of new control equipment, monitors, or measurement equipment. Therefore, the EPA provided only one year to comply with those standards ( i.e., a compliance deadline of April 3, 2025).

However, after promulgation of the 2024 rule, information was provided to the EPA by industry parties in their CAA section 307(d) petitions for administrative reconsideration that facilities may not be able to comply with the standards as written by the April 3, 2025 deadline without clarifications, corrections, or revisions. 5 Additionally, industry petitioners provided new supplemental monitoring data to the EPA to support their petitions for reconsideration. These data demonstrate that it likely will be infeasible for a majority of sources to comply with the 2024 rule's opacity limits for planned bleeder valve openings. The supplemental monitoring was performed by industry to substantiate comments they submitted during the public comment period regarding certain source-by-source operational variabilities. But, because the EPA was under a court-ordered deadline to promulgate the final rule, the Agency did not have time to fully evaluate those comments and underlying data and their implications. Industry was therefore not aware of the need for the supplemental data and explanation of source variability until after the 2024 rule was finalized. These supplemental datasets provided by affected sources to support the industry petitions for reconsideration were not available to the EPA until after the 2024 rule was finalized.

While the EPA concluded there are work practices available to minimize opacity, these new data provide evidence that there is more variability in each source's operations and opacity than we accounted for in developing the final opacity standards. Additionally, for bell leaks, it was brought to the EPA's attention that the 2024 rule's regulatory language setting compliance action levels is inconsistent with what was proposed and needs to be clarified for compliance to be achieved. Finally, for BOPF shops and BF casthouses, through the petitions, the EPA realized there is ambiguity in the regulatory text for the monitoring frequency and location of fugitive emissions that must be addressed to clarify how to demonstrate compliance with these standards.

Likewise, when the EPA promulgated the operational limit for unplanned openings, the opacity limit for slag operations, and the work practice standards for beaching, the EPA had concluded that facilities could comply with these limits in two years, by April 3, 2026, based on the understanding that facilities only had to make relatively moderate changes in equipment or operations to comply with those standards. Those expected changes included installing: (1) stockline monitors to measure material flows in the blast furnaces and/or material sizing equipment or screens to ensure input material was properly sized, to help prevent unplanned openings; (2) fogging and/or water spray equipment to minimize opacity for slag processing operations; and (3) partial enclosures or carbon dioxide suppression to minimize fugitives from beaching. However, based on additional information provided by the petitioners after promulgation of the rule and after further discussions and analyses, the EPA now understands that, in some cases, the equipment and work practices are insufficient or infeasible to meet the standards as currently written. Therefore, some affected sources will likely need more than two years to comply with the standards as finalized.

For unplanned openings, the EPA intended that the finalized standard would only apply to unplanned openings that are not routed to a control device. However, the EPA inadvertently finalized the standard such that it also applies to bleeder valve openings that go through a control device. This technical error will increase the number of unplanned openings that count towards the yearly operational limit, which makes the limit unachievable until a correction is made. For slag handling and processing, new data were provided in the petitions that show higher opacity concentrations than previously known by the EPA for certain specific slag processing and handling activities. For beaching, the EPA failed to adequately consider some feasibility challenges with certain required work practices.

Furthermore, the EPA recognizes that additional corrections, clarifications, and/or revisions to these standards are needed, and such changes cannot be made without an opportunity for notice and comment.

For all the foregoing reasons, the EPA is revising the 2025 and 2026 compliance deadlines for the standards described above to April 3, 2027, to allow sufficient time to address the issues discussed above and to allow sufficient time for compliance in light of the new data and information presented to the Agency. For consistency, even though there is no operational deadline that applies to fenceline monitoring currently, we are also revising the deadline for fenceline monitoring to 1 year after promulgation of the test method or April 3, 2027, whichever is later.

The regulatory revisions to 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF in this action are amending 40 CFR 63.7783 by revising paragraph (g), adding paragraph (h), and amending 40 CFR 63.7792 by revising paragraph (a) to revise the relevant compliance deadlines associated with the standards in this rule to April 3, 2027.

As noted in section I.C. of this preamble, the EPA's authority for the rulemaking procedures followed in this action is provided by APA section 553, 5 U.S.C. 553. 6 In general, an agency issuing a rule under the procedures in APA section 553 must provide prior notice and an opportunity for public comment, but APA section 553(b)(B) includes an exemption from notice-and-comment requirements “when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons, therefore, in the rule issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” This action is being issued without prior notice or opportunity for public comment because the EPA finds that the APA “good cause” exemption from notice-and-comment requirements applies here.

For the reasons described in detail in Section II above, notice-and-comment is impracticable here. First, the EPA has granted petitions for administrative reconsideration of numerous provisions of the 2024 rule and has committed to develop a rulemaking that will be subject to notice-and-comment. See 90 FR 14207, 14208 (March 31, 2025). The reconsideration action is needed because the EPA recognizes that procedural and drafting errors made in the rulemaking process in addition to information that was not submitted by the regulated parties until after the close of the comment period for the proposed rule led the EPA to promulgate regulations that pose compliance challenges that must be resolved before regulated parties will be able to comply with many provisions of the 2024 rule. Because the existing compliance deadlines require action by facilities in the short-term, including investment decisions and modifications to equipment and operating procedures with a significant lead time, revising the compliance dates through prior notice and comment procedures would be impracticable. Second, on March 31, 2025, the EPA issued an administrative stay of the 2025 deadlines contained in the 2024 rule until July 1, 2025 (90 FR 14207; March 31, 2025). If the EPA were to evaluate comments on this action before finalizing it, it is highly likely that the Agency would miss the July 1, 2025, deadline to revise the 2025 compliance deadlines, thereby potentially throwing regulated parties into immediate non-compliance with regulatory requirements that will most likely be revised during the reconsideration rulemaking process. Prior notice and comment procedures are impracticable on this basis as well.

The EPA is also making this rule effective immediately as “a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction” under APA section 553(d)(1). This action relieves restrictions by revising the 2024 rule's 2025 and 2026 compliance deadlines.

As explained in section III of this document, the EPA finds good cause to take this interim final action without prior notice or opportunity for public comment. However, the EPA is requesting comment on the revised compliance dates described in this rule. The EPA is not reopening for comment any provisions of the 2024 rule other than the specific provisions and compliance dates that are expressly amended in this interim final rule.

Additional information about these statutes and executive orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

This is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order section 3(f)(1) that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket. The EPA prepared a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis, Regulatory Impact Analysis for the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities Technology Review: Interim Final Rule, is consistent with Executive Order 12866 and is available in the docket. The RIA analyzes impacts over the period 2025 to 2035 to replicate the analytical timeframe used in the RIA for the 2024 final rule. This interim final action is not based on the estimated costs or benefits presented in the RIA, but rather is based on concerns regarding the technical feasibility of certain regulatory requirements.

Under the 2024 rule, II&S manufacturing facilities must perform required work practices or meet a specified opacity or operational limit (or both) for each UFIP emissions source. Revising the compliance deadlines for these sources allows affected facilities to defer capital investment and avoid operating and maintenance (O&M) costs over the period during which compliance is no longer required. The compliance cost savings estimated by this analysis represent these avoided O&M costs and deferred capital investment costs.

Under this interim final rule, the 2024 rule would no longer reduce emissions of HAP from UFIP emissions sources over the period April 3, 2025, through April 3, 2027, as projected in the RIA for the 2024 rule. 7 The potential benefits from these reductions of HAP were not monetized in that RIA and potential benefit impacts associated with HAP emissions changes due to this interim final rule were not monetized. The interim final rule is also expected to affect emissions of unregulated pollutants such as PM 2.5 . The methodology for estimating these emission changes and monetizing the associated benefit impacts is described in the RIA for this action and the RIA for the 2024 rule. The estimated changes to emissions caused by this interim final rule are expected to be zero for the remainder of the analytical timeframe covered by the RIA.

Table 1 summarizes the estimated changes to compliance costs and emissions associated with this interim final action from 2025-2035. Costs are measured in 2024 dollars discounted to 2025. Emissions changes are measured in short tons. This table presents the present values (PV) and equivalent annualized values (EAV) of these estimated impacts discounted using social discount rates of both three and seven percent, in accordance with OMB Circular A-4. The EAV figures are annualized over 11 years to reflect the length of the timeframe used in the analysis. The EPA estimates that the interim final rule will result in annualized compliance cost savings of $0.4 million using a 3% social discount rate and $0.5 million using a 7% social discount rate. The EPA also estimates that the interim final rule will lead to HAP emissions increases of 120 tons from 2025 through 2027, when the provisions of the 2024 Final Rule are scheduled to go into effect. Changes to emissions from 2028 through 2035 are expected to be zero. The full benefit-cost analysis, which is contained in the RIA for this rulemaking, is consistent with Executive Order 12866 and is available in the docket.

This action is considered an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action. The EPA estimates that the interim final rule will result in compliance cost savings of $3.3 million in present value ($0.4 million EAV) using a 3% social discount rate and $3.5 million in present value ($0.5 million EAV) using a 7% social discount rate from 2025-2035. Details on the estimated compliance cost savings of this final rule can be found in EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis is contained in the RIA, which is available in the docket.

This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. The OMB has previously approved the information collection activities that apply to the II&S facilities affected by this action and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0517. This action does not change the information collection requirements.

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. The Agency confirmed through responses to a CAA section 114 information request that there are only eight integrated iron and steel manufacturing facilities currently operating in the United States and that these plants are owned by two parent companies that do not meet the definition of small businesses, as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration.

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

This action does not have federalism implications. It 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.

This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This rule will implement revisions to the compliance dates for certain provisions. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

Executive Order 13045 directs Federal agencies to include an evaluation of the health and safety effects of the planned regulation on children in Federal health and safety standards and explain why the regulation is preferable to potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. We have concluded that this action is not likely to have any adverse energy effects because it contains no regulatory requirements that will have an adverse impact on productivity, competition, or prices in the energy sector.

This action does not involve technical standards.

This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 801-808, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This rule has been determined to meet the criteria at 5 U.S.C. 804(2) and so would normally be subject to a 60-day delayed effective date under the CRA (5 U.S.C. 801(a)(3)). However, CRA allows the issuing agency to make such rules effective sooner if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and comment rulemaking procedures are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest (5 U.S.C. 808(2)). The EPA has made a good cause finding for this rule as discussed in Part III, including the basis for that finding.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends part 63 of title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675 (“CERCLA” or “the Act”), in response to the dangers of uncontrolled releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, and releases or substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to the public health or welfare. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986, by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (“SARA”), Public Law 99-499, 100 Stat. 1613 et seq.

To implement CERCLA, the EPA promulgated the revised National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (“NCP”), 40 CFR part 300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA section 105 and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20, 1981). The NCP sets guidelines and procedures for responding to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, or releases or substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to the public health or welfare. The EPA has revised the NCP on several occasions. The most recent comprehensive revision was on March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666).

As required under section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, the NCP also includes “criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable, taking into account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking removal action.” “Removal” actions are defined broadly and include a wide range of actions taken to study, clean up, prevent or otherwise address releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants (42 U.S.C. 9601(23)).

The NPL is a list of national priorities among the known or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants throughout the United States. The list, which is appendix B of the NCP (40 CFR part 300), was required under section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended. Section 105(a)(8)(B) defines the NPL as a list of “releases” and the highest priority “facilities” and requires that the NPL be revised at least annually. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. Of note, listing a site on the NPL does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean that any remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.

For purposes of listing, the NPL includes two sections, one of sites that are generally evaluated and cleaned up by the EPA (the “General Superfund section”) and one of sites that are owned or operated by other Federal agencies (the “Federal Facilities section”). With respect to sites in the Federal Facilities section, these sites are generally being addressed by other federal agencies. Under Executive Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987) and CERCLA section 120, each Federal agency is responsible for carrying out most response actions at facilities under its own jurisdiction, custody or control, although the EPA is responsible for preparing a Hazard Ranking System (“HRS”) score and determining whether the facility is placed on the NPL.

There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for possible remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) of the NCP): (1) A site may be included on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high on the HRS, which the EPA promulgated as appendix A of the NCP (40 CFR part 300). The HRS serves as a screening tool to evaluate the relative potential of uncontrolled hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants to pose a threat to human health or the environment. On December 14, 1990 (55 FR 51532), the EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in response to CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA. On January 9, 2017 (82 FR 2760), a subsurface intrusion component was added to the HRS to enable the EPA to consider human exposure to hazardous substances or pollutants and contaminants that enter regularly occupied structures through subsurface intrusion when evaluating sites for the NPL. The current HRS evaluates four pathways: ground water, surface water, soil exposure and subsurface intrusion, and air. As a matter of agency policy, those sites that score 28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible for the NPL. (2) Each state may designate a single site as its top priority to be listed on the NPL, without any HRS score. This provision of CERCLA requires that, to the extent practicable, the NPL include one facility designated by each state as the greatest danger to public health, welfare or the environment among known facilities in the state. This mechanism for listing is set out in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2). (3) The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be listed without any HRS score, if all of the following conditions are met:

• The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release.

• The EPA determines that the release poses a significant threat to public health.

• The EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to use its remedial authority than to use its removal authority to respond to the release.

The EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658) and generally has updated it at least annually.

A site may undergo remedial action financed by the Trust Fund established under CERCLA (commonly referred to as the “Superfund”) only after it is placed on the NPL, as provided in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(b)(1). (“Remedial actions” are those “consistent with a permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal actions” (40 CFR 300.5).) However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2), placing a site on the NPL “does not imply that monies will be expended.” The EPA may pursue other appropriate authorities to respond to the releases, including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws.

The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms; it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of the NPL (to identify releases that are priorities for further evaluation), for it to do so. Indeed, the precise nature and extent of the site are typically not known at the time of listing.

Although a CERCLA “facility” is broadly defined to include any area where a hazardous substance has “come to be located” (CERCLA section 101(9)), the listing process itself is not intended to define or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. Of course, HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL placement was based will, to some extent, describe the release(s) at issue. That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as part of that HRS analysis.

When a site is listed, the approach generally used to describe the relevant release(s) is to delineate a geographical area (usually the area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site by reference to that area. However, the NPL site is not necessarily coextensive with the boundaries of the installation or plant, and the boundaries of the installation or plant are not necessarily the “boundaries” of the site. Rather, the site consists of all contaminated areas within the area used to identify the site, as well as any other location where that contamination has come to be located, or from where that contamination came.

In other words, while geographic terms are often used to designate the site ( e.g., the “Jones Co. Plant site”) in terms of the property owned by a particular party, the site, properly understood, is not limited to that property ( e.g., it may extend beyond the property due to contaminant migration), and conversely may not occupy the full extent of the property ( e.g., where there are uncontaminated parts of the identified property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of the “site”). The “site” is thus neither equal to, nor confined by, the boundaries of any specific property that may give the site its name, and the name itself should not be read to imply that this site is coextensive with the entire area within the property boundary of the installation or plant. In addition, the site name is merely used to help identify the geographic location of the contamination; and is not meant to constitute any determination of liability at a site. For example, the name “Jones Co. plant site,” does not imply that the Jones Company is responsible for the contamination located on the plant site.

EPA regulations provide that the remedial investigation (“RI”) “is a process undertaken . . . to determine the nature and extent of the problem presented by the release” as more information is developed on site contamination, and which is generally performed in an interactive fashion with the feasibility study (“FS”) (40 CFR 300.5). During the RI/FS process, the release may be found to be larger or smaller than was originally thought, as more is learned about the source(s) and the migration of the contamination. However, the HRS inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed and therefore the boundaries of the release need not be exactly defined. Moreover, it generally is impossible to discover the full extent of where the contamination “has come to be located” before all necessary studies and remedial work are completed at a site. Indeed, the known boundaries of the contamination can be expected to change over time. Thus, in most cases, it may be impossible to describe the boundaries of a release with absolute certainty.

Further, as noted previously, NPL listing does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Thus, if a party does not believe it is liable for releases on discrete parcels of property, it can submit supporting information to the agency at any time after it receives notice it is a potentially responsible party.

For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended as further research reveals more information about the location of the contamination or release.

The EPA may delete sites from the NPL where no further response is appropriate under Superfund, as explained in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(e). This section also provides that the EPA shall consult with states on proposed deletions and shall consider whether any of the following criteria have been met:

(i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;

(ii) All appropriate Superfund-financed response has been implemented, and no further response action is required; or

(iii) The remedial investigation has shown the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

In November 1995, the EPA initiated a policy to delete portions of NPL sites where cleanup is complete (60 FR 55465, November 1, 1995). Total site cleanup may take many years, while portions of the site may have been cleaned up and made available for productive use.

The EPA also has developed an NPL construction completion list (“CCL”) to simplify its system of categorizing sites and to better communicate the successful completion of cleanup activities (58 FR 12142, March 2, 1993). Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no legal significance.

Sites qualify for the CCL when: (1) any necessary physical construction is complete, whether or not final cleanup levels or other requirements have been achieved; (2) the EPA has determined that the response action should be limited to measures that do not involve construction ( e.g., institutional controls); or (3) the site qualifies for deletion from the NPL. For more information on the CCL, see the EPA's internet site at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/construction-completions-national-priorities-list-npl-sites-number.

The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure represents important Superfund accomplishments, and the measure reflects the high priority the EPA places on considering anticipated future land use as part of the remedy selection process. See Guidance for Implementing the Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse Measure, May 24, 2006, OSWER 9365.0-36. This measure applies to final and deleted sites where construction is complete, all cleanup goals have been achieved, and all institutional or other controls are in place. The EPA has been successful on many occasions in carrying out remedial actions that ensure protectiveness of human health and the environment for current and future land uses, in a manner that allows contaminated properties to be restored to environmental and economic vitality. For further information, please go to https://www.epa.gov/superfund/about-superfund-cleanup-process#reuse.

In order to maintain close coordination with states and tribes in the NPL listing decision process, the EPA's policy is to determine the position of the states and tribes regarding sites that the EPA is considering for listing. This consultation process is outlined in two memoranda that can be found at the following website: https://www.epa.gov/superfund/statetribal-correspondence-concerning-npl-site-listing.

The EPA has improved the transparency of the process by which state and tribal input is solicited. The EPA is using the Web and where appropriate more structured state and tribal correspondence that: (1) Explains the concerns at the site and the EPA's rationale for proceeding; (2) requests an explanation of how the state intends to address the site if placement on the NPL is not favored; and (3) emphasizes the transparent nature of the process by informing states that information on their responses will be publicly available.

A model letter and correspondence between the EPA and states and tribes where applicable, is available on the EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/statetribal-correspondence-concerning-npl-site-listing.

Yes, documents relating to the evaluation and scoring of the site in this final rule are contained in dockets located both at the EPA headquarters and in the EPA regional offices.

An electronic version of the public docket is available through https://www.regulations.gov (see table below for Docket ID Nos.). Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facilities identified in section II.D.

The headquarters docket for this rule contains the HRS score sheets, the documentation record describing the information used to compute the score, a list of documents referenced in the documentation record for each site and any other information used to support the NPL listing of the site. These documents are also available online at https://www.regulations.gov.

The EPA regional dockets contain all the information in the headquarters docket, plus the actual reference documents containing the data principally relied upon by the EPA in calculating or evaluating the HRS score. These reference documents are available only in the regional dockets.

You may view the documents that support this rule via the internet at https://www.regulations.gov or by contacting the EPA HQ docket or appropriate regional docket. The hours of operation for the headquarters docket are from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. Please contact the individual regional dockets for hours. For addresses for the headquarters and regional dockets, see ADDRESSES section in the beginning portion of this preamble.

You may obtain a current list of NPL sites online at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/national-priorities-list-npl-sites-site-name.

This final rule adds the following three sites to the General Superfund section of the NPL. These sites are being added to the NPL based on HRS scores of 28.50 or above.

DOI is issuing this interim final rule to partially rescind and make other needed, targeted updates to its regulations for implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., as amended (NEPA), codified at 43 CFR part 46. DOI's existing NEPA implementing regulations were promulgated as a “supplement. . . to be used in conjunction with,” 43 CFR 46.20, CEQ's NEPA regulations. DOI provided that the “[p]urpose of this part” was to ensure “compliance with” not only NEPA itself but CEQ's regulations implementing NEPA. 43 CFR 46.10(a)(2). But CEQ's NEPA regulations have been repealed, as of April 11, 2025. See Removal of National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations, (90 FR 10610; Feb. 25, 2025). CEQ's repeal of its regulations was necessitated by and is consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14154, Unleashing American Energy (90 FR 8353; January 29, 2025), in which President Trump rescinded President Carter's E.O. 11991, Relating to Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality (42 FR 26967; May 24, 1977), which was the basis CEQ had invoked for its authority to make rules. President Trump in E.O. 14154 further directed agencies to revise their NEPA implementing procedures consistent with the E.O., including its direction to CEQ to rescind its regulations. DOI's regulations, which were a “supplement . . . to be used in conjunction with” those CEQ regulations, thus stand in obvious need of fundamental revision.

In addition, Congress recently passed the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (FRA), Public Law 118-5, signed on June 3, 2023 to add substantial detail and direction in Title I of NEPA, including in particular on procedural issues that CEQ, DOI, and other agencies had previously addressed in their own regulations. DOI recognized the need to update its regulations in light of these significant statutory changes. Since DOI's regulations were originally designed to supplement CEQ's NEPA regulations, DOI had been awaiting CEQ action before revising its own regulations, consistent with CEQ direction. See 40 CFR 1507.3(b) (2024); see also 86 FR 34154 (June 29, 2021). However, now that CEQ's regulations have been repealed, it is exigent that DOI ensure procedures conform to the statute as amended by the FRA.

Finally, the Supreme Court has recently issued its decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, 145 S. Ct. 1497 (2025), in which it described the “transform[ation]” of NEPA from its roots as “a modest procedural requirement,” into a significant “substantive roadblock” that “paralyze[s]” “agency decisionmaking.” Id. at 1507, 1513 (quotations omitted). The Supreme Court explained that part of that problem had been caused by decisions of lower courts, which it rejected, issuing a “course correction” mandating that courts give “substantial deference” to reasonable agency conclusions underlying that agency's NEPA process. Id. at 1513-14. The Court also acknowledged, and through its course correction sought to address, the effect judicial “micromanage[ment]” has had on “litigation-averse agencies” which have been “tak[ing] ever more time and . . . [prepar[ing] ever longer EISs [environmental impact statements] for future projects.” Id. at 1513. DOI, thus, is issuing this IFR to streamline its NEPA process in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision and changes to the underlying statute. This revision has thus been called for, authorized, and directed by all three branches of government at the highest possible levels.

NEPA does not require Federal agencies to issue regulations implementing NEPA, but instead directs agencies to “identify and develop methods and procedures,” in coordination with CEQ, with respect to their environmental analysis of their proposed actions, see 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(B). Both E.O. 14154 and E.O. 14192 direct agencies to ensure regulatory requirements are grounded in applicable law and to alleviate any unnecessary regulatory burdens, respectively. Consistent with the direction in these E.O.s to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens, DOI will rescind portions of its NEPA implementing regulations at 43 CFR part 46, while retaining and making targeted updates to certain provisions. Specifically, DOI intends to retain and make limited updates to provisions relating to emergency responses to ensure that DOI can respond timely to any such event and to avoid any confusion regarding the continued validity of this already-established provision for action in emergency situations (43 CFR 46.150); categorical exclusions and their use to avoid any instability in these vital procedures or uncertainty about the continued validity of its already-established categorical exclusions (43 CFR 46.205, 46.210, 46.215); and applicant and contractor preparation of environmental documents to provide a durable framework for the use of such documents (43 CFR 46.105, 46.107). All other provisions will be removed from 43 CFR part 46. Other than these few provisions, DOI's procedures will henceforth be contained in the Department of the Interior Handbook: National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures, a copy of which is available in the docket listed under ADDRESSES above (but will not be codified in the CFR).

The Supreme Court could not have been clearer in Seven County that NEPA is a procedural statute. See Seven County, 145 S. Ct. at 1510 (“NEPA is purely procedural. . . . NEPA does not mandate particular results, but simply prescribes the necessary process for an agency's environmental review of a project;”) (internal quotation omitted); id. at 1511 (NEPA is a purely procedural statute” ); id. at 1513 (NEPA is properly understood as “a modest procedural requirement”); id. at 1514 (“NEPA's status as a purely procedural statute”); see also id. at 1507 (“Simply stated, NEPA is a procedural cross-check, not a substantive roadblock.”). The history of DOI's implementing regulations also reflects the understanding that they are procedural rules, for they were uncodified for over a decade before being codified “as a matter of good policy.” This is, moreover, consistent with the approach that several other Federal agencies have used for decades.

This action fulfills President Trump's directive in E.O. 14154 for each agency to, in consultation with CEQ, revise its agency-level NEPA implementing procedures in light of the FRA. 90 CFR at 8355. This action implements E.O. 14154 and complies with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). DOI requests comment on the rescission of portions of its regulations implementing NEPA and its retention and targeted updates to its remaining regulations implementing NEPA, as well as the Department of the Interior Handbook: National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures, a copy of which is available in the docket listed under ADDRESSES above (but will not be codified in the CFR). This notice serves to provide fair notice to interested persons and to allow for public comment on DOI's interim final rulemaking. Public comments on the matters addressed in this interim final rule are due by August 4, 2025. As explained in Section IV of this notice, DOI requests and encourages public comment on the rationale for this action and related matters that may inform DOI's decision making.

Congress enacted NEPA to declare a national policy “to use all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and [to] fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans.” 42 U.S.C. 4331(a).

NEPA, as amended by the FRA, furthers this national policy by requiring Federal agencies to prepare an environmental impact statement—“in essence, a report”—for proposed “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C); Seven County, 145 S. Ct. at 1507. This statement must address: (1) The reasonably foreseeable environmental effects of the proposed agency action; (2) the reasonably foreseeable adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided; (3) a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed agency action, including an analysis of any negative environmental impacts of not implementing the proposed agency action in the case of a no action alternative, that are technically and economically feasible, and meet the purpose and need of the proposal; (4) the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; and (5) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved in the proposed action. 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C).

NEPA further mandates that Federal agencies ensure the professional and scientific integrity of environmental documents; use reliable data and resources when carrying out NEPA; and study, develop, and describe technically and economically feasible alternatives. 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(D)-(F). NEPA provides procedures for making threshold determinations about whether an environmental document must be prepared and the appropriate level of environmental review. 42 U.S.C. 4336(a)-(b).

NEPA does not mandate specific results or substantive outcomes. Seven County, 145 S. Ct. at 1507. Rather, NEPA requires Federal agencies to consider the environmental effects of proposed actions as part of agencies' decision-making processes. As amended by the FRA, NEPA provides additional requirements to facilitate timely and unified Federal reviews, including provisions clarifying lead, joint lead, and cooperating agency designations, generally requiring the development of a single environmental document, directing agencies to develop procedures for project sponsors to prepare environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, and prescribing page limits and deadlines. 42 U.S.C. 4336a. NEPA also sets forth the circumstances under which agencies may rely on programmatic environmental documents, 42 U.S.C. 4663b, and adopt and use another agency's categorical exclusions. 42 U.S.C. 4336c.

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued E.O. 14154, Unleashing American Energy. 1 The E. O. revoked E.O. 11991, Relating to protection and enhancement of environmental quality, 2 which had directed CEQ to issue regulations implementing NEPA and required Federal agencies to comply with those regulations. 3 E.O. 14154 also directed CEQ to provide guidance on implementing NEPA and propose rescinding CEQ's NEPA regulations within 30 days of the order. 4 CEQ issued an interim final rule rescinding CEQ's NEPA implementing regulations (including as they relate to agency NEPA procedures) on February 25, 2025, effective April 11, 2025. 5 Following CEQ's provision of initial guidance, E.O. 14154 directs the Chairman of CEQ to convene a working group to coordinate the revision of agency-level NEPA implementing regulations for consistency.

Until 2008, DOI provided procedures for implementing NEPA in chapters of part 516 of the Department Manual. DOI periodically revised the Department Manual chapters containing NEPA procedures through a notice and comment process that involved publication of proposed and final revisions in the Federal Register , but did not promulgate as regulations the procedures contained in the Department Manual. In 2008, DOI promulgated regulations codifying DOI's NEPA procedures at 43 CFR part 46. In the preamble to the 2008 notice of proposed rulemaking, 6 DOI explained that “[t]he Department believes that codifying the procedures in regulations that are consistent with NEPA and the CEQ regulations will provide greater visibility to that which was previously contained in the [Department Manual] DM and enhance cooperative conservation by highlighting opportunities for public engagement and input in the NEPA process.” 73 FR 61292. DOI retained additional explanatory guidance (as distinguished from agency implementing procedures) in the Department Manual and other Departmental guidance documents. Bureaus and offices (bureaus) of the Department continue to maintain Department Manual chapters in part 516 specific to their programs which supplement the DOI NEPA implementing procedures.

E.O. 14154 directs all agencies to prioritize efficiency and certainty over any other objectives and avoid and minimize delays and ambiguity in the permitting process. DOI's internal procedures and policies to guide compliance with NEPA will better advance the priorities articulated in E.O. 14154 and provide for quicker updates in policy implementation for bureaus to use than will retaining the NEPA implementing regulations. Consolidating procedures with many other policies and guidance will also provide additional public transparency.

Moreover, DOI has decided that the flexibility to respond to new developments in this fast-evolving area of law, afforded by using non-codified procedures, outweighs the appeal of maintaining its NEPA procedures as regulations going forward. Notably, in this digitized age, while DOI codified its procedures as regulations, in part, to provide “greater visibility” to the public, DOI can—and will—ensure such visibility simply by posting these procedures online, which removes the upside of codification. By contrast, not maintaining its procedures as regulations will enable it to rapidly update these procedures in response to future court decisions (such as Seven County ) or Presidential directives (such as E.O. 14154). The balance thus tips decisively toward using a non-regulatory, but publicly accessible, procedural document. Because rescinding DOI's existing regulations without simultaneously adopting a replacement would likely cause uncertainty among regulated parties, the new procedures that DOI adopts today have informed its decision to rescind most of its prior regulations.

DOI's new NEPA implementing procedures are a more faithful implementation of the statute as amended in 2023 than its old procedures. They implement major structural features of the 2023 amendments, such as deadlines and page limits for environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, as directed at NEPA Section 107(g), and provide that DOI will complete preparation of these documents within the maximum length and on the timeline that Congress intends. They incorporate Congress's definition of “major Federal action” and the exclusions thereto, as codified at NEPA Section 111(10). They incorporate Congress's mandated procedure for determining the appropriate level of review under NEPA, as codified in NEPA Section 106. And they incorporate Congress's revision to the requirements for what an agency must address in its environmental impact statements, as codified at NEPA Section 102(2)(C), and Congress's requirement that public notice and solicitation of comment be provided when issuing a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement, as directed at NEPA Section 107(c). All of these are crucial features of Congress's policy design and its purpose in the 2023 amendments that NEPA review be more efficient and certain.

Moreover, all of these respond to the President's directive in E.O. 14154; and all of these reflect the Supreme Court's recent and unequivocal statement that NEPA is a purely procedural statute. DOI is conscious of the Supreme Court's admonition that NEPA review has grown out of all proportion to its origins as a “modest procedural requirement,” creating, “under the guise of just a little more process,” “[d]elay upon delay, so much so that the process seems to `borde[r] on the Kafkaesque.' ” Seven County, 145 S. Ct. at 1513-14 (internal quotation omitted). These procedures, therefore, attempt to align NEPA with its Congressionally mandated dimensions, reflecting the guidance given also by the President and the Supreme Court, and making review under it faster, more flexible, and more efficient.

In reaching this decision, DOI acknowledges that third parties may claim to have reliance interests in DOI's existing NEPA procedures. But revised agency procedures will have no effect on ongoing NEPA reviews, where DOI, following CEQ guidance, will continue to apply the preexisting procedures to applications that are sufficiently advanced. Moreover, as the Supreme Court has just explained, NEPA “is a purely procedural statute” that “imposes no substantive environmental obligations or restrictions.” Seven County, 145 S. Ct. at 1507. To the extent any asserted reliance interests are grounded in substantive environmental concerns, such interests are entitled to “no. . . weight.” Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of California, 140 S. Ct. 1891, 1914 (2020).

Because reliance interests are inherently backward-looking, it is unclear how any party could assert reliance interests in prospective procedures. To the extent such interests exist, the Department holds that they are “outweigh[ed]” by “other interests and policy concerns.” Id. Namely, the complex web of regulations that preexisted the 2023 amendments to NEPA and these new procedures repeatedly “led to more agency analysis of separate projects, more consideration of attenuated effects, more exploration of alternatives to proposed agency action, more speculation and consultation and estimation and litigation,” which in turn has meant that “[f]ewer projects make it to the finish line,” or even “to the starting line.” Seven County, 145 S. Ct. at 1513-14. This has increased the cost of projects dramatically, “both for the agency preparing the EIS and for the builder of the project,” resulting in systemic harms to America's infrastructure and economy. Id. Correspondingly, the wholesale revision and simplification of this regime, effectuated by the revision of DOI's NEPA procedures and relocation of them to the Department of the Interior Handbook: National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures, is necessary to ensure efficient and predictable reviews, with significant upsides for the economy and for projects of all sorts. This set of policy considerations drastically outweighs any claimed reliance interests in the preexisting procedures.

DOI has revised its NEPA implementing procedures to conform to the 2023 statutory amendments, to respond to President Trump's direction in E.O. 14154, and to address the pathologies of the NEPA process and NEPA litigation identified by the Supreme Court.

Where DOI has retained an aspect of its preexisting NEPA implementing procedures, it is because that aspect is compatible with these guiding principles; where DOI has revised or removed an aspect, it is because that aspect is not compatible.

NEPA requires that all Federal agencies identify and develop methods and procedures, in consultation with CEQ, that will ensure that unquantified environmental amenities and values may be given appropriate consideration in decision-making along with economic and technical considerations. 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(B). The statutory amendments to NEPA under the FRA also refer to agency NEPA procedures. 7 Federal agencies have developed varying forms of NEPA implementing procedures, some in regulation and some in other forms of procedural documents. DOI's revised NEPA procedures, developed in consultation with CEQ and in coordination with other Federal agencies for consistency across the Federal government, will facilitate compliance with the statutory obligations of NEPA.

The rule removes most of the existing DOI NEPA regulations in favor of relying on Departmental guidance for the reasons discussed above, but the rule retains and makes targeted updates to its regulations that authorize three tools that DOI bureaus may rely on to expedite NEPA reviews and ensure that compliance with NEPA is achieved in an efficient manner.

First, DOI is retaining 43 CFR 46.150, which allows bureaus to respond to emergencies while either forgoing NEPA analysis so as to allow the bureau to take actions “urgently needed to mitigate harm to life, property, or important natural, cultural, or historic resources” and use alternative arrangements for NEPA compliance to take other actions beyond those immediately necessary to protect life, property, and resources in response to emergencies. The rule makes minor clarifying adjustments to the text that reflect DOI's experience implementing these provisions. The adjustments do not change the meaning of the provisions. 8

Next, DOI is retaining 43 CFR 46.205, 46.210, and 46.215, which establish Departmental categorical exclusions and lay out the procedures for relying on a categorical exclusion to comply with NEPA. Categorical exclusions represent those categories of actions that DOI has determined normally do not significantly affect the environment. Categorical exclusions provide important efficiency by ensuring that many agency actions are not subjected to the lengthy NEPA process and can proceed using the significantly truncated process identified in the DOI NEPA regulations for determining that a categorical exclusion applies and ensuring that no “extraordinary circumstances” are present that would preclude reliance on the categorical exclusion. Section 46.210 will continue to identify Departmental categorical exclusions while additional, bureau-specific categorical exclusions are identified in guidance documents.

Although DOI is largely retaining these provisions in regulation, the rule revises them to eliminate from the regulations certain categorical exclusions that are not used across the Department and to refine certain other extraordinary circumstances that, when present, would preclude reliance on a categorical exclusion. Section 46.205 includes new paragraphs (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), and (j) providing how DOI bureaus may rely on categorical exclusion determinations made by other agencies, may apply multiple categorical exclusions to a single action, and may rely on a categorical exclusion administratively established or adopted by another DOI bureau; the procedures governing the establishment, modification, or removal of categorical exclusions from NEPA procedures; and the clarification that any such establishment, modification, or removal does not itself have any environmental effects for purposes of NEPA. In Section 46.210, the rule removes paragraphs (k) and (l), which describe categorical exclusions for hazardous fuels reduction activities using prescribed fire and post-fire rehabilitation activities, respectively. These categorical exclusions will continue to be identified in bureau-specific NEPA procedures, and those bureaus may then continue to rely on them for purposes of NEPA compliance, but they are not properly considered Departmental categorical exclusions.

In Section 46.215, which lists the “extraordinary circumstances” that, if present preclude reliance on a categorical exclusion, the rule removes existing paragraphs (c), (i), and (j), and then renumbers the remaining paragraphs. Paragraph (c) provides that an extraordinary circumstance is present if an action may “[h]ave highly controversial environmental effects or involve unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources.” 43 CFR 46.215(c). This provision causes confusion as it has been frequently misunderstood to mean that any controversy surrounding the substance of the action itself constitutes an extraordinary circumstance. The provision is intended only to provide that controversy about the nature and magnitude of the environmental effects of the action constitutes an extraordinary circumstance. In any event, the concept is sufficiently addressed in existing paragraph (d) (which this rule renumbers as paragraph (c)).

Paragraph (i) provides that an extraordinary circumstance is present if an action may “[v]iolate a Federal law, or a State, local, or tribal law or requirement imposed for the protection of the environment.” 43 CFR 46.215(i). Whether a proposed Federal action may violate a law imposed for the protection of the environment is a question that goes beyond the procedural requirements of NEPA and may be better considered and appropriately addressed by the Responsible Officer when making the decision on the proposed action. While a proposed action's inconsistency with such a law should be appropriately considered in the agency decision-making process—and may suggest that that the proposed action should not be approved—it is not relevant to the determination of whether the proposed action may have significant environmental effects.

Paragraph (j) was promulgated in response to E.O. 12898, Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (Feb. 11, 1994). That E.O. was rescinded by E. O. 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). Therefore, it is appropriate to remove the associated provision in Section 46.215.

In addition, all references to E.O.s in the DOI list of extraordinary circumstances are removed. These E.O.s could change over time or could unduly limit the review of the resources listed, not allowing for more relevant information to be considered in the extraordinary circumstances review for a proposed action.

Finally, DOI is retaining and revising Section 46.105 and adding Section 46.107, which set standards and procedures that apply when DOI bureaus hire contractors to prepare environmental assessments, environmental impact statements, or other environmental information; or rely on applicants to prepare environmental information, including environmental assessments or environmental impact statements. The FRA provides that agencies may develop procedures to allow for the preparation of environmental assessments and environmental impact statements by applicants for Federal approvals. DOI already has a regulation allowing for bureaus to rely on applicant-prepared environmental assessments. The revisions made by this rule would extend that allowance to applicant-prepared environmental impact statements while also adding standards and procedures to ensure that the process for using applicant-prepared environmental assessments and environmental impact statements is both efficient and legally defensible. For similar reasons, additional standards and procedures have been added to the regulation governing bureau use of environmental information or documents prepared by contractors engaged directly by the bureaus.

DOI is repealing its prior regulations that establish procedures and practices for implementing NEPA, a “purely procedural statute” which “simply prescribes the necessary process' for an agency's environmental review of a project”—a review that is, even in its most rigorous form, “only one input into an agency's decision and does not itself require any particular substantive outcome.” Seven County, 145 S. Ct. at 1507, 1511 (internal quotation omitted). “NEPA imposes no substantive constraints on the agency's ultimate decision to build, fund, or approve a proposed project,” and “is relevant only to the question of whether an agency's final decision”— i.e., that decision to authorize, fund, or otherwise carry out a particular proposed project or activity—“was reasonably explained.” Id. at 1511. As such, notice and comment procedures are not required because this revision falls within the APA exception for “rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). DOI's existing NEPA regulations do not dictate what actions to take or policies to adopt. Rather, they prescribe how bureaus should conduct their NEPA reviews: detailing the application of NEPA, timing of environmental impact statements, and specifying other procedural requirements. 9 These are procedural provisions, not substantive environmental ones, and they apply exclusively to internal DOI processes. And because procedural rules do not require notice and comment, absent a specific provision of law requiring such procedures, they do not require notice and comment to be rescinded. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). Indeed, DOI recognized as much even when initially promulgating them: DOI was explicit that the department was codifying its procedures because it “believes that codifying the procedures in regulations that are consistent with NEPA and the CEQ regulations will provide greater visibility to that which was previously contained in the DM and enhance cooperative conservation by highlighting opportunities for public engagement and input in the NEPA process.” 73 FR 61292.

Just so, DOI's new procedures will also be purely procedural and guide internal agency compliance with NEPA. Indeed, it is hard to see how they could be otherwise, since the Supreme Court has recently repeatedly emphasized that “NEPA is a purely procedural statute.” Seven County, 145 S. Ct. at 1507; see id. at 1510 (“NEPA is purely procedural. . . . NEPA `does not mandate particular results, but simply prescribes the necessary process' for an agency's environmental review of a project.”); id. at 1511 (NEPA is a purely procedural statute” ); id. at 1513 (NEPA is properly understood as “a modest procedural requirement”); id. at 1514 (“NEPA's status as a purely procedural statute”); see also id. at 1507 (“Simply stated, NEPA is a procedural cross-check, not a substantive roadblock.”). Procedures for implementing a purely procedural statute must be, by their nature, procedural rules. Surely, they cannot be legislative rules; as such, they do not need to be promulgated via notice-and-comment rulemaking. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). And even if that were not universally true, the new rules adopted in this notice are purely procedural.

Moreover, even if (and to the extent that) DOI's regulations were not procedural rules, they may be characterized as interpretative rules or general statements of policy under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). An interpretative rule provides an interpretation of a statute, rather than making discretionary policy choices that establish enforceable rights or obligations for regulated parties under delegated congressional authority. The definitions sections of both the old and new procedures, for instance, may be classified as such. General statements of policy provide notice of an agency's intentions as to how it will enforce statutory requirements, again without creating enforceable rights or obligations for regulated parties under delegated congressional authority. The prefatory sections of both the old and new procedures, for instance, may be classified as general statements of policy. Both of these types of agency action are expressly exempted from notice and comment by statute. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), and so do not require notice and comment for their removal.

Accordingly, although DOI is voluntarily providing notice and an opportunity to comment on this interim final rule, the agency has determined that notice-and-comment procedures are not required. The fact that DOI previously undertook notice-and-comment rulemaking in promulgating these regulations is immaterial: As the Supreme Court has held, where notice-and-comment procedures are not required, prior use of them in promulgating a rule does not bind the agency to use such procedures in repealing it. Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass'n, 575 U.S. 92, 101 (2015).

Moreover, DOI also finds that, to the extent that prior notice and solicitation of public comment would otherwise be required or this action could not immediately take effect, the need to expeditiously replace its existing regulations satisfies the “good cause” exceptions in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d). The APA authorizes agencies to issue regulations without notice and public comment when an agency finds, for good cause, that notice and comment is “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest,” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), and to make the rule effective immediately for good cause. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). As discussed in Sections I & II, above, DOI's prior rules were promulgated as a “supplement . . . to be used in conjunction with,” 43 CFR 46.20, CEQ's NEPA regulations. Following the rescission of CEQ's regulations, DOI's current rules are left hanging in air, supplementing a NEPA regime that no longer exists. DOI, thus far and as a temporary, emergency measure, has been continuing to operate under its prior procedures as if the CEQ NEPA regime still existed. This is not, however, tenable. As soon as updated non-regulatory procedures were available—which they are now—Interior must immediately rescind its duplicative or inconsistent regulations that compose this makeshift regime.

For the same reasons stated in the present section, above, DOI finds that “good cause” exists under 5 U.S.C.§ 553(d)(3) to forgo the 30-day delay of the effective date that would otherwise be required to rescind regulations in their entirety. This interim final rule and the new procedural document that accompanies it will accordingly be effective immediately.

As explained above, comment is not required because DOI's NEPA procedures were and are procedural and because, even if comment were otherwise required under the APA, good cause exists to forgo it. Nevertheless, DOI has elected voluntarily to solicit comment. DOI is soliciting comment on this interim final rule and its new procedures, which are available for review at www.regulations.gov, docket number 2025-0004. DOI may make further revisions to its NEPA implementing procedures, if DOI's review of any comments submitted suggests that further revisions are warranted. Commenters have 30 days from the date of publication of this interim final rule to submit comments.

E.O. 12866 provides that OIRA will review all significant rules. E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866, calling for improvements in the Federal Government's regulatory system to promote predictability, reduce uncertainty, and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory objectives. OMB determined that this interim final rule is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563, and has reviewed.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., and E.O. 13272 generally require agencies to assess the impacts of final rules on small entities by preparing a regulatory flexibility analysis. Under the RFA, small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a). As the Department is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this interim final rule, the RFA does not apply.

Even if the RFA applies, this rule does not directly regulate small entities. Rather, the rule applies to Federal agencies and sets forth the process for their compliance with NEPA. Accordingly, DOI hereby certifies that this interim final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

DOI has determined that the rule will not have a significant effect on the environment because it will not authorize any specific agency activity or commit resources to a project that may affect the environment. Therefore, DOI does not intend to conduct a NEPA analysis of this interim final rule. In addition, DOI has determined that its categorical exclusion (CE) at 43 CFR 46.210(i) covers this rulemaking. The CE covers policies, directives, regulations, and guidelines that are “of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature; or whose environmental effects are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis and will later be subject to the NEPA process, either collectively or case-by-case.” Further, the proposed rule does not implicate any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215.

E.O. 13132 requires agencies to develop an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. Policies that have federalism implications include regulations that 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. This interim final rule does not have federalism implications because it applies to Federal agencies, not States.

E.O. 13175 requires agencies to have a process to ensure meaningful and timely input by Tribal officials in the development of policies that have Tribal implications. Such policies include regulations that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. This interim final rule is not a regulatory policy that has Tribal implications because it does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Tribal governments (section 5(b)) and does not preempt Tribal law (section 5(c)).

Agencies must prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for significant energy actions under E.O. 13211. This interim final rule is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

Under section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, agencies must review their regulations to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguities, draft them to minimize litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. Section 3(b) provides a list of specific issues for review to ensure compliance with section 3(a). DOI has conducted this review and determined that this interim final rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988.

Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, Tribal, and local governments and the private sector to the extent that such regulations incorporate requirements specifically set forth in law. Before promulgating a rule that may result in the expenditure by a State, Tribal, or local government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million, adjusted annually for inflation, in any one year, an agency must prepare a written statement that assesses the effects on State, Tribal, and local governments and the private sector. 2 U.S.C. 1532. This interim final rule applies to Federal agencies and would not result in expenditures of $100 million or more by State, Tribal, and local governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. This action also does not impose any enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or otherwise have any effect on small governments.

This interim final rule does not impose any new information collection burden that would require additional review or approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), an agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), adopted its own National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing procedures in 1975 at 49 CFR part 520 (“1975 procedures”), as directed by Executive Order (E.O.) 11514, Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality (35 FR 4245 (Mar. 7, 1970)), and the Council on Environmental Quality's Guidelines of April 23, 1971 (36 FR 7724). NHTSA's 1975 procedures established the initial framework for conducting NHTSA-specific environmental reviews on its rulemakings and regulatory actions.

Subsequently, E.O. 11991, Relating to Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality (42 FR 26967 (May 24, 1977)), amended E.O. 11514 to require the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to issue binding regulations for NEPA compliance, which it did at 40 CFR parts 1500-1508 (CEQ regulations). Among other sections, 40 CFR 1500.3 stated that the CEQ regulations were applicable to and binding on all Federal agencies for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA. Accordingly, NHTSA has followed NEPA's statutory requirements, its 1975 procedures to the extent they were previously consistent with law, and CEQ's NEPA implementing regulations to assess the environmental impacts of the agency's actions.

NHTSA has determined that it is appropriate to remove its 1975 procedures because the regulations are no longer consistent with the governing laws and orders relevant to NEPA, which have changed significantly since 1975. NHTSA's 1975 procedures were established pursuant to E.O. 11514 and CEQ's 1971 Guidelines (36 FR 7724). E.O. 11514 was amended by E.O. 11991, which has now been rescinded by E.O. 14154, Unleashing American Energy (90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)). CEQ's 1971 Guidelines, which were the basis for CEQ's NEPA Implementing Regulations at 40 CFR parts 1500 et seq., have also been repealed. See Removal of National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations, (90 FR 10610 (Feb. 25, 2025)). These circumstances raise questions concerning the legal basis for NHTSA to maintain its 1975 procedures and create a need for NHTSA, which had long relied on CEQ's regulations in administering NEPA, see supra, to modernize and update its own regulations.

Further, the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (FRA 2023), Public Law 118-5, amended NEPA to provide more detailed procedures for environmental reviews. The FRA 2023 amendments require agencies to facilitate timely and unified Federal reviews, develop a single environmental document as appropriate, and comply with page limits and deadlines. FRA 2023 also outlines guidelines for using programmatic environmental documents and a streamlined process for adopting another agency's categorical exclusions. NHTSA's 1975 procedures do not incorporate the FRA 2023 amendments that require the agency to conduct more effective and efficient environmental reviews.

E.O. 14154 instructed CEQ to provide guidance on implementing NEPA to expedite and simplify the permitting process and to meet deadlines established in FRA 2023. The E.O. also directed all agencies to prioritize efficiency and certainty over any other objectives. NHTSA's 1975 procedures do not conform with E.O. 14154, and applying those procedures would be inconsistent with the directives in E.O. 14154—to conduct environmental reviews in a timely and efficient manner.

Finally, the Supreme Court on May 29, 2025, issued Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, 145 S. Ct. 1497 (2025), in which it described the “transform[ation]” of NEPA from its roots as “a modest procedural requirement,” into a significant “substantive roadblock” that “paralyze[s]” “agency decisionmaking.” Id. at 1507, 1513 (quotations omitted). The Supreme Court explained that part of that problem had been caused by decisions of lower courts, which it rejected, issuing a “course correction” mandating that courts give “substantial deference” to an agency's reasonable conclusions underlying its NEPA process. Id. at 1513-14. But the Court also acknowledged, and through its course correction sought to address, the effect on “litigation-averse agencies” that, in light of judicial “micromanage[ment],” had been “tak[ing] ever more time and [ ] prepar[ing] ever longer EISs for future projects.” Id. at 1513. NHTSA, thus, is issuing this IFR to align its actions with the Supreme Court's decision and streamline its process of ensuring reasonable NEPA decisions.

NHTSA finds that each of the reasons stated above independently make the agency's 1975 procedures outdated and inoperative. Accordingly, NHTSA has determined that it is most appropriate to remove its 1975 procedures.

In light of recent directives and the repeal of CEQ's NEPA Implementing Regulations, DOT has updated its NEPA implementing procedures (DOT Order 5610.1D, “Departmentwide National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures”) to be applicable to NHTSA and several other DOT operating administrations and which will now serve as the primary procedures for implementing NHTSA environmental reviews. Subpart D of DOT Order 5610.1D includes NHTSA-specific NEPA procedures. The action taken under this interim final rule will avoid duplication and maintain consistency with the departmentwide NEPA implementing procedures, which aid efficiency, improve the timely completion of the environmental review process, and refocus agency practice on fostering informed decisionmaking.

NHTSA acknowledges that third parties may claim to have reliance interests in NHSTA's existing NEPA procedures. But revised agency procedures will have no effect on ongoing NEPA reviews, where NHTSA, following CEQ guidance, has held it will continue to apply existing applications. Moreover, as the Supreme Court has just explained, NEPA “is a purely procedural statute” that “imposes no substantive environmental obligations or restrictions.” Seven County, 145 S. Ct. at 1507. Any asserted reliance interests grounded in substantive environmental concerns are not in accord with the best meaning of the law and are entitled to “no . . . weight.” Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of California, 140 S. Ct. 1891, 1914 (2020).

Because reliance interests are inherently backward-looking, it is unclear how any party could assert reliance interests in prospective procedures. To the extent such interests exist, the Court concludes that they are “outweigh[ed]” by “other interests and policy concerns.” Id. Namely, the complex web of regulations that preexisted the 2023 amendments to NEPA and the revised DOT repeatedly “led to more agency analysis of separate projects, more consideration of attenuated effects, more exploration of alternatives to proposed agency action, more speculation and consultation and estimation and litigation,” which in turn has meant that “[f]ewer projects make it to the finish line,” or even “to the starting line.” Seven County, 145 S. Ct. at 1513-14. This has increased the cost of projects dramatically, “both for the agency preparing the EIS and for the builder of the project,” resulting in systemic harms to America's infrastructure and economy. Id. at 1514. Correspondingly, the wholesale revision and simplification of this regime, effectuated by DOT's new Procedures, is necessary to assure ensure efficient and predictable reviews, with significant upsides for the economy and for projects of all sorts. This set of policy considerations drastically outweighs any claimed reliance interests in the preexisting procedures.

For the reasons described in this section, NHTSA has determined that an interim final rule is the appropriate mechanism to rescind its 1975 procedures and to align with current law. This interim final rule satisfies the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)-(d). Although this interim final rule is effective immediately, comments are solicited from interested members of the public on all aspects of the interim final rule. NHTSA will consider these comments in deciding the next steps following this interim final rule.

The APA authorizes agencies to issue regulations without notice and public comment when an agency finds, for good cause, that notice and comment is “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest,” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), and to make the rule effective immediately for good cause, 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

First, notice and comment is unnecessary because this action merely rescinds procedures that are already obsolete, are inconsistent with current law, and have been replaced by departmentwide procedures, DOT Order 5610.1D, which are consistent with NEPA, as amended by FRA 2023, and E.O. 14154. In addition, DOT provides a comment opportunity for the public to address any concerns with NHTSA's revised NEPA implementing procedures at Subpart D of DOT Order 5610.1D, rendering public comment on this action duplicative. Next, prior notice and comment would be impracticable because the repeal of the 1975 procedures must take immediate effect. Current agency work is impeded because the 1975 procedures are inoperative. DOT Order 5610.1D allows such work to continue, as well as replaces the role long played by the now-repealed CEQ regulations in NHTSA's administration of NEPA. However, NHTSA's 1975 procedures must also be repealed to prevent conflicting direction regarding NHTSA's NEPA procedures, which would result in further impediments to agency function. In addition, continuing its 1975 procedures in force during the comment period would conflict with Presidential, government-wide directives and departmentwide procedures, and thus be contrary to the public interest, leading to confusion and inconsistency and resulting in delays and ambiguities during environmental reviews.

Therefore, NHTSA finds good cause to issue this interim final rule without prior notice and an opportunity for public comment. For these same reasons, NHTSA finds good cause for this rule to be effective immediately. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

NHTSA is repealing its prior procedures and practices for implementing NEPA, a “purely procedural statute” which “`simply prescribes the necessary process' for an agency's environmental review of a project—a review that is, even in its most rigorous form, “only one input into an agency's decision and does not itself require any particular substantive outcome.” Seven County, 145 S. Ct. at 1507, 1511. “NEPA imposes no substantive constraints on the agency's ultimate decision to build, fund, or approve a proposed project,” and “is relevant only to the question of whether an agency's final decision— i.e., that decision to authorize, fund, or otherwise carry out a particular proposed project or activity—“was reasonably explained.” Id. at 1511. As such, notice-and-comment procedures are not required because this revision falls within the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) exception for “rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). NHTSA's existing regulations do not dictate what outcomes such consideration must produce, nor do they impose binding legal obligations on private citizens. Rather, they prescribe how NHTSA will conduct its NEPA reviews: detailing the structure of environmental impact statements, specifying submission requirements, and directing the timing of public comment periods. These are procedural provisions, not ones that impose substantive environmental obligations or restrictions. Thus, because procedural rules do not require notice and comment, they do not require notice and comment to be removed from the Code of Federal Regulations. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A).

Moreover, even if (and to the extent that) NHTSA's regulations were not procedural rules, they may be characterized as interpretative rules or general statements of policy under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). An interpretative rule provides an interpretation of a statute, rather than make discretionary policy choices that establish enforceable rights or obligations for regulated parties under delegated congressional authority. General statements of policy provide notice of an agency's intentions as to how it will enforce statutory requirements, again without creating enforceable rights or obligations for regulated parties under delegated congressional authority. Both of these types of agency action are expressly exempted from notice and comment by statute, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), and do not require notice and comment for their removal.

As explained in section III of this document, the APA authorizes NHTSA to take this interim final action without prior notice or opportunity for public comment. However, NHTSA is providing an opportunity for comment on this interim final rule for 30 days after this action's publication date, and may make further revisions should its review of any comments submitted suggest that further revisions are warranted. Any comments related to NHTSA's revised NEPA implementing procedures should be directed to the docket for DOT's Federal Register notice for the DOT Order 5610.1D.

This rule is a “significant regulatory action” under E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993)). Therefore, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has reviewed this rule under that Executive Order.

E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation (90 FR 9065 (Jan. 31, 2025)), requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.” Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192 issued by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20 (Mar. 26, 2025)) defines an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This interim final rule, rescinding NHTSA's outdated NEPA regulations, will have minor cost savings that cannot be quantified. By removing obsolete regulatory text, this rule will remove any confusion or inconsistencies regarding NHTSA's NEPA procedures. Therefore, this interim final rule is an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612) (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), whenever a rule is required to be published for public comment, agencies must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities ( i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). Because NHTSA was not required to provide public notice and prior opportunity for comment on this rule, the analytical requirements of the RFA do not apply. In addition, NHTSA has concluded that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the rule only removes requirements that are no longer applicable or needed.

This rule does not contain Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local and Tribal governments, or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Thus, the rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. NHTSA has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule would not have tribal implications that require consultation under Executive Order 13175.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the collection displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. This rule would not impose any information collection requirements subject to approval by OMB.

NHTSA has examined this proposed rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255; Aug. 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional consultation with States, local governments, or their representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that the rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The rule does 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.”

NHTSA believes this interim final rule, if finalized, would not have a reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the human environment because it will not authorize any specific agency activity or commit resources to a project that may affect the environment. Therefore, NHTSA does not intend to conduct a NEPA analysis of this interim final rule.

With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation, section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) specifies clearly the preemptive effect; (2) specifies clearly the effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies clearly the retroactive effect, if any; (5) defines key terms adequately; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.

Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. This rule has no preemptive effect. It relates only to the removal of procedures related to a program that has expired. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they may file suit in court.

E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 require each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration of the following questions:

• Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?

• Are the requirements in the rule stated clearly?

• Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?

• Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?

• Would more (but shorter) sections be better?

• Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?

• What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?

If you have any responses to these questions, please include them in your comments on this interim final rule.

The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

Although not required by the APA, DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform this rulemaking process. DOT will post these comments, without edit, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice, DOT/ALL-14 FDMS, accessible through www.dot.gov/privacy. In order to facilitate comment tracking and response, we encourage commenters to provide their name, or the name of their organization; however, submission of names is optional. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, see DOT's website at DOT Privacy Program | US Department of Transportation.

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, NHTSA will submit to Congress a report regarding the issuance of this interim final rule prior to the effective date set forth at the outset of this interim final rule. The report will state that it has been determined that this interim final rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are filed correctly in the Docket, please include the docket number indicated in this document in your comments.

Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.

If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, NHTSA asks that the documents be submitted using the Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing NHTSA to search and copy certain portions of your submissions. Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, for substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed at https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/dot-information-dissemination-quality-guidelines.

If you wish the Docket to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, the Docket will return the postcard by mail.

You should submit a redacted “public version” of your comment (including redacted versions of any additional documents or attachments) to the docket using any of the methods identified under ADDRESSES . This “public version” of your comment should contain only the portions for which no claim of confidential treatment is made and from which those portions for which confidential treatment is claimed has been redacted. See below for further instructions on how to do this.

You also need to submit a request for confidential treatment directly to the Office of Chief Counsel. Requests for confidential treatment are governed by 49 CFR part 512. Your request must set forth the information specified in part 512. This includes the materials for which confidentiality is being requested (as explained in more detail below); supporting information, pursuant to § 512.8; and a certificate, pursuant to § 512.4(b) and part 512, appendix A.

You are required to submit to the Office of Chief Counsel one unredacted “confidential version” of the information for which you are seeking confidential treatment. Pursuant to § 512.6, the words “ENTIRE PAGE CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” or “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN BRACKETS” (as applicable) must appear at the top of each page containing information claimed to be confidential. In the latter situation, where not all information on the page is claimed to be confidential, identify each item of information for which confidentiality is requested within brackets: “[ ].”

You are also required to submit to the Office of Chief Counsel one redacted “public version” of the information for which you are seeking confidential treatment. Pursuant to § 512.5(a)(2), the redacted “public version” should include redactions of any information for which you are seeking confidential treatment ( i.e., the only information that should be unredacted is information for which you are not seeking confidential treatment).

NHTSA is currently treating electronic submission as an acceptable method for submitting confidential business information to the agency under part 512. Please do not send a hardcopy of a request for confidential treatment to NHTSA's headquarters. The request should be sent to Dan Rabinovitz in the Office of the Chief Counsel at Daniel.Rabinovitz@dot.gov. You may either submit your request via email or request a secure file transfer link.

We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES . To the extent possible, we will also consider comments that the docket receives after that date. If the docket receives a comment too late for us to consider in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

You may read the comments received by the docket at the address given above under ADDRESSES . The hours of the docket are indicated above in the same location. You may also see the comments on the internet. To read the comments on the internet, go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets.

Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material. You can arrange with the docket to be notified when others file comments in the docket. See www.regulations.gov for more information.