On September 4, 2025, the Secretary issued a “determination and authorization pursuant to section 57 b.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, regarding exports of nuclear technology and assistance to the Philippines and Singapore,” which was published in the Federal Register on September 16, 2025 (90 FR 44651). Section 57b.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (“AEA”) (42 U.S.C. 2077(b)(2)), enables peaceful nuclear trade by helping to assure that nuclear technology exports from the United States will not be used for non-peaceful purposes.

Part 810 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (“part 810”) implements section 57 b.(2) of the AEA, pursuant to which the Secretary has granted a general authorization for certain categories of activities that the Secretary has found to be non-inimical to the interest of the United States—including assistance or transfers of technology to the generally authorized destinations listed in appendix A to part 810. In light of the Secretary's Determination to generally authorize the Philippines and Singapore to cover exports of part 810-controlled nuclear technology and assistance, DOE is amending the generally authorized destinations list in appendix A by adding the Philippines and Singapore.

In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), an agency may waive the notice and comment procedure if it finds, for good cause, that it is “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Additionally, 5 U.S.C. 553(d) provides that an agency may waive the 30-day delayed effective date upon finding of good cause.

DOE finds good cause that notice and comment for this rule is unnecessary due to the nature of the revisions. This final rule simply makes ministerial changes to appendix A by adding the Philippines and Singapore to the generally authorized destinations list. Comments cannot alter the regulation given that the generally authorized destination status for the Philippines and Singapore has already been made effective through the Secretarial Determination issued on September 4, 2025 and published on September 16, 2025, at 90 FR 44651.

Accordingly, DOE has concluded that there is good cause to publish this final rule without prior opportunity for public comment because the action merely aligns appendix A with the Secretarial Determination. A delay in effective date is unnecessary for these same reasons. Therefore, these amendments are published as final and are effective November 24, 2025.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011) requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.

DOE emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. For the reasons stated in the preamble, this final rule is consistent with these principles.

Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit “significant regulatory actions” to OIRA for review. OIRA has determined that this regulatory action does not constitute a “significant regulatory action” under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this action was not submitted to OIRA for review under E.O. 12866

DOE has examined this final rule and has determined that it is consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O. 14154 “Unleashing American Energy,” E.O. 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” and Presidential Memorandum, “Delivering Emergency Price Relief for American Families and Defeating the Cost-of-Living Crisis.”

DOE has determined that this rule is covered under the Categorical Exclusion found in DOE's National Environmental Policy Act regulations at paragraph A5 of appendix A to subpart D, 10 CFR part 1021, which applies to a rulemaking that amends an existing rule or regulation and that does not change the environmental effect of the rule or regulation being amended. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that, by law, must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As discussed previously, DOE has determined that providing notice and opportunity for public comment on this final rule is unnecessary. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared for this final rule.

The changes to appendix A are summarized in section I of this document. DOE has reviewed the changes under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003. The changes update the list of generally authorized destinations. They do not expand the scope of activities currently regulated under part 810.

DOE estimates that approximately 10 percent of the entities impacted by part 810 are small businesses, which generally fall within two North American Industry Classification System codes: engineering services (541330) and computer systems designs services (541512). Often, their requests for authorization include the transfer of computer codes or other similar products. Generally speaking, small businesses reported that their initial filing of a part 810 request for authorization required up to 40 hours of legal assistance, but follow-on reporting and requests required significantly less assistance.

The requirements for small businesses exporting nuclear technology abroad would not substantively change because the revisions to this rule do not add new burdens or duties to small businesses. The obligations of any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States who engages directly or indirectly in the development or production of special nuclear material outside the United States have not changed in a manner that would provide any significant economic impact on small businesses. This rulemaking change no longer requires such persons to obtain specific authorization before making such transfers to the Philippines and Singapore, and this change is not expected to have any significant impact. This rulemaking no longer requires such persons to obtain specific authorization before making such transfers to the Philippines and Singapore, which is expected to ease the burden on small businesses.

On the basis of the foregoing, DOE certifies this final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis for this rulemaking.

This final rule imposes no information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments, and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For regulatory actions likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy (2 U.S.C. 1532(a),(b)). DOE examined this rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and has determined that the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year. Accordingly, no further assessment or analysis is required under UMRA.

Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. Agencies are required to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and carefully assess the necessity for such actions. DOE has examined this final rule and has determined that it would not preempt State law and would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. No further action is required under Executive Order 13132.

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rulemaking that may affect family well-being. This final rule would have no impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy, Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001) requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use. This regulatory action would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy and is therefore not a significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

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

The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final rule.

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on September 4, 2025, by Chris Wright, Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Energy amends part 810 of chapter III of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below.

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 461(b)(2)) requires each depository institution to maintain reserves against its transaction accounts and nonpersonal time deposits, as prescribed by Board regulations, for the purpose of implementing monetary policy. The Board's actions with respect to this provision are discussed below.

Section 19(b) of the Act authorizes different ranges of reserve requirement ratios depending on the amount of transaction account balances at a depository institution. Section 19(b)(11)(A) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 461(b)(11)(A)) provides that a zero percent reserve requirement ratio shall apply at each depository institution to total reservable liabilities that do not exceed a certain amount, known as the reserve requirement exemption amount. Section 19(b)(11)(B) provides that, before December 31 of each year, the Board shall issue a regulation adjusting the reserve requirement exemption amount for the next calendar year if total reservable liabilities held at all depository institutions increase from one year to the next. The Act requires the percentage increase in the reserve requirement exemption amount to be 80 percent of the percentage increase in total reservable liabilities of all depository institutions over the one-year-period that ends on the June 30 prior to the adjustment. No adjustment is made to the reserve requirement exemption amount if total reservable liabilities held at all depository institutions should decrease during the applicable time period.

Total reservable liabilities of all depository institutions increased by 4.5 percent, from $20,200 billion to $21,118 billion, between June 30, 2024, and June 30, 2025. 1 Accordingly, the Board is amending Regulation D to set the reserve requirement exemption amount for 2026 at $39.2 million, an increase of $1.4 million from its level in 2025. 2

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 461(b)(2)), transaction account balances maintained at each depository institution over the reserve requirement exemption amount and up to a certain amount, known as the low reserve tranche, may be subject to a reserve requirement ratio of not more than 3 percent (and which may be zero). Transaction account balances over the low reserve tranche may be subject to a reserve requirement ratio of not more than 14 percent (and which may be zero). Section 19(b)(2) also provides that, before December 31 of each year, the Board shall issue a regulation adjusting the low reserve tranche for the next calendar year. The Act requires the adjustment in the low reserve tranche to be 80 percent of the percentage increase or decrease in total transaction accounts of all depository institutions over the one-year period that ends on the June 30 prior to the adjustment.

Net transaction accounts of all depository institutions increased 5.5 percent, from $16,133 billion to $17,016 billion, between June 30, 2024, and June 30, 2025. 3 Accordingly, the Board is amending Regulation D to set the low reserve tranche for net transaction accounts for 2026 at $674.1 million, an increase of $28.3 million from 2025.

The new reserve requirement exemption amount and low reserve tranche will be effective for all depository institutions beginning January 1, 2026.

Effective March 26, 2020, the Board reduced reserve requirement ratios on all net transaction accounts to zero percent, eliminating reserve requirements for all depository institutions. The annual indexation of the reserve requirement exemption amount and the low reserve tranche for 2026 is required by statute but will not affect depository institutions' reserve requirements, which will remain zero.

The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) relating to notice of proposed rulemaking have not been followed in connection with the adoption of these amendments. The amendments involve expected, ministerial adjustments prescribed by statute and by the Board's policy concerning reporting practices. The adjustments in the reserve requirement exemption amount and the low reserve tranche serve to reduce regulatory burdens on depository institutions. Accordingly, the Board finds good cause for determining, and so determines, that notice in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) does not apply to a rulemaking where a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required. 4 As noted previously, the Board has determined that it is unnecessary to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for this final rule. Accordingly, the RFA's requirements relating to an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis do not apply.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 5 the Board reviewed this final rule. No collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act are contained in the final rule.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board is amending 12 CFR part 204 as follows:

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments using a method listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2025-5031; Project Identifier AD-2025-01681-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

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

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Knaup, Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 817-222-5390; email: OperationalSafety@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA issued Emergency AD 2025-23-51, on November 8, 2025 (Emergency AD 2025-23-51), to address an unsafe condition on all The Boeing Company Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes. The FAA sent the emergency AD to all known U.S. owners and operators of these airplanes. Emergency AD 2025-23-51 prohibited further flight until the airplane was inspected and all applicable corrective actions were performed using a method approved by the Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA. Emergency AD 2025-23-51 was prompted by an accident where the left-hand engine and pylon detached from the airplane during takeoff. The cause of the detachment is currently under investigation. This condition could result in loss of continued safe flight and landing. The FAA published the Federal Register version of Emergency AD 2025-23-51, Amendment 39-23193, on November 14, 2025 (90 FR 51019).

Since the FAA issued Emergency AD 2025-23-51, the FAA has determined additional airplane models are subject to the same unsafe condition. The engine-pylon structure of the Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes is similar in design to that of the Model MD-10-10F, MD-10-30F, DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-15, DC-10-30, DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10), DC-10-40, and DC-10-40F airplanes. The FAA, therefore, is superseding Emergency AD 2025-23-51 to add these additional airplane models to the applicability of this emergency AD.

The FAA is issuing this emergency AD because the agency has determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

This emergency AD prohibits further flight until the airplane is inspected and all applicable corrective actions are performed using a method approved by the Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA.

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

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

An unsafe condition exists that required the immediate adoption of Emergency AD 2025-23-53 issued on November 14, 2025, to all known U.S. owners and operators of these airplanes. The FAA found that the risk to the flying public and safety in air commerce justified forgoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because the severity of the unsafe condition necessitates prohibiting further flight until the airplane is inspected and the applicable corrective actions are performed. These conditions still exist, and the AD is hereby published in the Federal Register as an amendment to 14 CFR 39.13 to make it effective to all persons. Given the significance of the risk presented by this unsafe condition, it must be immediately addressed. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

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

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

The FAA estimates that this emergency AD affects 167 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA has no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the inspection and corrective actions specified in this emergency AD.

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

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

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

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

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

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

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

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 700.1 describe the structure and organization of the regulations contained in chapter VII of 30 CFR. Each subsection of § 700.1 lists the contents and a brief description of a subchapter within chapter VII. Included within this list is subsection (n), which explains that “Subchapter S sets forth the regulations that apply to grants for mining and mineral research institutes and grants for mineral research projects.” However, subchapter S was removed from chapter VII in 1989, when, pursuant to Secretary's Order 3073, the Secretary of the Interior transferred responsibility and operation for that program to the Bureau of Mines. 1 See 54 FR 38377 (Sept. 18, 1989). Thus, subchapter S is currently reserved and contains no content; therefore, the Department of the Interior (Department) and OSMRE have determined that this subsection should be rescinded because it is obsolete.

The Department has determined that this reason, independently and alone, justifies rescission of 30 CFR 700.1(n). The Department has no interest in maintaining rules that are obsolete.

The Department is issuing this rule as a direct final rule. Although the Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. 551-559) generally requires agencies to engage in notice and comment rulemaking, section 553 of the APA provides an exception when the agency “for good cause finds” that notice and comment are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Id. § 553(b)(B). The Department has determined that notice and comment are unnecessary because this rule is noncontroversial; of a minor, technical nature; involves little agency discretion; and is unlikely to receive any significant adverse comments. Significant adverse comments are those that oppose the recission of the regulations and raise, alone or in combination, (1) reasons why the recission of the regulations is inappropriate, including challenges to the recission's underlying premise, or (2) serious unintended consequences of the recission. A comment recommending an addition to the rule will not be considered significant and adverse unless the comment explains how this direct final rule would be ineffective without the addition.

This rule does not result in a taking of private property or otherwise have regulatory takings implications under Executive Order 12630. The rule rescinds obsolete regulatory provisions; therefore, the rule will not result in private property being taken for public use without just compensation. A takings implication assessment is not required.

Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 12866, while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, reduce uncertainty, and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. Executive Order 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes further that agencies must base regulations on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. The Department developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

This direct final rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Among other things, this rule:

(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation;

(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.

Under the criteria of section 1 of Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. 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. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.

The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes through a commitment to consultation with Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. The Department evaluated this direct final rule under Executive Order 13175 and the Department's consultation policies and determined that it has no substantial direct effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and that consultation under the Department's Tribal consultation policies is not required. The rule merely revises the Federal regulations to remove obsolete regulatory language.

This direct final rule is not a significant energy action as defined in Executive Order 13211. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

This direct final rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) is not required because this rule is covered by a categorical exclusion applicable to regulatory functions “that are of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature.” 43 CFR 46.210(i). In addition, the Department has determined that this rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under NEPA.

This rule does not impose any new information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act. OMB previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and assigned OMB control number 1029-0054. This rule does not impose an information collection burden because the Department is not making any changes to the information collection requirements.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for all rules unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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 direct final rule, the RFA does not apply.

This rule is not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Specifically, the direct final rule: (a) will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (b) will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and (c) will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.

This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector, of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector. The rule merely revises the Federal regulations to remove obsolete language that is no longer used. Therefore, a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) is not required.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of the Interior amends 30 CFR part 700 as follows:

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 872.30 describe how the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) distributes and awards prior balance replacement funds, which are moneys from the United States Treasury's General Fund that replaced State or Tribal share funds that were allocated before October 1, 2007, but never appropriated by Congress. Section 411(h)(1) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) required OSMRE to distribute prior balance replacement funds to eligible States and Tribes for seven years, beginning October 1, 2008. As the distribution of prior balance replacement funds is complete, the Department of the Interior (Department) and OSMRE have determined that 30 CFR 872.30 should be rescinded because it is obsolete. To the extent States or Tribes may have any unspent prior balance replacement funds, those funds will be governed by the regulations that were in place at the time of the initial grant award.

The Department has determined that this reason, independently and alone, justifies the rescission of 30 CFR 872.30. The Department has no interest in maintaining a rule that is obsolete.

The Department is issuing this rule as a direct final rule. Although the Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. 551-559) generally requires agencies to engage in notice and comment rulemaking, section 553 of the APA provides an exception when the agency “for good cause finds” that notice and comment are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Id. § 553(b)(B). The Department has determined that notice and comment are unnecessary because this rule is noncontroversial; of a minor, technical nature; involves little agency discretion; and is unlikely to receive any significant adverse comments. Significant adverse comments are those that oppose the recission of the rule and raise, alone or in combination, (1) reasons why the recission of the rule is inappropriate, including challenges to the recission's underlying premise, or (2) serious unintended consequences of the recission. A comment recommending an addition to the rule will not be considered significant and adverse unless the comment explains how this direct final rule would be ineffective without the addition.

This rule does not result in a taking of private property or otherwise have regulatory takings implications under Executive Order 12630. The rule rescinds obsolete regulatory language; therefore, the rule will not result in private property being taken for public use without just compensation. A takings implication assessment is not required.

Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 12866, while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, reduce uncertainty, and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. Executive Order 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes further that agencies must base regulations on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. The Department developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

This direct final rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Among other things, this rule:

(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation;

(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.

Under the criteria of section 1 of Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. 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. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.

The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes through a commitment to consultation with Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. The Department evaluated this direct final rule under Executive Order 13175 and the Department's consultation policies and determined that it has no substantial direct effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and that consultation under the Department's Tribal consultation policies is not required. The rule merely revises the Federal regulations to remove obsolete regulatory language.

This direct final rule is not a significant energy action as defined in Executive Order 13211. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

This direct final rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) is not required because this rule is covered by a categorical exclusion applicable to regulatory functions “that are of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature.” 43 CFR 46.210(i). In addition, the Department has determined that this rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under NEPA.

This rule does not impose any new information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act. OMB previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and assigned OMB control number 1029-0054. This rule does not impose an information collection burden because the Department is not making any changes to the information collection requirements.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for all rules unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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 direct final rule, the RFA does not apply.

This rule is not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Specifically, the direct final rule: (a) will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (b) will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and (c) will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.

This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector, of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector. The rule merely revises the Federal regulations to remove obsolete language that is no longer used. Therefore, a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) is not required.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of the Interior amends 30 CFR part 872 as follows:

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 872.29 define prior balance replacement funds, which are moneys from the United States Treasury's General Fund that replaced State or Tribal share funds that were allocated before October 1, 2007, but never appropriated by Congress. Section 411(h)(1) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) required the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) to distribute prior balance replacement funds to eligible States and Tribes for seven years, beginning October 1, 2008. In addition, the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 872.31 detail the restrictions on how prior balance replacement funds may be used. As the distribution of prior balance replacement funds is complete, the Department of the Interior (Department) and OSMRE have determined that these regulations should be rescinded because they are obsolete. To the extent States or Tribes may have any unspent prior balance replacement funds, those funds will be governed by the regulations that were in place at the time of the initial grant award.

The Department has determined that this reason, independently and alone, justifies rescission of 30 CFR 872.29 and 30 CFR 872.31. The Department has no interest in maintaining rules that are obsolete.

The Department is issuing this rule as a direct final rule. Although the Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. 551-559) generally requires agencies to engage in notice and comment rulemaking, section 553 of the APA provides an exception when the agency “for good cause finds” that notice and comment are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Id. § 553(b)(B). The Department has determined that notice and comment are unnecessary because this rule is noncontroversial; of a minor, technical nature; involves little agency discretion; and is unlikely to receive any significant adverse comments. Significant adverse comments are those that oppose the recission of the regulations and raise, alone or in combination, (1) reasons why the recission of the regulations is inappropriate, including challenges to the recission's underlying premise, or (2) serious unintended consequences of the recission. A comment recommending an addition to the rule will not be considered significant and adverse unless the comment explains how this direct final rule would be ineffective without the addition.

This rule does not result in a taking of private property or otherwise have regulatory takings implications under Executive Order 12630. The rule rescinds obsolete regulatory provisions; therefore, the rule will not result in private property being taken for public use without just compensation. A takings implication assessment is not required.

Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 12866, while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, reduce uncertainty, and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. Executive Order 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes further that agencies must base regulations on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. The Department developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

This direct final rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Among other things, this rule:

(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation;

(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.

Under the criteria of section 1 of Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. 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. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.

The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes through a commitment to consultation with Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. The Department evaluated this direct final rule under Executive Order 13175 and the Department's consultation policies and determined that it has no substantial direct effects on Federally recognized Indian tribes and that consultation under the Department's Tribal consultation policies is not required. The rule merely revises the Federal regulations to remove obsolete regulatory language.

This direct final rule is not a significant energy action as defined in Executive Order 13211. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

This direct final rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) is not required because this rule is covered by a categorical exclusion applicable to regulatory functions “that are of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature.” 43 CFR 46.210(i). In addition, the Department has determined that this rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under NEPA.

This rule does not impose any new information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act. OMB previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and assigned OMB control number 1029-0054. This rule does not impose an information collection burden because the Department is not making any changes to the information collection requirements.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for all rules unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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 direct final rule, the RFA does not apply.

This rule is not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Specifically, the direct final rule: (a) will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (b) will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and (c) will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.

This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector, of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector. The rule merely revises the Federal regulations to remove obsolete language that is no longer used. Therefore, a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) is not required.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of the Interior amends 30 CFR part 872 as follows:

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 872.13 outline the moneys that OSMRE must distribute to eligible States and Tribes each fiscal year. Existing 30 CFR 872.13(a)(5) refers to prior balance replacement funds, which are moneys from the United States Treasury's General Fund that replaced State or Tribal share funds that were allocated before October 1, 2007, but never appropriated by Congress. Section 411(h)(1) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) required OSMRE to distribute prior balance replacement funds to eligible States and Tribes for seven years, beginning October 1, 2008. As the distribution of prior balance replacement funds is complete, the Department of the Interior (Department) and OSMRE have determined that existing 30 CFR 872.13(a)(5) should be rescinded because it is obsolete.

The Department has determined that this reason, independently and alone, justifies rescission of existing 30 CFR 872.13(a)(5). The Department has no interest in maintaining a rule that is obsolete.

The Department is issuing this rule as a direct final rule. Although the Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. 551-559) generally requires agencies to engage in notice and comment rulemaking, section 553 of the APA provides an exception when the agency “for good cause finds” that notice and comment are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Id. § 553(b)(B). The Department has determined that notice and comment are unnecessary because this rule is noncontroversial; of a minor, technical nature; involves little agency discretion; and is unlikely to receive any significant adverse comments. Significant adverse comments are those that oppose the recission of the regulatory language and raise, alone or in combination, (1) reasons why the recission of the regulatory language is inappropriate, including challenges to the recission's underlying premise, or (2) serious unintended consequences of the recission. A comment recommending an addition to the rule will not be considered significant and adverse unless the comment explains how this direct final rule would be ineffective without the addition.

This rule does not result in a taking of private property or otherwise have regulatory takings implications under Executive Order 12630. The rule rescinds an obsolete regulatory provision; therefore, the rule will not result in private property being taken for public use without just compensation. A takings implication assessment is not required.

Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 12866, while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, reduce uncertainty, and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. Executive Order 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes further that agencies must base regulations on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. The Department developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

This direct final rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Among other things, this rule:

(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation;

(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.

Under the criteria of section 1 of Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. 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. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.

The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes through a commitment to consultation with Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. The Department evaluated this direct final rule under Executive Order 13175 and the Department's consultation policies and determined that it has no substantial direct effects on Federally recognized Indian tribes and that consultation under the Department's Tribal consultation policies is not required. The rule merely revises the Federal regulations to remove obsolete regulatory language.

This direct final rule is not a significant energy action as defined in Executive Order 13211. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

This direct final rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) is not required because this rule is covered by a categorical exclusion applicable to regulatory functions “that are of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature.” 43 CFR 46.210(i). In addition, the Department has determined that this rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under NEPA.

This rule does not impose any new information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act. OMB previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and assigned OMB control number 1029-0054. This rule does not impose an information collection burden because the Department is not making any changes to the information collection requirements.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for all rules unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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 direct final rule, the RFA does not apply.

This rule is not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Specifically, the direct final rule: (a) will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (b) will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and (c) will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.

This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector, of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector. The rule merely revises the Federal regulations to remove an obsolete provision that is no longer used. Therefore, a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) is not required.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of the Interior amends 30 CFR part 872 as follows:

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 872.27(a)(1) and (2) refer to prior balance replacement funds, which are moneys from the United States Treasury's General Fund that replaced State or Tribal share funds that were allocated before October 1, 2007, but never appropriated by Congress. Section 411(h)(1) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) required the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) to distribute prior balance replacement funds to eligible States and Tribes for seven years, beginning October 1, 2008. As the distribution of prior balance replacement funds is complete, the Department of the Interior (Department) and OSMRE have determined that the references to prior balance replacement funds should be removed and that the remaining language in each paragraph should be lightly edited to improve clarity and ensure correct grammar and punctuation. To the extent States or Tribes may have any unspent prior balance replacement funds, those funds will be governed by the regulations that were in place at the time of the initial grant award.

In addition, the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 872.27(a)(2)(i) and (ii) contain the phase-in schedule for minimum program make up fund distributions between October 1, 2007, and October 1, 2010. Minimum program make up funds are moneys that OSMRE distributes to eligible States and Tribes to make up the difference between their total distribution of other funds and $3 million. Section 401(f)(5)(B) of SMCRA required OSMRE to phase in the amount of minimum program make up funds distributed to eligible States and Tribes over four years, beginning October 1, 2007. As the phase-in dates for minimum program make up funds have passed, the Department and OSMRE have determined that these provisions should be rescinded because they are obsolete. Existing paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) and (a)(2)(iv) will be redesignated as paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii).

The Department has determined that these reasons, independently and alone, justify amending 30 CFR 872.27(a)(1) and (2) and rescinding 30 CFR 872.27(a)(2)(i) and (ii). The Department has no interest in maintaining a rule that is obsolete.

The Department is issuing this rule as a direct final rule. Although the Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. 551-559) generally requires agencies to engage in notice and comment rulemaking, section 553 of the APA provides an exception when the agency “for good cause finds” that notice and comment are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Id. § 553(b)(B). The Department has determined that notice and comment are unnecessary because this rule is noncontroversial; of a minor, technical nature; involves little agency discretion; and is unlikely to receive any significant adverse comments. Significant adverse comments are those that oppose the amendment or recission of the regulatory language and raise, alone or in combination, (1) reasons why the amendment or recission of the regulatory language is inappropriate, including challenges to the amendment's or recission's underlying premise, or (2) serious unintended consequences of the amendment or recission. A comment recommending an addition to the rule will not be considered significant and adverse unless the comment explains how this direct final rule would be ineffective without the addition.

This rule does not result in a taking of private property or otherwise have regulatory takings implications under Executive Order 12630. The rule revises the Federal regulations to amend or remove obsolete regulatory language; therefore, the rule will not result in private property being taken for public use without just compensation. A takings implication assessment is not required.

Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 12866, while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, reduce uncertainty, and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. Executive Order 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes further that agencies must base regulations on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. The Department developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

This direct final rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Among other things, this rule:

(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation;

(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.

Under the criteria of section 1 of Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. 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. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.

The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes through a commitment to consultation with Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. The Department evaluated this direct final rule under Executive Order 13175 and the Department's consultation policies and determined that it has no substantial direct effects on Federally recognized Indian tribes and that consultation under the Department's Tribal consultation policies is not required. The rule merely revises the Federal regulations to amend or remove obsolete regulatory language.

This direct final rule is not a significant energy action as defined in Executive Order 13211. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

This direct final rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) is not required because this rule is covered by a categorical exclusion applicable to regulatory functions “that are of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature.” 43 CFR 46.210(i). In addition, the Department has determined that this rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under NEPA.

This rule does not impose any new information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act. OMB previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and assigned OMB control number 1029-0054. This rule does not impose an information collection burden because the Department is not making any changes to the information collection requirements.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for all rules unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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 direct final rule, the RFA does not apply.

This rule is not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Specifically, the direct final rule: (a) will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (b) will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and (c) will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.

This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector, of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector. The rule merely revises the Federal regulations to amend or remove obsolete regulatory language. Therefore, a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) is not required.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of the Interior amends 30 CFR part 872 as follows:

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR chapter VII, subchapter R contain various references to prior balance replacement funds, which are moneys from the United States Treasury's General Fund that replaced State or Tribal share funds that were allocated before October 1, 2007, but never appropriated by Congress. Section 411(h)(1) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) required the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) to distribute prior balance replacement funds to eligible States and Tribes for seven years, beginning October 1, 2008. As the distribution of prior balance replacement funds is complete, the Department of the Interior (Department) and OSMRE have determined that all remaining references to prior balance replacement funds in 30 CFR chapter VII, subchapter R should be rescinded and that the remaining language in 30 CFR 872.21(b) should be lightly edited to improve clarity and ensure correct grammar and punctuation. To the extent States or Tribes may have any unspent prior balance replacement funds, those funds will be governed by the regulations that were in place at the time of the initial grant award.

In addition, the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 872.35(a) currently refer to a $490 million cap on the amount of funds available each fiscal year to be transferred by the Secretary of the Treasury to the Secretary of the Interior for payments under section 402(i) of SMCRA. However, the Bipartisan American Miners Act of 2019 amended section 402(i) of SMCRA to raise the cap on the amount of Treasury funds available for transfer from $490 million to $750 million. The Department and OSMRE have determined that 30 CFR 872.35(a) should be amended to be consistent with SMCRA and accurately reflect the $750 million cap.

The Department has determined that these reasons, independently and alone, justify amending the regulatory language and rescinding all remaining references to prior balance replacement funds in 30 CFR chapter VII, subchapter R. The Department has no interest in maintaining rules that are obsolete or inconsistent with applicable law.

The Department is issuing this rule as a direct final rule. Although the Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. 551-559) generally requires agencies to engage in notice and comment rulemaking, section 553 of the APA provides an exception when the agency “for good cause finds” that notice and comment are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Id. § 553(b)(B). The Department has determined that notice and comment are unnecessary because this rule is noncontroversial; of a minor, technical nature; involves little agency discretion; and is unlikely to receive any significant adverse comments. Significant adverse comments are those that oppose the amendment or rescission of the regulatory language and raise, alone or in combination, (1) reasons why the amendment or recission of the regulatory language is inappropriate, including challenges to the amendment's or recission's underlying premise, or (2) serious unintended consequences of the amendment or recission. A comment recommending an addition to the rule will not be considered significant and adverse unless the comment explains how this direct final rule would be ineffective without the addition.

This rule does not result in a taking of private property or otherwise have regulatory takings implications under Executive Order 12630. The rule amends and rescinds obsolete regulatory language; therefore, the rule will not result in private property being taken for public use without just compensation. A takings implication assessment is not required.

Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 12866, while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, reduce uncertainty, and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. Executive Order 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes further that agencies must base regulations on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. The Department developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

This direct final rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Among other things, this rule:

(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation;

(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.

Under the criteria of section 1 of Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. 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. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.

The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes through a commitment to consultation with Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. The Department evaluated this direct final rule under Executive Order 13175 and the Department's consultation policies and determined that it has no substantial direct effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and that consultation under the Department's Tribal consultation policies is not required. The rule merely revises the Federal regulations to remove or amend obsolete regulatory language.

This direct final rule is not a significant energy action as defined in Executive Order 13211. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

This direct final rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) is not required because this rule is covered by a categorical exclusion applicable to regulatory functions “that are of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature.” 43 CFR 46.210(i). In addition, the Department has determined that this rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under NEPA.

This rule does not impose any new information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act. OMB previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and assigned OMB control numbers 1029-0054, 1029-0113, 1029-0103, 1029-0059, and 1029-0107. This rule does not impose an information collection burden because the Department is not making any changes to the information collection requirements.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for all rules unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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 direct final rule, the RFA does not apply.

This rule is not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Specifically, the direct final rule: (a) will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (b) will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and (c) will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.

This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector, of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector. The rule merely revises the Federal regulations to remove or amend obsolete regulatory language that is no longer used. Therefore, a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) is not required.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of the Interior amends 30 CFR parts 872, 874, 875, 879, 886, and 887 as follows:

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 885.12 describe how certified States and Tribes may use funds awarded to them by OSMRE under title IV of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). Existing 30 CFR 885.12(b)(2) and (b)(4)(ii) refer to prior balance replacement funds, which are moneys from the United States Treasury's General Fund that replaced State or Tribal share funds that were allocated before October 1, 2007, but never appropriated by Congress. Section 411(h)(1) of SMCRA required OSMRE to distribute prior balance replacement funds to eligible States and Tribes for 7 years, beginning October 1, 2008. As the distribution of prior balance replacement funds is complete, the Department of the Interior (Department) and OSMRE have determined that the references to prior balance replacement funds should be rescinded because they are obsolete. To the extent States or Tribes may have any unspent prior balance replacement funds, those funds will be governed by the regulations that were in place at the time of the initial grant award.

The Department has determined that this reason, independently and alone, justifies rescinding the references to prior balance replacement funds in existing 30 CFR 885.12(b)(2) and (b)(4)(ii). The Department has no interest in maintaining a rule that is obsolete.

The Department is issuing this rule as a direct final rule. Although the Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. 551-559) generally requires agencies to engage in notice and comment rulemaking, section 553 of the APA provides an exception when the agency “for good cause finds” that notice and comment are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Id. 553(b)(B). The Department has determined that notice and comment are unnecessary because this rule is noncontroversial; of a minor, technical nature; involves little agency discretion; and is unlikely to receive any significant adverse comments. Significant adverse comments are those that oppose the recission of the regulatory language and raise, alone or in combination, (1) reasons why the recission of the regulatory language is inappropriate, including challenges to the recission's underlying premise, or (2) serious unintended consequences of the recission. A comment recommending an addition to the rule will not be considered significant and adverse unless the comment explains how this direct final rule would be ineffective without the addition.

This rule does not result in a taking of private property or otherwise have regulatory takings implications under Executive Order 12630. The rule revises the Federal regulations to remove obsolete regulatory language; therefore, the rule will not result in private property being taken for public use without just compensation. A takings implication assessment is not required.

Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 12866, while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, reduce uncertainty, and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. Executive Order 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes further that agencies must base regulations on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. The Department developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

This direct final rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Among other things, this rule:

(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation;

(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.

Executive Order 13132—Federalism

Under the criteria of section 1 of Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. 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. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.

The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes through a commitment to consultation with Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. The Department evaluated this direct final rule under Executive Order 13175 and the Department's consultation policies and determined that it has no substantial direct effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and that consultation under the Department's Tribal consultation policies is not required. The rule merely revises the Federal regulations to remove obsolete regulatory language.

This direct final rule is not a significant energy action as defined in Executive Order 13211. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

This direct final rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) is not required because this rule is covered by a categorical exclusion applicable to regulatory functions “that are of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature.” 43 CFR 46.210(i). In addition, the Department has determined that this rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under NEPA.

This rule does not impose any new information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act. OMB previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and assigned OMB control number 1029-0059. This rule does not impose an information collection burden because the Department is not making any changes to the information collection requirements.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for all rules unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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 direct final rule, the RFA does not apply.

This rule is not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Specifically, the direct final rule: (a) will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (b) will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and (c) will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.

This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector, of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector. The rule merely revises the Federal regulations to remove obsolete regulatory language. Therefore, a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) is not required.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of the Interior amends 30 CFR part 885 as follows:

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this rule. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), the Coast Guard finds that this final rule is exempt from notice and public comment rulemaking requirements because the changes made in this rulemaking involve rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice. In addition, the Coast Guard finds that notice and comment procedures are unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as this final rule consists of only technical and editorial corrections, and these changes will have no substantive effect on the public. 1 Finally, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds, for the same reasons, that good cause also exists for making this final rule effective upon publication in the Federal Register .

The purpose of this final rule, which becomes effective on November 24, 2025, is to make technical and editorial corrections throughout 33 CFR chapter I and 46 CFR chapter I. These changes are necessary to update authority citations, correct errors, update contact information, and make other non-substantive amendments that improve the clarity of the CFR. This rule does not create or change any substantive requirements.

The legal basis for this final rule rests on the authorities of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 553; 14 U.S.C. 102 and 503; Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.4; and on authorities listed at the end of this rule for each CFR part this rule amends.

The Coast Guard periodically issues technical, organizational, and conforming amendments to existing regulations in titles 33 and 46 of the CFR. These technical amendments are intended to provide the public with more accurate and current regulatory information than exist in the rules they amend without changing the effect of any Coast Guard regulations on the public.

This final rule implements updates to DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.4 in 33 CFR parts 1, 26, 62, 66, 67, 95, 97, 107, 114, 115, 117, 118, 133, 151, 155, 159, 164, and 165, and 46 CFR parts 3, 4, 7, 11, 24, 26, 58, 62, 68, 90, 110, 125, 126, 131, 177, 182, and 188.

While making the technical amendments within this document, we identified cases where the text of the existing CFR does not meet current formatting standards and made stylistic changes to bring the affected portions of the CFR into compliance. Our formatting amendments reflect direction in three sources prescribing stylistic standards for Federal documents—the Document Drafting Handbook (DDH), 2 the Government Publishing Office (GPO) Style Manual, and Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), which directs Federal agencies to provide information to the public in plain, understandable language. The DDH provides guidance on how to follow the formatting and editorial requirements established in 44 U.S.C. chapter 15 (the Federal Register Act) and 1 CFR chapter I. 3 On page 2-55, the DDH refers readers to the GPO Style Manual as a guide for punctuation, capitalization, spelling, compounding, and other style matters not addressed in the DDH.

Two stylistic changes occur repeatedly in this document. In cases where this final rule updates a mailing address that includes an abbreviation of a geographic quadrant, we have removed any periods from the abbreviation. This reflects Rule 9.17 in the GPO Style Manual, 4 which states “in addresses, no period is used with the abbreviations NW, SW, NE, SE (indicating sectional divisions of cities) following name or number.” This final rule further replaces all instances of “shall” in regulatory text otherwise amended by this rule with “must.” We do so to follow a recommendation in the Federal plain language guidelines, posted on plainlanguage.gov, that the word “shall” should usually be replaced with the clearer and more commonly used “must.”

In § 1.07-100(a)(1), this final rule removes references to paragraph numbers in 46 U.S.C. 2101 because the paragraphs in that section of the U.S. Code have been renumbered, and the referenced paragraph numbers for the definitions of fishing vessel, fish processing vessel, and fish tender vessel are incorrect. We are not replacing the paragraph number references, as these definitions are listed in alphabetical order in the referenced statute, and cross-referencing to a paragraph number is unnecessary. In addition, Congress updates 46 U.S.C. 2101 fairly frequently, and if we were to replace the paragraph numbers, they would likely be rendered incorrect the next time Congress updates the section.

In § 26.03(b), this final rule replaces the term “Mega-Hertz” with “megahertz (MHz),” to use GPO's preferred formatting and to help readers understand the use of the abbreviation elsewhere in the section.

In § 62.1, this final rule removes paragraph (b)(2), which references 33 CFR subpart 66.10 (which is deleted elsewhere in this rule), and redesignates § 62.1(b)(1) as § 62.1(b), as there are no longer any subordinate paragraphs under paragraph (b).

In § 62.21(c)(2), this final rule corrects internet addresses and a spelling error.

In § 62.47(a)(2), this final rule removes a reference to fog detector technology that is no longer in use and provides information on the technology that has replaced it.

In § 62.63(b)(2), this final rule replaces a reference to “loran,” a radio navigation system no longer in use, with “electronic charting systems.”

In § 66.01-5, this final rule corrects an internet address in the introductory text.

This final rule removes 33 CFR part 66 subpart 66.10. On June 19, 1998 (63 FR 33570), the Coast Guard, exercising authorities in 14 U.S.C. 83 (now 14 U.S.C. 542) and 33 U.S.C. 1333, announced a merger of the Uniform State Waterway Marking System with the United States Aids to Navigation System, to be phased in over a five-year period. As provided in a sunset provision (33 CFR 66.10-1(b)) that is removed by this rule, the regulations in the subpart ceased to be in effect after the phase-in period ended in 2003, when aids to navigation which had been governed by subpart 66.10, would be governed by part 62 of subchapter C of title 33.

In §§ 67.05-20 and 67.30-5(d), this final rule makes stylistic and grammatical corrections, changing “ Provided, That” in both paragraphs to “provided that.”

In § 67.40-1(a), this final rule replaces an outdated notification method (telegram) with newer methods (electronic mail and telephone) and, in paragraph (b), removes a reference to telegrams. Western Union stopped providing telegram service in 2006. 5

In § 67.40-1(b), this rule replaces the word “telegraph” with the word “notification,” consistent with the change made in § 67.40-1(a).

In § 67.50-25, this final rule updates the name of the district in the section heading and in paragraph (e) to reflect that on July 3, 2025, the Coast Guard announced the renaming of its districts in an all Coast Guard Message (ALCOAST), ALCOAST 305/25 “Force Design 2028—Renaming Coast Guard Districts.” In paragraph (e), this final rule also updates a street address, and an internal office routing symbol.

In § 95.010, this final rule removes from the definition of recreational vessel a reference to a paragraph in 46 U.S.C. 2101 because the paragraphs in that section have been renumbered, as noted in our discussion of § 1.07-100(a)(1). We are also adding the phrase “of that term” to clarify that the word “definition” refers to the definition of recreational vessel contained in 46 U.S.C. 2101.

In § 97.110(a), this final rule updates the name of the point of contact and substitutes the current contact's email address and phone number for the public to submit requests to view material incorporated by reference (IBR) in part 97.

In § 100.30, this final rule identifies the Captain of the Port (COTP) as the approval authority, except for those applications that are managed by the State. This change is consistent with 33 CFR 100.35(a), which already acknowledges that COTPs can “approv[e] plans for the holding of a regatta or marine parade within his or her . . . zone.”

In § 107.210(b), this final rule removes the reference to the paragraph number in 46 U.S.C. 2101 defining public vessel because the paragraphs in that section have been renumbered for the reasons provided in our discussion of § 1.07-100(a)(1). We are also removing the reference to a definition of foreign vessel in 46 U.S.C. 2101 as that definition has been removed from the section entirely. We are replacing it with a reference to the definition of foreign vessel in 46 U.S.C. 110, added by Public Law 109-304, § 4, Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1487. Finally, we are adding a reference to the definition of vessel of the United States at 46 U.S.C. 116. Congress also added that definition in Public Law 109-304.

In § 114.50, this final rule adds an email address as an additional means for the public to submit appeals for the denial of bridge permits.

In § 115.50(a), this final rule adds language to require applicants for authorization to construct a bridge across navigable waters of the United States to include their email addresses in their applications. It also adds language advising applicants to refer to Commandant Publication (COMDTPUB) 16591, Bridge Permit Application Guide, for guidance on completing the application.

In § 115.60(a), this final rule removes the last three lines of that paragraph, which relate to procedures for compliance (in connection with the Coast Guard's issuance of a bridge permit) with water quality certification requirements under section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341. The language removed from § 115.60(a) fulfilled requirements previously contained in an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation, 40 CFR 121.6(b), that Federal agencies provide the certifying authority notification of (a) the date it received a copy of the applicant's certification request to the certifying authority, (b) the “applicable reasonable period of time to act on the certification request,” and (c) “the date upon which waiver will occur if the certifying authority fails or refuses to act on the certification request.” See the version of 40 CFR 121.6 in effect on September 11, 2020. Also see the preamble of “Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification Improvement Rule,” 88 FR 66558, 66582 (Sept. 27, 2023), where EPA stated “the Agency [EPA] is removing the regulatory text located at § 121.6(b) in the 2020 Rule, which required the Federal agency to communicate the date of receipt of the request for [water quality] certification, the reasonable period of time [to act on the request for certification], and the date waiver [of certification] will occur.” The 2023 EPA rule which replaced the 2020 version of § 121.6 renders the removed text of the EPA rule obsolete, as the 2023 rule sets the date from which the reasonable period of time begins for certification to occur, and provides that the reasonable period of time to act on a certification request is six months, unless the Federal agency and the certifying authority agree in writing to some other period that does not exceed one year.

In § 116.55(a), this final rule changes the word “recommendation” to “decision” to describe a matter subject to appeal, to conform with the language used elsewhere in the section. We note here that a matter would not need to be appealed if it were merely a recommendation.

In § 116.55(b), this final rule adds email as a means of submitting an appeal under paragraph (a) of this section.

In §§ 117.255(a)(3)(i) and (a)(5)(i), this final rule updates a contact phone number.

In § 117.593(b)(2), this final rule adds language to clarify how the operation lights at the Chelsea Street Bridge work, to better reflect what a mariner sees at this location.

In § 117.997(c)(2)(i), this final rule adds the term “vessels” after the term “recreational” to clarify that the phrase “that do not qualify under section” applies only to commercial vessels. We also correct an incorrect reference to paragraph (d)(2)(ii) so that § 117.997(c)(2)(i) refers to paragraph (c)(2)(ii), as paragraph (d) pertains to a different bridge, and paragraph (d)(2)(ii) does not exist.

In § 117.997(c)(2)(ii), this final rule corrects a typographical error by adding a space between “at” and “7.”

In §§ 117.1087(a), 117.1087(a)(3), and 117.1087(a)(4), this final rule amends those sections to reflect changes in bridge names made by the bridge owner. The names of these bridges have already been corrected in Coast Pilot 6 (page 419), 6 and are being used in general messaging between the Coast Guard and the bridge owner, including messaging regarding deviations.

In § 118.3(b), this final rule adds an email address for the public to submit requests to view material incorporated by reference (IBR) in part 118.

This final rule removes 33 CFR part 133, which is now obsolete. Prior to December 23, 2022, when the NDAA 2023, became law, 33 U.S.C. 2712(d) and (e) authorized and required the President to obligate appropriations into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for removal actions undertaken by the States, in a procedure (commonly known as “State access”) that was implemented in 33 CFR part 133. Section 11314 of the NDAA 2023 removed those provisions in old 33 U.S.C. 2712(d) and (e) and substituted the language which is now in current section 2712(d), for those provisions. That language authorizes States to use cost-reimbursable agreements and withdraws the Coast Guard's authority to administer the State access program.

With the removal of 33 CFR part 133, the Coast Guard will discontinue the Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number 1625-0068. Accordingly, this technical amendment is considered deregulatory under Executive Order 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation) due to the elimination of a paperwork requirement. In addition, there is the triennial savings to the Federal Government (for example, Coast Guard, DHS and OMB) of not conducting a periodic renewal of the ICR, OMB Control Number 1625-0068. We consider this a non-quantifiable benefit.

In § 151.51(a)(1), this final rule removes incorrect citations to paragraphs referring to the definitions of recreational vessels and uninspected vessels in 46 U.S.C. 2101. This information is incorrect as the paragraphs in 46 U.S.C. 2101 have been renumbered, as explained in our discussion of § 1.07-100(a)(1).

In §§ 155.4025, 155.4030(b), and 155.4040(c), this final rule replaces the term “assessment of structural stability” with “assessment of structure and stability.” The term “assessment of structural stability” implies one distinct action but, as the Coast Guard stated in a response to comments on its 2008 final rule, Salvage and Marine Firefighting Requirements; Vessel Response Plans for Oil, “these are two distinct types of assessments that will be going on at the same time.” 7 We stated in the same paragraph of the 2008 rule that we agreed, in part, with the points made in the response to comments and added a sentence to the proposed definition (at 67 FR 31868, 31874 (May 10, 2002)), but did not clarify that the term referred to two distinct actions. The change we are making in this final rule will clarify the two distinct actions required—the assessment of vessel stability and the assessment of structural integrity.

In §§ 155.5015(a)(3), 155.5020, and 159.305, this final rule removes references to paragraph numbers in 46 U.S.C. 2101 as the paragraphs have been renumbered, as explained in our discussion of § 1.07-100(a)(1). In §§ 155.5015(a)(3) and 159.305, we are not replacing the paragraph numbers referring to the definitions of navigable waters of the United States and cruise vessel, respectively. In § 155.5020, however, we are replacing the paragraph number referring to the definition of navigable waters of the United States, now cited in § 155.5020, with “(23)” because that regulation refers to the waters identified in 46 U.S.C. 2101(23) only as a subset of an alternative definition of that term, and not as the definition of navigable waters of the United States, which is used in § 155.5020.

In § 164.01(b)(2), this final rule corrects an erroneous reference to the regulation containing the definition for assistance towing. 46 CFR 10.103, which the rule referenced prior to this change, is an IBR section; 46 CFR 10.107, which the rule references after the change, is the proper location of the definition.

In §§ 164.39(b), 165.123(b), 165.169(a), and 165.500(a)(4), this final rule removes references to paragraph numbers for the definitions of tanker, tank vessel, and passenger vessel in 46 U.S.C. 2101 for the reasons provided in our discussion of § 1.07-100(a)(1).

In § 165.911(b)(2), this final rule updates contact information for the public to request permission to transit security zones in the Captain of the Port Eastern Great Lakes Zone.

In § 165.923(a)(2)(ii)(C), this final rule removes a reference to a paragraph number for the definition of commercial service in 46 U.S.C. 2101 for the reasons provided in our discussion of § 1.07-100(a)(1) pertaining to the renumbering of paragraphs.

In § 165.1141(d)(2), this final rule updates contact information for the public to request permission to transit through the San Clemente Safety Zone.

In § 165.1157(a), this final rule adds degree, minute, and second symbols to the latitude and longitude coordinates for the Santa Barbara Breakwater Light.

In § 165.1711(c)(6), this final rule removes a reference to an incorrect paragraph number in 46 U.S.C. 2101 for the reasons provided in our discussion of § 1.07-100(a)(1). In addition, the adjective “commercial” has been removed before the phrase “fishing vessels,” as the definition of fishing vessel in § 2101 is “a vessel that commercially engages in the catching, taking, or harvesting of fish or an activity that can reasonably be expected to result in the catching, taking, or harvesting of fish.” (Emphasis added.)

This final rule removes §§ 174.17(c) and 174.19(c), which are obsolete paragraphs governing the issuance of certificates of number to vessels between April 27, 2012, and January 1, 2017. The appendix referenced in these sections has already been removed.

In § 2.01-7, footnote 7, this final rule removes references to paragraphs in 46 U.S.C. 2101 defining passenger and passenger(s)-for-hire, as the paragraphs have been renumbered. For more detail, see our explanation of the change to 33 CFR 1.07-100(a)(1).

In § 3.01-1, this final rule removes a reference to a paragraph number in 46 U.S.C. 2101 defining oceanographic research vessel because the paragraphs in that section of the U.S. Code have been renumbered. For more detail, see our explanation of the change to 33 CFR 1.07-100(a)(1).

In §§ 4.03-50 and 7.1, this final rule removes a reference to a paragraph number in 46 U.S.C. 2101 for the definitions of recreational vessel, seagoing barges and seagoing motor vessels because the paragraphs in that section of the U.S. Code have been renumbered. For more detail, see our explanation of the change to 33 CFR 1.07-100(a)(1).

In § 11.301, this final rule removes the reference to paragraphs 11(a) and 11(c) in 46 U.S.C. 2101 for the definitions of fishing vessel and fish-tender vessel because the paragraphs in section 2101 have been renumbered, and the referenced paragraph numbers are no longer correct. We are not replacing the paragraph numbers, as definitions in section 2101 are listed in alphabetical order, and cross-referencing to a paragraph number is unnecessary for these definitions. We are retaining a reference to the subordinate paragraph associated with the definition of uninspected passenger vessels, however, because that subordinate paragraph designation remains unchanged and subordinate paragraphs (A) and (B) contain separate definitions.

In §§ 11.491(a) and 11.551, this final rule removes a reference to a U.S. Code paragraph in 46 U.S.C. 2101 for the definition of offshore supply vessel, as the paragraph has been renumbered. For more detail, see our explanation of the change to 33 CFR 1.07-100(a)(1).

In § 15.105, this final rule removes the reference to paragraphs 12 and 14 in 46 U.S.C. 2101 because the paragraphs in section 2101 have been renumbered and the referenced paragraph numbers are no longer correct. We are not replacing the paragraph numbers, as definitions in section 2101 are listed in alphabetical order, and cross-referencing to a paragraph number is unnecessary for the definitions of fishing vessel and fish-tender vessel. We are retaining a reference to the subordinate paragraph associated with the definition of uninspected passenger vessels, however, because that subordinate paragraph designation remains unchanged and subordinate paragraphs (A) and (B) contain separate definitions.

In § 15.403(e), this final rule removes the reference to paragraphs for the definitions of fishing vessels and fish-tender vessels in 46 U.S.C. 2101 because the paragraphs in section 2101 have been renumbered, and the referenced paragraph number is no longer correct. We are not replacing the paragraph numbers, as definitions in section 2101 are listed in alphabetical order, and cross-referencing to a paragraph number is unnecessary. We are retaining a reference to the subordinate paragraph associated with the definition of uninspected passenger vessels, however, because that subordinate paragraph designation remains unchanged and subordinate paragraphs (A) and (B) contain separate definitions.

In §§ 15.720(b) this final rule removes references to paragraphs in the definitions of offshore supply vessel and mobile offshore drilling unit in 46 U.S.C. 2101, as the paragraphs in section 2101 have been renumbered. For more detail, see our explanation of the change to 33 CFR 1.07-100(a)(1).

In § 15.1101(a), this final rule removes the reference to paragraphs 11(a) and 11(c) in 46 U.S.C. 2101 because the paragraphs in section 2101 have been renumbered and the referenced paragraph numbers for the definitions of fishing vessel and fish-tender vessel are no longer correct. For the reasons provided in our discussion of 33 CFR 1.07-100(a)(1), we are not replacing the paragraph numbers. We are retaining a reference to the subordinate paragraphs associated with the definition of uninspected passenger vessels, however, because the subordinate paragraphs contain separate definitions.

In § 24.10-1, this final rule changes a reference in the definition of motorboat from table 24.05-1(a) in § 24.05-1 to table 2.01-7(a) in 46 CFR 2.01-7(a). In 2014, the Coast Guard issued a rule which removed table 24.05-1(a) from the CFR on the grounds that the table unnecessarily duplicated table 2.01-7(a). 8 However, due to a drafting error, the rule did not update this cross-reference, and we correct that here.

In §§ 26.15-1(a) and 58.25-5(a), this final rule removes references to the U.S. Code paragraphs in 46 U.S.C. 2101 defining uninspected vessel, tanker, and tank vessel, as the paragraphs in section 2101 have been renumbered. For more detail, see our explanation of the change to 33 CFR 1.07-100(a)(1).

In § 62.50-30(k)(3), this final rule corrects a cross-reference. Section 62.50-30(k)(3) incorrectly references paragraph (f) of § 111.70-3 because the reference to that paragraph was not changed when the Coast Guard updated § 111.70-3 in 1996 to eliminate obsolete requirements. This amendment corrects that oversight by changing the reference to paragraph (b) of § 111.70-3, which now contains the material that had been in paragraph (f) of the 1995 version of § 111.70-3. 9

In § 68.55, this final rule removes a reference to the U.S. Code paragraph in 46 U.S.C. 2101 defining oil, as the paragraphs in section 2101 have been renumbered. For more detail, see our explanation of the change to 33 CFR 1.07-100(a)(1).

In § 90.10-23, this final rule changes a reference in the definition of motorboat from a table which has been removed (table 90.05-1(a)) to a table with the same information in it (table 2.01-7(a)). This should have been done in a rulemaking published on September 29, 2014, which stated at 79 FR 58270, 58272:

In § 108.151(b), this final rule corrects a grammatical error by adding the word “of.”

In § 110.01-3(c), this final rule removes a reference to the U.S. Code paragraph (14a) in 46 U.S.C. 2101 defining conversion, as the paragraphs in section 2101 have been renumbered. For more detail, see our explanation of the change to 33 CFR 1.07-100(a)(1). In addition, the word “Major” has been added before “conversions” because the current definition given in section 2101, and the definition given in the 1997 version of section 2101 (which contained paragraph 14a), was for “major conversions.”

In § 118.400(f), 10 this final rule corrects a reference to “paragraph (f) of this section” to refer instead to paragraph (g). We redesignated § 118.400(f) as § 118.400(g) in 86 FR 73171 (December 27, 2021), but failed to make a conforming change to the reference at that time.

In § 125.180(b)(4), this final rule corrects citations to sections in 46 CFR subchapter L, which incorporate by reference the American Bureau for Shipping's Rules for Building and Classing Mobile Offshore Drilling Units. It does not change the meaning of the regulations.

In § 126.180, this final rule removes a reference to the higher level paragraph in 46 U.S.C. 2101, as the number of the paragraph in that U.S. Code section containing the definition of passenger has changed. Because § 126.180 refers the reader to a specific subordinate paragraph of the definition of “passenger,” we are revising the reference, “46 U.S.C. 2101(21)(B)” rather than deleting everything after “2101.” Our revision refers the reader to subordinate paragraph (B) of the paragraph containing the definition of passenger in 46 U.S.C. 2101. That paragraph applies specifically to a passenger on an offshore supply vessel.

In § 131.540(a), this final rule corrects the misspelling of the word “each.”

In § 132.130(a), this final rule corrects the misspelling of the word “fire.”

In § 133.130(b)(4)(i), this final rule corrects an editorial error by deleting the redundant words “and list” from the phrase “Within the limits of trim and list and list specified . . . .”

In § 147.65(b)(1), this final rule removes the words “of pressure” from the sentence “If cylinder weight or liquid level, adjusted for temperature, shows a 5 percent loss of pressure, the cylinder must be refilled.” A loss of cylinder weight or liquid level, adjusted for temperature, is distinct from a loss of pressure, so the earlier language was illogical.

In § 169.101, this final rule deletes a reference to a U.S. Code paragraph defining sailing school vessel because the paragraphs in 46 U.S.C. 2101 have been renumbered, and the paragraph cited is no longer the correct one. For more detail, see our explanation of the change to 33 CFR 1.07-100(a)(1).

In § 177.410(b), this final rule removes the words “meet as” from the phrase “. . . and meet as accepted by the Commandant as meeting . . .” as both redundant and ungrammatical.

In § 181.115(b), this final rule, applicable to 46 CFR subchapters T and K, removes implementation deadlines that have passed and are no longer relevant. This final rule also corrects an error in § 181.115 resulting from a previous rulemaking, published at 81 FR 48220 (July 22, 2016). That 2016 rulemaking split an earlier version of § 181.400 into two sections to separate the identification of spaces required to have fixed fire extinguishing systems from the identification of spaces required to have fire detection systems. The portion of § 181.400 dealing with fire extinguishing systems remained in § 181.400, and the portion relating to fire detection systems was moved to § 181.405. Section 181.115, which had referred only to § 181.400, was not changed in the 2016 rulemaking. This final rule corrects § 118.115 by adding a reference to § 181.405 to reflect that the identification of spaces required to have fire detection systems is now set out in that section.

This final rule splits 46 CFR 181.300(d) into two separate paragraphs and redesignates what had been paragraph (e) as paragraph (f). The first sentence of paragraph (d), “A fire pump may be driven by a propulsion engine,” remains in paragraph (d). The second sentence, “A fire pump must be permanently connected to the fire main and may be connected to the bilge system to meet the requirements of § 182.520 of this chapter,” is now paragraph (e). Having both requirements in one paragraph has caused confusion because people have incorrectly inferred that the second sentence is only applicable if the first sentence is true. Regardless of whether the fire pump is driven by a propulsion engine, however, the pump must be permanently attached to the vessel. A separate, portable pump does not meet the requirements set out in 46 CFR subpart D.

This final rule adds paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) to § 181.400. The language added here pertains to fire suppression system requirements and is being moved from the section addressing fire detection systems in 46 CFR 181.405. A 2016 rule  11 for harmonizing fire safety standards split requirements (previously consolidated in § 181.400) for both fire suppression and detection systems into §§ 181.400 (Fire suppression systems) and 181.405 (Fire detection systems). The rulemaking inadvertently put some of the fire suppression requirements into the fire detection section. Rearranging these paragraphs will not change the requirements, but it will make the organization of the subpart more logical and consistent with the original intent as proposed. The original intent of the 2016 change is explained at 79 FR 2271, in the NPRM titled “Harmonization of Standards for Fire Protection, Detection, and Extinguishing Equipment,” and published on January 13, 2014. There, we stated:

In § 181.405, this final rule removes fire suppression system requirements that are currently listed in the section designated for fire detection systems. As explained in the preceding paragraph regarding § 181.400, the 2016 rule harmonizing fire safety standards split § 181.400, which contained requirements for both fire suppression and detection systems, into § 181.400 (Fire suppression systems) and § 181.405 (Fire detection systems). The rulemaking inadvertently left some fire suppression requirements in the fire detection section. Rearranging these paragraphs will not change the requirements, but it will make the organization of the subpart more logical.

In § 182.115(c) and (d), this final rule removes an implementation deadline that has passed and is no longer relevant.

In § 188.10-77, this final rule changes a reference, in the definition of vessel, from a table (table 24.05-1(a)) which has been removed to another table (table 2.01-7(a)) with the same information in it. This change should have been done in a rulemaking published on September 29, 2014, where we stated the following, at 79 FR 58270, 58272:

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

Executive Order 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation) directs agencies to significantly reduce the private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations and provides 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.”

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

This final rule is considered an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action due to the elimination of a paperwork requirement. This final rule involves non-substantive, technical amendments and internal agency practices and procedures; it will not impose any additional costs. The technical amendments in this final rule fit into categories that involve (1) correcting inadvertent typographical errors in the CFR; (2) modifying existing language in the CFR by addition or subtraction to improve the readability or clarity of regulations; (3) removing irrelevant information, such as expired regulatory provisions or cancelled reference material, and replacing outdated regulatory information with current information, where applicable; and (4) revising office contact information and mailing addresses. This final rule will not impose any additional costs to the public or the Federal Government, because none of the technical and editorial changes in this final rule will impose new regulatory requirements. A summary of these amendments by category and by CFR title and section are presented in table 1.

Also, as discussed in the “Discussion of the Rule” section above, this final rule removes 33 CFR part 133, which is now obsolete. Prior to December 23, 2022, the date in which the NDAA 2023, became law, 33 U.S.C. 2712(d) and (e) authorized and required the President to obligate appropriations into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for removal actions undertaken by the States, in a procedure (commonly known as “State access”) that was implemented in 33 CFR part 133. Section 11314 of the NDAA 2023 removed those provisions in 33 U.S.C. 2712(d) and (e) and substituted the language, which is now in section 2712(d), for those provisions. That language authorizes States to use cost-reimbursable agreements and withdraws the Coast Guard's authority to administer the State access program.

The benefits of the non-substantive technical amendments are increased accuracy of regulatory information by correcting erroneous information, and improved readability and clarity of regulations by removing redundant or confusing language and by removing expired or cancelled provisions that are no longer relevant. In addition, correcting technical items such as office contact details and location coordinates will improve the ability to reference and contact the correct entities.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact on small entities when they issue a rule after being required to first publish a general NPRM. Under 5 U.S.C. 604(a), a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required for this final rule because, under provisions in 553(b)(B), we were not required to publish a general NPRM. Therefore, we did not conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis for this rule.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we offer to assist small entities in understanding this final rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this final rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This final rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. However, with the removal of 33 CFR part 133 the Coast Guard will discontinue the ICR OMB Control Number 1625-0068.

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) if it has a substantial direct effect on 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 Executive Order 13132 and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

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. Although this final rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this final rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This final rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 (Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights), which addresses governmental actions and interference with property rights.

This final rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

We have analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks). This final rule is not an economically significant rule and will not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

This final rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), because it will 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.

We have analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use). We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (for example, specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.

This final rule does not use technical standards or incorporation by reference. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

We have analyzed this final rule under Department of Homeland Security Management 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 made a determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. 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.

This final rule is categorically excluded under paragraph A3 and L54 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev 1. Paragraph A3 pertains to: Promulgation of rules, issuance of rulings or interpretations, and the development and publication of policies, orders, directives, notices, procedures, manuals, advisory circulars, and other guidance documents of the following nature: (a) Those of a strictly administrative or procedural nature; (b) Those that implement, without substantive change, statutory or regulatory requirements; (c) Those that implement, without substantive change, procedures, manuals, and other guidance documents; (d) Those that interpret or amend an existing regulation without changing its environmental effect; (e) Technical guidance on safety and security matters; or (f) Guidance for the preparation of security plans. Paragraph L54 pertains to “Regulations which are editorial or procedural, such as those updating addresses or establishing application procedures.” This final rule makes non-substantive technical, organizational, and conforming amendments to existing Coast Guard regulations and also, as explained above, implements without substantive changes, statutory requirements made by the NDAA 2023. This final rule is a continuation of our practice of periodically issuing rules to keep our regulations up-to-date and accurate.

Before a rule can take effect, 5 U.S.C. 801, the Congressional Review Act, requires agencies to submit the rule and a report indicating whether it is a major rule to Congress and the Comptroller General. Under 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(C), rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties are not considered to be a rule for the purposes of the Congressional Review Act. This technical amendment is a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice that will not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties, thus it is not required to be submitted for review under the CRA.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR parts 1, 26, 62, 66, 67, 95, 97, 100, 107, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 133, 151, 155, 159, 164, 165, and 174 and 46 CFR parts 2, 3, 4, 7, 11, 15, 24, 26, 58, 62, 68, 90, 108, 110, 118, 125, 126, 131, 132, 133, 147, 169, 177, 181, 182, and 188 as follows:

The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule under the authority in 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), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and unnecessary. This bridge is non-operational and will remain non-operational until rehabilitation work can be completed.

On September 27, 2025, the Coast Guard issued a General Deviation which allowed the bridge owner, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, to deviate from the current operating schedule in 33 CFR 117.588 to construct a temporary bridge immediately adjacent to the existing bridge, which was assessed as structurally deficient. Due to the time required to construct the temporary fixed bridge and demolish the existing bridge, the project will run past the end date of April 27, 2026, of the General Deviation. The existing bridge cannot be brought back to operating condition as it has been assessed as structurally unsound and is scheduled for demolition. In addition, the temporary bridge placement makes it impossible to fully open the swing drawbridge. Because the drawbridge must remain closed indefinity through its demolition, it is impossible to comply with the existing drawbridge operating schedule and soliciting comments on the operating schedule change is unnecessary. It is also impracticable to solicit comments prior to the drawbridge operating schedule change because it is already permanently closed due to the drawbridge being structurally unsound.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective in less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . For reasons presented above, delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest due to the fact that the bridge is currently inoperable and cannot go back into operation until the rehabilitation work can be completed.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 499.

The Hall Whitaker Bridge across the Bass River at mile 0.6 in Beverly, Massachusetts, is a movable swing bridge with a closed vertical clearance of 4.62 feet and an open vertical clearance of 43.6 feet. The bridge's operating regulations are contained in 33 CFR 117.558.

The Hall Whitaker Bridge was closed to vehicular traffic in June 2022 in response to a substandard load rating. The bridge's structural deficiencies are beyond repair, and the bridge must be fully replaced. In preparation for the bridge replacement, a temporary bridge will be constructed immediately adjacent to the existing bridge, and the existing bridge will be demolished. During the construction of the temporary bridge, the existing bridge will be unable to open for marine traffic.

There is only one waterfront facility, a yacht club, upstream of the Hall Whitaker Bridge. Bridge openings average 20 per year and are highly seasonal, concentrated in the Spring and Fall months when larger vessels move to and from the yacht club for winter storage. As part of the planning in advance of construction of the temporary bridge, Massachusetts Department of Transportation has made alternate arrangements for impacted vessels to reach their winter storage facility upstream of the Hall Whitaker Bridge.

This rule changes the operating schedule of the Hall Whitaker Bridge in 117.588(c) to allow the movable span to remain in the closed position. Previously, this paragraph required the drawbridge to open on signal if at least 24 hours' notice was given. Vessels able to pass underneath the bridge in the closed position will be able to transit. Upon completion of design and construction of the new bridge, the Coast Guard may propose a new drawbridge operating schedule, as needed.

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

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

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

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

This rule calls for no 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 Management Directive 023-01, Rev.1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1 (series) which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The Coast Guard has 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 promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges and is categorically excluded from further review, under paragraph L49, of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.

Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum for the Record are required for this rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

On August 12, 2025, the Postal Service published a proposed rule in the Federal Register , Postmarks and Postal Possession, 90 FR 38716 (Aug. 11, 2025) (hereafter “the Proposed Rule”). The Proposed Rule defined the postmark and explained the Postal Service's operational use of the postmark; identified the types of Postal Service markings that qualify as postmarks (together with certain auxiliary markings and scan data that are generated during the course of postal operations and that indicate postal possession of a mailpiece but do not qualify as postmarks); described how and where in the course of postal operations such markings are applied; and clarified the scope of information that such markings do and do not convey. The Proposed Rule further advised that, while the presence of a postmark on a mailpiece confirms that the Postal Service was in possession of the mailpiece on the date of the postmark's inscription, the postmark date does not inherently or necessarily align with the date on which the Postal Service first accepted possession of the mailpiece. The Proposed Rule further noted that this lack of alignment has and will become more common with the implementation of the Regional Transportation Optimization (RTO) initiative and the corresponding adoption of “leg”-based service standards. (90 FR 10857). The Proposed Rule then advised customers to request a manual (local) postmark at a retail location if they want to ensure that their mailpiece receives a postmark containing a date that aligns with the date on which the Postal Service first accepted possession of their mailpiece, and reminded customers who wish to retain proof of the date on which the Postal Service first accepted possession of their mailpiece(s) of the services (including Certificates of Mailing) that provide such proof. Finally, the Proposed Rule submitted a new Section 608.11 of the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), for the public's consideration.

While the Postal Service has chosen to utilize the notice-and-comment rulemaking process for this Proposed Rule, we note that this is not a rulemaking in the traditional sense. As stated in the Proposed Rule, nothing in DMM Section 608.11 effectuates any changes in how, or the extent to which, the Postal Service applies postmarks to mailpieces. However, the postmark was not previously defined in any current Postal Service regulations, and the Postal Service considered it appropriate to reflect these existing practices in the DMM to ensure that customers have a clear understanding of the postmark and what it means.

The Proposed Rule sought public input on DMM Section 608.11, welcoming the perspectives of customers, government entities, industry stakeholders, and other interested parties. In particular, the Proposed Rule solicited recommendations on how to effectively inform customers of the new DMM provision and explain its meaning and feasible suggestions to advise and accommodate customers who want proof of the date on which the Postal Service first accepted possession of their mailings.

The Postal Service received 130 comments on the Proposed Rule, approximately 80 of which consisted of form letters—or, more precisely, one of three distinct form letters (each one using similar, if not verbatim, language) submitted multiple times. Issues raised by these letters include the alleged “dilution” of the postmark's meaning, impacts on rural and sparsely populated regions, and the importance of postmarks for mail-in ballots and other documents ( e.g., tax returns) subject to strict deadlines. Approximately 25 additional comments were submitted by members of the public writing on their own behalf; these comments range from simple statements of opposition to detailed critiques of proposed DMM Section 608.11. Numerous commenters—among them several election officials, one county Board of Elections, and certain independent institutions—expound at length on mail-in voting, raising concerns about postmarking deadlines and potentially discarded Ballot Mail. Finally, some industry mailers and labor organizations contributed comments echoing the concerns of other commenters, notably with regard to mail-in voting, postmarking deadlines more generally, and the need for robust public education and outreach. These concerns are discussed more fully below.

Some commenters suggested operational or staffing changes, new or expanded product offerings, educational outreach endeavors, various means of communicating relevant information to customers, and detailed revisions to DMM Section 608.11. The Postal Service thanks these commenters for their recommendations, which are discussed more fully below. Some comments raised issues (and/or advanced arguments) outside the scope of the present rulemaking. These issues and arguments, which will be excluded from the discussion below, include:

• Criticism of mail-in voting as a general practice. While the Proposed Rule contains information of potential relevance to election officials and to citizens who choose to vote by mail, the Postal Service does not administer elections, establish the rules or deadlines that govern elections, or determine whether or how election jurisdictions utilize the mail or incorporate our postmark into their rules. The Postal Service also does not advocate for or against any particular voting practices (including mail-in voting). Instead, the Postal Service collects, processes, transports, and delivers mail and packages that are mailable under federal law. As part of that role, we deliver the nation's Election Mail when public policy makers and election officials choose to use the mail as a part of their election system and when citizens choose to utilize our services to participate in an election.

• Concerns about missed or belatedly applied postmarks. As explained in the Proposed Rule, DMM Section 608.11 in no way signals a change in our postmarking procedures; postmarks will continue to be applied to Single-Piece First Class Mail pieces, both letter-shaped and flat-shaped, in the same manner and to the same extent as before. Of course, mistakes occur in the normal course of postal operations; the Proposed Rule explains as much, noting that occasional circumstances may arise where a legible postmark is not applied (for instance when two mailpieces are stuck together as they run through a cancelling machine, when the machine runs out of ink or smears when applying postmarks, and so forth). For this reason, we have informed our customers who choose to vote by mail that they can “ensure that a postmark is applied to [their] return ballot by visiting a Postal Service retail [location] and requesting a postmark from a retail associate when dropping off the ballot.” Kit 600, USPS Postmarking Guidelines (2024), available at https://about.usps.com/kits/kit600/kit600_039.htm. That same guidance would also address concerns about postmark dates, as the date on a manual (local) postmark applied at retail location aligns with the date that the customer tendered the return ballot for mailing. The present rulemaking, however, does not involve any operational changes that would increase the frequency of missed or misapplied postmarks; it is intended to explain the Postal Service's operational use of the postmark and to clarify what information postmarks can be reliably taken to convey.

• Criticisms of the Delivering for America (DFA) strategic plan. As noted in the Proposed Rule, RTO increases the likelihood that a postmark applied at originating processing facilities—the locations where postmarks are typically applied—will contain a date that does not align with the date on which the Postal Service first accepted possession of the mailpiece. RTO was the subject of an earlier rulemaking (90 FR 10857) and separate proceedings before the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC Docket No. N2024-1). The Proposed Rule here is intended to define the postmark and inform the public of its meaning and operational uses. While the need for such clarification is due in part to RTO's changes to transportation and processing schedules, which will enable the Postal Service to significantly increase our operational efficiency and reduce costs, thereby supporting our efforts to continue to provide universal postal services in a financially self-sufficient manner, as the law requires, neither RTO nor any other initiative within the DFA plan are themselves the subject of this Proposed Rule.

• Postal Service Funding. One comment urges: “It's essential that the USPS be funded at a level that maintains the service on which we rely.” As an initial matter, the Postal Service, by statute, is designed to be self-funded and self-sufficient. The Postal Service generally receives no tax dollars for operating expenses and relies on the sale of postage, products and services to fund its operations. To the extent this comment is recommending legislative changes, such recommendations are beyond the scope of this rulemaking and the Postal Service's authority. Moreover, while certain operational initiatives discussed in the Proposed Rule ( e.g., RTO) are designed to promote financial sustainability, such initiatives do not themselves fall within the scope of the present rulemaking, which is, as noted, confined to the postmark. Finally, as explained in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the postmark is not, and never has been, a service, but has always performed functions ( e.g., cancelling postage) internal to the Postal Service operations.

Other comments betray factual misapprehensions that, while not addressed in the discussion below, warrant correction. According to one comment, voters will be required to “pay extra” for expedited handling of Ballot Mail. However, this Proposed Rule does not change the handing of Ballot Mail or any other mail, but simply clarifies the meaning of the postmark. Nor is it correct that, as predicted by other comments, current postmarks will be supplanted by new (and substantially different) postmarks, replaced in some way by notices that Postal Service has possession of a mailpiece, or eliminated in their entirety. As noted, DMM Section 608.11 seeks to define the postmark as it presently exists, not to change it, and certainly not to eliminate it. To reiterate, postmarks will continue to be applied to Single-Piece First-Class Mail, both letter-shaped and flat-shaped, in the same manner and to the same extent as before.

All remaining comments within scope of this proceeding are addressed below.

Some comments commend the Proposed Rule for the clarity and transparency it imparts. One observes that proposed DMM Section 608.11 “clearly defines and codifies the role of the postmark.” Another “applaud[s] the Postal Service's formalization and coalescence of existing policies and understandings regarding postmarks into a single uniform rule,” noting that “[t]his will provide greater clarity and authority regarding the meaning of a postmark. . . .” The Postal Service appreciates these comments, as they acknowledge the intent behind the Proposed Rule: not to diminish or supplant the postmark, but to clarify its meaning, such that customers better understand what it is and the purposes for which it may be relied upon.

Most comments adopt a more critical posture, but those comments generally misapprehend the current meaning of the postmark and the purpose of this rulemaking. One expresses concern with the perceived impetus behind the Proposed Rule: namely, to “move the public and customers away from viewing the postmark as a definitive date” on which a mailpiece was “received by the [Postal Service].” As explained in the Proposed Rule, postmarks applied at originating processing facilities have never provided a perfectly reliable indicator of the date on which the Postal Service first accepted possession of a mailpiece, and this fact will become more common under RTO. Therefore, to the extent that customers currently have this view of the postmark, it does not reflect the realities of postal operations. The purpose of DMM Section 608.11, and our forthcoming education efforts, is to make the actual meaning of the postmark more widely known, so that customers who may currently lack a clear understanding of the postmark can, if necessary, make adjustments to their mailing behavior—for example, by dispatching their mailings earlier, obtaining a manual (local) postmark at a retail location at no additional cost, or purchasing a Certificate of Mailing. However, to suggest (in the words of one form letter) that “this proposal quietly ends any meaningful reliability of a postmark as indicia or proof of mailing” is completely inaccurate, given that DMM Section 608.11 plainly states, “[t]he presence of a postmark confirms that the Postal Service accepted custody of a mailpiece, and that the mailpiece was in the possession of the Postal Service on the identified date.”

Some comments urge the Postal Service not to “implement” the “policies” described by the Proposed Rule, which also stems from a misunderstanding of DMM Section 608.11's nature and scope. These comments appear to assume that adoption of this DMM provision will prompt operational changes in how the postmark is applied, thereby altering the quality of information that postmarks as such convey. One comment, for instance, criticizes what it claims to be “the proposed changes to eliminate same-day postmarks.” This comment ignores, however, that “same-day postmarks” ( i.e., postmarks bearing dates that align with the date on which the Postal Service first accepted possession of a mailpiece) will in many instances continue to be applied through automation and will remain available in all cases upon request at the retail counter. Meanwhile, multiple others perceive in the Proposed Rule an attempt to “devalue” the traditional postmark, and/or to “dilute” (or even “destroy”) its alleged status as proof of the date that the Postal Service first accepted possession of a mailpiece. Yet to reiterate, the Proposed Rule aims to clarify the meaning and value of the postmark, not to change its meaning or destroy its utility. By notifying the public of the realities of postal operations; by offering a definition of the postmark embodied in regulation; and by listing out the various available indicia of postal possession, the present rulemaking seeks to clarify and preserve, rather than erode, the value of the postmark for customers who may rely upon it.

The above concerns may also reflect a view of the postmark fundamentally as a service that the Postal Service provides—one on par with, for example, reliable mail delivery and P.O. Box rentals. Indeed, multiple commenters characterize the postmark in just this way, describing it variously as an “essential benefit,” a “public good,” or a “service” that the Proposed Rule somehow threatens. This conception of the postmark possibly informs the demand, proclaimed in one frequently submitted form letter, that the postmark date and the date of first postal possession be made always and without exception to align. Yet as explained in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the postmark is not a service, and the Postal Service does not hold it out as such to the public. In any event—despite insinuations to the contrary—the proposed DMM language does not mean that the Postal Service plans to postmark mailpieces less consistently, accurately, or reliably than before. As stated throughout this process, this new language in the DMM does not change any existing postal operations or postmarking practices, but is instead intended to improve public understanding of postmarks and their relationship to the date of mailing.

To be sure, the Postal Service is well aware and readily acknowledges that third parties have utilized the postmark for various purposes and have potentially infused it with their own particular meanings. Indeed, the Proposed Rule identified numerous third-party uses of the postmark, including court rules that concern the filing of specific documents, federal statutes such as the Internal Revenue Service code, state tax statutes and other laws, and numerous election jurisdictions that utilize the postmark to accept certain completed ballots as timely where they are sent by mail but are received after Election Day. Numerous commenters also invoke these third-party uses, along with government benefits applications; contract and business transactions; insurance claims and premium payments; and sweepstakes, contests and promotions. Multiple comments then assert that DMM Section 608.11 will cause an uptick in missed deadlines. This assertion is misplaced. To reiterate, the present rulemaking entails no change to postmarking practices but aims instead to educate the public as to the postmark's meaning. If customers are aware that the postmark date may not align with the date on which the Postal Service first accepted possession of a mailpiece, they will be better equipped to adjust their plans accordingly. And if policymakers or other entities that create rules utilizing the postmark date are aware of what the postmark date signifies, they are better equipped to determine whether their rules adequately serve their purposes. Through the present rulemaking process, the addition of DMM Section 608.11, and further educational outreach endeavors (described more fully below), the Postal Service seeks to promote such awareness.

Some comments raise concerns that DMM Section 608.11 will disproportionately burden certain groups (including disabled, elderly, rural-dwelling, and/or financially distressed users of the mail). As noted, the Proposed Rule does not itself propose any changes to current postmarking procedures; and insofar as members of the public rely on the postmark, they are better served by a rule that clarifies the postmark's meaning and lists the options available to those who may require a postmark date aligning with the date of first postal possession. Such comments may, moreover, confuse the Proposed Rule with certain operational and service standard changes (including but not limited to RTO) that were discussed at length in a prior rulemaking (90 FR 10857) and in proceedings before the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC Docket No. N2024-1). Whatever the case, mailers who desire a postmark by a particular date are encouraged to take measures to ensure that their mail is postmarked by the date they need, when necessary, and at no additional cost. Those not able to appear in person at a retail location to obtain a manual (local) stamp may choose to mail their time-sensitive documents before the relevant deadline, again at no additional cost.

The general concerns discussed above—regarding the postmark's alleged “dilution,” its purported status as a “service,” its uses by third parties, and the perceived burdens placed on (at least some) mailers—frequently converge on the topic of Election Mail. Indeed, a majority of comments invoke Election Mail, and as noted, election officials account for a significant portion of the comments received. The various (and at times interrelated) issues raised by these comments are summarized as follows:

• In response to this rulemaking, Boards of Elections will encourage voters to avoid mailing in their completed ballots and to use drop-boxes instead.

• This Proposed Rule, if implemented, could somehow strain the resources and capacities of election officials, who might be tasked with “tracking down potentially tens of thousands of ballots” to verify the date on which they were initially accepted by the Postal Service rather than simply referring to the postmark date.

• This Proposed Rule, if implemented, could suppress voter turnout and/or lead to “disenfranchisement” (as election officials reject mail-in ballots bearing postmark dates past the deadline).

• The Proposed Rule is designed to require voters “to pay for services like Certificates of Mailing or to request manual postmarks,” which constitutes an “an unfair burden.”

• This rulemaking will “erode public confidence in the election process,” diminish the public's confidence in mail-in ballots, or is itself “a deliberate attempt to undermine trust in elections.”

As noted above, the present rulemaking clarifies the meaning of the postmark, including for both election officials and voters who choose to use the mail to vote. The Postal Service does not administer elections, establish the rules or deadlines that govern elections, or determine whether or how elections utilize the mail or incorporate our postmark. The Postal Service also does not advocate for or against voting by mail. Instead, the Postal Service collects, processes, transports, and delivers mail and packages, and remains fully committed to transporting the nation's Election Mail when public policy makers choose to use the mail as a part of their election system or when voters choose to utilize our services to participate in an election. Boards of Elections and other officials who administer elections are free to issue guidance to voters as they see fit. To voters who choose to vote by mail, the Postal Service has long recommended as a common-sense measure that they mail their completed ballot before Election Day, and at least one week before it must be received by their local election office. Otherwise, the Postal Service has also long advised that voters who wish to ensure that a ballot envelope is postmarked on the day it is tendered to the Postal Service can request a manual (local) postmark at a retail unit, which will be applied to the mailpiece free of charge and which will inherently bear a date that aligns with the date on which the Postal Service first accepted possession of the mailpiece.

While voters who use mail-in ballots may also elect to purchase a Certificate of Mailing, which will provide the individual mailer with a receipt indicating the date on which the mailpiece was tendered to the Postal Service for mailing, the Postal Service's guidance to voters who choose to vote by mail does not include recommending the purchase of a Certificate of Mailing. In any event, whether to purchase a Certificate of Mailing is a decision for the individual mailer and does not constitute a supplemental fee for the act of voting by mail. The Postal Service has adjusted the language in the Final Rule so DMM 608.11.5 now says customers who wish to retain a record of proof of the date on which the Postal Service first accepted possession of their mailpiece(s) may purchase a Certificate of Mailing, rather than saying that they are encouraged to do so. While this language is not specific to Election Mail, the Postal Service believes the updated language may avoid further confusion.

Given that the present rulemaking (together with other educational outreach endeavors, discussed below) educates election officials about the information conveyed by postmarks and educates voters who choose to use the mail to vote that they can take certain measures if they need a postmark date that aligns with the date of mailing, it should contribute to a more effective use of the mail for their purposes. Concerns that DMM Section 608.11 may “disenfranchise” voters and/or overtax the capacities of Boards of Elections are therefore misplaced.

Many of the above issues and concerns—most especially, though not exclusively, the effects of postmarking on Election Mail—were accompanied by recommendations. These recommendations fall roughly into three categories: outreach and communication, operational and staffing changes, and product offerings. The Postal Service thanks the public for its constructive input and addresses each category of recommendation below.

Multiple comments recommended educational outreach endeavors beyond the context of the present rulemaking. As explained below, a communications strategy regarding postmarks is indeed under development. Overall, our advice is simple: customers who wish to obtain a postmark aligning with the date of mailing should request a local (manual) at a retail location. The intent of this messaging is to provide information that customers would find useful, avoiding potential confusion; and to provide information that is accurate and does not constrain our operational flexibility. Commenters' recommendations regarding educational outreach were evaluated with these considerations in mind.

Some comments recommended that retail locations post notices indicating whether mail deposited by a particular time will arrive at the processing facility (and be postmarked at that facility) on the day of deposit. Such cutoff times, however, cannot always be predicted across all locations, given varied operating hours at retail locations, unscheduled trips, and transportation contingencies beyond the Postal Service's control that may possibly result in delays. This is why, as the Proposed Rule explained, the postmark date applied at processing never provided a perfectly reliable indicator of the date on which the Postal Service first accepted possession of a mailpiece, even before RTO. Furthermore, the service standard changes coincident with RTO's implementation (90 FR 10857) confer operational flexibility by divorcing collection schedules from transportation and processing schedules. As noted in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and elsewhere, with an extra day allotted for transportation to the originating processing facility, originating processing operations (including automated machine cancellations) do not need to respond reactively to volume arrivals, but can instead allocate processing capacity more predictably and efficiently based on known volume arrival profiles. USPS-T-4, PRC Docket No. N2024-1 (October 4, 2024), https://prc.arkcase.com/portal/filings/131269. Displays of the type of cutoff times recommended here would compel more rigid transportation schedules and would as a result constrain the very flexibility that RTO was in part designed to accommodate, thereby blunting the downstream network efficiencies that such flexibility allows. It is, therefore, neither practical, nor in all cases possible, to display “same-day postmark” cutoff times at retail locations. It is also unnecessary, as customers at those retail locations who need a postmark with the date of acceptance can ensure that their mailpieces receive that day's postmark by bringing their mailpieces to the retail counter and requesting a manual (local) postmark, free of charge. This option serves the purpose underlying the above-mentioned recommendation, while preserving the Postal Service's operational flexibility.

One comment suggests modifying blue collection box labels to indicate whether mail deposited by a particular time will arrive at the processing facility (and be postmarked at that facility) on the day of deposit. Blue collection box labels indicate when mail is retrieved from the boxes themselves, which is relevant information to the mailer who may be concerned about how long their mail may sit in the blue collection box prior to a carrier retrieving it. As RTO does not alter these retrieval times but instead impacts outgoing transportation schedules from delivery units, the suggested label modifications would convey supplementary information concerning downstream transportation, further compounding the risk of customer confusion. Moreover, for the reasons discussed above, transportation and processing schedules cannot always be predicted with enough precision to make such information consistently dependable, which could make such displays misleading for customers who seek to obtain postmarks reflecting that day's date. Nevertheless, blue collection boxes already feature QR codes that link to our public website, usps.com, which includes a tool for mailers to locate the closest Post Office; and the Postal Service plans to include on usps.com information on postmarks and postmark dates, including a recommendation that mailers bring their mail to a retail location and request a manual (local) postmark if they need a postmark with a date aligning with the date of mailing.

Multiple comments urged the Postal Service to launch a “massive education program” regarding postmarks, including notification to customers that the date on a postmark applied at a processing facility may not align with the date on which the Postal Service first accepts possession of a mailpiece (including a vote-by-mail ballot), newly established points of contact “to address public concerns,” and close collaboration with election officials. In addition to the present rulemaking, the Postal Service is developing an approach to provide public and internal education regarding postmarking. We will engage in a coordinated effort to post customer-facing information on usps.com , including making it easier to find resources we have already developed to provide information about the service standard changes generally, and about postmarking specifically. We will also engage in targeted education to specific mailing communities, including election officials. For example, we plan to include in the Official Election Mail communication (known as Kit 600), which we send to Boards of Election nationwide in advance of each federal general election season, specific information about DMM Section 608.11 and practical advice on mail-in voting consistent with prior advice ( i.e., that voters mail their completed ballots before Election Day and at least one week before it must be received by their election office), along with contact information for stakeholders who wish to inquire further. Furthermore, the Postal Service has established points of contact with election officials in every jurisdiction throughout the country, and we plan to communicate clear information on postmarking and address any areas of concern.

As the date of first postal possession and the date on the postmark applied at processing facilities will diverge most frequently in ZIP Codes subject to RTO, some comments suggest that RTO- impacted facilities be widely publicized. This recommendation, which the Postal Service has seen in the context of service-standard changes more broadly as well, is, however, less helpful or straightforward than it may initially seem. Regarding both postmarking and service standards, the Postal Service's intent is to provide information to customers that is most useful and understandable (as opposed to putting the onus on the customer to determine what it means if a Post Office is or is not subject to RTO). While some information may be gleaned from an RTO designation, the Postal Service does not want customers to attach unwarranted significance to that designation. For example, whether a Post Office is subject to RTO does not determine the actual service standard for a given mailpiece; both the origin and the destination of the mailpiece must be considered. USPS.com features a service-standard lookup tool that provides this information accurately, without forcing customers to identify the various elements of our rules for determining service expectations. Customers apprised of whether a specific Post Office is subject to RTO may draw conclusions at odds with the lookup tool's outputs—as RTO is one of several inputs determining service standards, and the “leg 2” acceleration that RTO underwrites may counterbalance any day added within “leg 1.” Regarding the postmark, because the Postal Service has never guaranteed that the postmark date would align with the date of mailing, our messaging to customers is the same whether or not their Post Office is subject to RTO: customers should request a manual (local) postmark at a retail location if they want to ensure that their mailpiece receives a postmark containing a date that aligns with the date on which the Postal Service first accepted possession of their mailpiece. For these reasons, the Postal Service has chosen to focus on user-friendly tools and messaging, rather than identifying specific locations that may be subject to RTO transportation schedules.

Multiple comments recommended additional accommodations at retail locations for customers who desire a manual (local) postmark aligning with the date of first postal possession—for instance, a dedicated mail slot where customers can request such a postmark, or alternately, a special window held open during certain times of year ( e.g., tax season). The Postal Service has taken these recommendations under advisement, and, if there appears to be a need, we will consider making appropriate adjustments to retail operations as feasible.

Some comments also recommend that the Postal Service deploy extra staff in the days and weeks preceding important deadlines, and/or provide additional training for postal personnel in anticipation of such deadlines. As yet, however, there is no evidence of surging retail traffic by customers desiring a postmark ahead of various deadlines that might necessitate additional staff to ensure that sensitive documents receive a postmark. Indeed, the overriding concern expressed in comments, as noted above, is not that mailpieces will not be postmarked at all—an issue beyond the scope of the present rulemaking—but rather that postmarks applied by automated machinery will inscribe a date later than the date of first postal possession: a concern that additional retail staff would not directly address. The Postal Service therefore deems the request for additional retail staffing premature, though it will continue to monitor the need for such staffing.

One comment demanded that “for periods close to key election dates, USPS . . . adjust its Regional Transport Optimization initiative to hire and employ . . . additional staff and transportation vehicles to ensure that ballots are timely transported to RPDC/LPC locations to receive a timely postmark.” It should be noted that the deployment of additional transportation, when warranted to ensure timely delivery, is part of the Postal Service's normal business practices, and the Postal Service will continue to monitor the need for such deployments at all times of year. Regarding “timely postmarks,” the Postal Service's messaging is intended to make clear to customers what “timely” means in terms of postal operations so customers can plan accordingly.

Some commenters recommend quarantining RTO-volume and non-RTO volume into distinct batches, and postmarking those batches separately, as this would in theory allow the postmark dates on RTO volume to be rolled back to the date on which the Postal Service took possession of it. The Postal Service has considered the feasibility of such a procedure, and has concluded that it would prove operationally impracticable, cost-prohibitive, and contrary to the aims of RTO. There is no reliable way to segregate RTO from non-RTO volume within all originating processing facilities; any attempt to do so would add significant complexity to an already complex set of operations, delivering inconsistent results at an inordinate cost. Furthermore, the volume arrival profiles enabled by RTO—which in turn allow for more efficient staffing, more productive machine deployments, and earlier dispatches into the network—depend on the simultaneous processing of RTO and non-RTO volume within compressed timeframes. Direct Testimony of Gregory White, USPS-T-4, PRC Docket No. N2024-1 (October 4, 2024), at 13-19, 25-35, https://prc.arkcase.com/portal/filings/131269. These processing efficiencies, which underwrite accelerated service standards for a majority of market-dominant mail volume, and which are expected to yield significant cost savings over time, would be unlikely to survive a scheme designed (again, unreliably) to cancel RTO and non-RTO volume in separate batches, each with its own distinct postmark date. Adding such costs and complexity is particularly unsupportable given the Postal Service's financial condition, and when there are means available for those customers who want to ensure that the postmark reflects the day of acceptance to do so.

Some comments recommend postmarking all mail before it leaves the retail unit for processing. This recommendation would also add significant costs and is therefore not being accepted. The Postal Service discontinued this practice decades ago, and the practice had functionally disappeared well before that. As such, some historical context regarding automated postmarking may be helpful. The Postal Service has for many years relied on machines at processing facilities to postmark mail; indeed, versions of the Advanced Facer Canceller System now currently deployed date back to the early 1990s, and were themselves acquired to replace an earlier generation of facer cancellers. That replacement was completed in 2008. (Postal Service High-Speed Sorters Get Smarter, Faster). As the Postal Service explained in a 2008 Postal Bulletin ( https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22238/html/updt_001.html ): “Cancellation and routine postmarking of mail at Post Offices, except for transactions at the retail window, were made obsolete with the mechanized cancellation systems installed at larger facilities in the 1970s. After the installation of the Advanced Facer Canceller Systems (AFCSs) at processing plants more than 15 years ago, routine cancellation of mail at local Post Offices was virtually eliminated. The efficiencies of the AFCSs help keep postage rates as low as possible for all customers.” In light of this shift away from routine postmarking at retail locations, the Postal Service amended Postal Operations Manual (POM) Section 312.2 to provide, in language that persists to this day, that “[c]ustomers may request a local postmark at the retail counter at all Post Offices, stations, and branches.” As the circumstances underlying this revision have not changed—that is, as the AFCS 200 machines deployed in processing facilities continue to provide a significantly more efficient means of postmarking mail than would the practice of applying postmarks at retail facilities as a matter of course—the Postal Service would not be justified in turning back the clock.

In a similar vein, other comments propose that all mailpieces deposited at retail locations by customers receive a manual (local) handstamp as a matter of course, and not merely upon request. POM Section 312.2 was adopted in its current form for a reason, however. As noted, automated processing machines at processing facilities provide a much more efficient means of postmarking mail than would 19th-century-style production lines of hand-stampers housed in every Post Office, station, and branch. We recognize that some customers may want to ensure that a piece of mail sent on a particular day receives a postmark bearing that day's date, and we accommodate those customers by applying a manual (local) postmark upon the customer's request when they tender their mail at a retail location. To go beyond that accommodation, by creating a separate postmarking process in which all mailings deposited at retail facilities receive a manual postmark regardless of mailer intent or need, would result in significant additional costs and inefficiencies.

Finally, one form letter urges that postmarks should indicate the date and time of a mailpiece's receipt by the Postal Service. As an initial matter, none of our postmarking methods—including manual postmarks applied at retail or machine postmarks applied at processing—entail stamping a specific time of day on a mailpiece. Even as to the date, reengineering the postmark so that it always shows the date of initial postal possession would vitiate the current processing system, as the automated cancellation system deployed at processing facilities affords no visibility into the date (much less the precise time) when a mailpiece first entered postal possession. As observed in the Proposed Rule, the date on postmarks applied at processing facilities represents the date of the first automated processing operation applied at that facility. The machines that apply the postmarks, and the staff who operates those machines, have no way of ascertaining whether that date happens to align with the date on which the Postal Service initially took possession of any specific mailpiece. As machines can feasibly inscribe only the date of cancellation, implementation of a postmark that uniformly inscribes the date of first postal acceptance would, in practical terms, require the circumvention of all such machines in favor of a manual stamp applied at the point of collection—resulting in the operational costs and inefficiencies noted above. Again, for customers who need a postmark with that day's date, they can go to a Postal Service-operated retail location and request a manual (local) postmark when dropping off their mail.

One commenter recommends expanding services within the Informed Greetings platform, which generates an Intelligent Mail® Barcode (IMb), to provide insights into when and where the Postal Service had possession of a mailpiece. First, it bears noting that the Informed Greetings platform was not designed for this purpose; its intended use is, instead, to assist customers in the creation of digital greetings that then accompany the dispatch of physical mail—and the Postal Service has no intention of expanding this relatively specialized product into an all-purpose mail-tracking system. Furthermore, as noted in the Proposed Rule, IMb scans indicate possession of a mailpiece, but do not constitute evidence of the date when the Postal Service first accepted possession of a mailpiece, and neither does their absence imply that the Postal Service never accepted possession of a mailpiece. The Postal Service does not consider such scans to serve as proof of the date of postal acceptance; they therefore are not adequate substitutes for a manual (local) postmark applied at retail or services such as Certificates of Mailing.

One comment urges the Postal Service to include in DMM Section 608.11 “its longstanding policy and practice that all Ballot Mail returned by voters should receive a postmark.” If the present rulemaking effectuated a change in postmarking practices impacting Ballot Mail, such an addition would perhaps be appropriate. As noted, however, the present rulemaking is intended to explain the Postal Service's operational use of the postmark, identify the markings that qualify as postmarks, and clarify what information such markings can be reliably taken to convey. As such, it does not signal any change to postmarking practices, which will continue to the same extent as before. This holds true for Ballot Mail, most of which is sent as Single-Piece First-Class Mail, and which the Postal Service postmarks in the manner described by the present rulemaking. (It bears mentioning that the additional efforts to postmark all Ballot Mail fall under the Postal Service's practices specifically related to Election Mail, and that these measures exceed the present rulemaking's scope and are as such not contemplated by DMM 608.11). The Postal Service therefore declines to adopt this suggested revision.

Some comments recommend the inclusion of language in the DMM stating that IMb scans may serve as proof of mailing. The Postal Service declines to adopt this suggestion, as DMM Section 608.11 already contains an entry on IMb scans. As noted there, IMb scans indicate that a mailpiece was in the Postal Service's possession, but do not constitute evidence of the date when the Postal Service first accepted possession of a mailpiece.

One commenter proposed numerous detailed revisions to DMM Section 608.11. The Postal Service thanks this commenter for their thorough engagement and addresses the commenter's recommendations at length as follows.

Regarding Section 608.11.1, the commenter observes, correctly, that when mail that otherwise would be cancelled on an automated processing machine is unable to be cancelled, it is the Postal Service's practice to apply a manual postmark to such mail at an originating processing facility. The commenter then opines that the proposed definition offered by Section 608.11.1 does not account for this eventuality. Such manual postmarks, however, are typically applied after a mailpiece is rejected by an automated processing machine; and the originally proposed language of Section 608.11.1, which indexes the postmark date to the performance of automated processing operations, does indeed contemplate those rare instances when a mailpiece is in this way rejected (and subsequently hand-stamped).

The commenter also recalls that, as explained by the Proposed Rule, the Postal Service utilizes a “rollover” time on its processing machines to reflect the fact that originating operations for particular mailpieces occur overnight, and hence those operations can cross calendar days. On this basis, the commenter recommends that Section 608.11.1 align the postmark date as applied at processing facilities with “the date on which the mailpiece was inducted into processing.” The Postal Service declines to adopt this revision, for two reasons. First, the phrase “was inducted into processing” may be taken to mean “arrived at a processing facility”; some volume, however, may arrive at a processing facility before midnight, but after that day's cutoff time for processing—a nuance that the proposed revision, if interpreted in this manner, would fail to capture. Second, “inducted into processing” may instead be taken to mean “entered into processing operations”; and such a construction would not account for volume that arrives before the cutoff time for processing operations, and thus receives a postmark aligned with its date of arrival, but is not “inducted into processing” until after midnight. In light of these complexities, the Postal Service has determined that the original proposed language supplies the most comprehensible, succinct, and accurate formulation available to describe postmark dates as applied at processing facilities.

The commenter also observes that some postmarks display location indicators (such as “Metroplex, MI”) that do not strictly correspond to geographical entities, but instead map onto postal processing facilities; accordingly, the commenter recommends that in Section 608.11.1, postmarks be characterized as displaying the “name or location” (rather than just the location) of the facility in which they were applied. This recommendation is well-taken and will be incorporated into the Final Rule.

Finally, the commenter recommends that Section 608.11.1 be broken into shorter sentences. In its original proposed form, Section 608.11.1 aimed to encompass the entire definition of “postmarks” within one sentence in order to emphasize that postmarks are officially defined by Section 608.11.1 in its entirety. The Postal Service acknowledges, however, that simplified syntax would likely make Section 608.11.1 easier to understand, and it is already clear that the entirety of the text in Section 608.11.1, whether expressed as a single sentence or as multiple sentences, constitutes the definition of a “postmark,” just as the Section title implies. We will therefore revise Section 608.11.1 in a manner consistent with the commenter's recommendations in this regard.

Regarding Section 608.11.2, the commenter urges greater specificity in the description of manual postmarks that are applied at processing facilities to non-machinable mail. Namely, in lieu of the phrase, “when a mailpiece that would ordinarily be postmarked on an automated cancellation machine is unable to be canceled,” the commenter suggests language specifying that mail characteristics may impact machinability. The original proposed language, however, captures the circumstance evoked by the commenter—mailpieces may, after all, prove “unable to be cancelled” due to their physical characteristics. The Postal Service therefore declines to adopt the suggested specification.

The commenter also observes that while some Postage Validation Imprint (PVI) labels display the city, state, and ZIP Code of the postal facility at which they are printed, others display only the facility's ZIP Code. On this basis, the commenter disputes the accuracy of DMM Section 608.11.2 as originally proposed, insofar as it represents that PVI labels “indicate . . . the location of the retail unit at which the mailpiece was accepted.” While it is true that some PVI labels feature only the ZIP code of the relevant facility, this fact is not, in the Postal Service's view, inconsistent with the language of Section 608.11.2 as proposed, since ZIP Codes designate location.

Finally, the commenter recommends that Section 608.11.2 state explicitly that local (manual) postmarks may be obtained free of charge. The Postal Service agrees that a reminder of this postal policy would be helpful and will therefore make conforming changes to Section 608.11.2. The phrase “first accepts possession” occurs regularly in the Proposed Rule, including throughout the proposed DMM Section. The commenter criticizes this phrase on two grounds: that the qualifier “first” is redundant (since in nearly every conceivable instance, the Postal Service accepts possession of a mailpiece only once); and that the phrase as a whole is supposedly inaccurate (in that the Postal Service does not in fact “accept possession” of mailpieces, but rather “takes possession” of them, often in an allegedly passive manner). For these reasons, the commenter suggests replacing the phrase “first accepts possession,” with the phrase “first possesses.” On the first count, the phrase “first accepts possession” has the merit of accentuating that there is a point in time when the Postal Service (through its employees) has taken custody of a mailpiece through some affirmative action—collecting the mail from a residence or a collection box, accepting a mailpiece tendered to a retail employee by a customer, etc. On the second count, the difference between “first accepting possession,” “first taking possession,” and “first possessing” is less than fully clear; if, as the commenter hints, the latter formulation implies a certain measure of passivity in how the Postal Service takes possession of the mail, its premise is inaccurate. The Postal Service, acting through its employees, actively takes possession of mailpieces tendered by mailers. Indeed, the notion of accepting possession more precisely renders the transactional nexus between the Postal Service and its customers, since custody of a mailpiece cannot properly be transferred unless it is both voluntarily offered and affirmatively received. For these reasons, DMM 608.11 will retain the phrase, “first accepts possession.”

After evaluating the comments, the Postal Service is adopting the new DMM Section 608.11. The final text of DMM Section 608.11 incorporates the revisions noted above. The Postal Service will also, on its own initiative, make two amendments concerning manual (local) postmarks obtained at retail locations. First, the phrase “Manual (local) postmarks are available, upon a customer's request . . . ,” in Section 608.11.2, is changed to “Manual (local) postmarks are applied to a mailpiece, upon a customer's request. . . .” Second, Section 608.11.4 includes the following reminder of the 50 mailpiece limit for manual (local) postmarks: “Customers planning to present significant mail volume—50 or more mailpieces—for (local) postmarks should contact the postmaster or other manager in advance to ensure that adequate resources are available.”

The Postal Service adopts the described changes to Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations. We will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect these changes.

Accordingly, the Postal Service amends Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations as follows (see 39 CFR 111.1):