The FRTIB administers the TSP, which was established by the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986 (FERSA), Public Law 99-335, 100 Stat. 514. The TSP is a retirement savings plan for Federal civilian employees and members of the uniformed services. It is similar to cash or deferred arrangements established for private-sector employees under section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 401(k)). The provisions of FERSA that govern the TSP are codified, as amended, largely at 5 U.S.C. 8351 and 8401-80.

A Roth in-plan conversion allows a TSP participant to move funds from a traditional (pre-tax and tax-exempt) balance to a Roth (after-tax) balance within the TSP. This conversion triggers taxation on the converted amount but offers the potential for tax-free withdrawals in retirement. Since Roth TSP contributions were introduced in 2012, participants have expressed interest in converting traditional balances to Roth balances within the plan. The 2024 TSP Participant Satisfaction Survey asked participants about their interest in a Roth in-plan conversion feature. Thirty-five percent of respondents who were familiar with Roth contributions replied that they are “likely” or “extremely likely” to use an in-plan conversion feature if offered in the TSP. In response, the FRTIB collaborated with its record keeper to enable these conversions, which require a regulatory amendment.

On October 15, 2025, the FRTIB published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (90 FR 48267) to amend 5 CFR part 1650 by adding Subpart F. This new subpart establishes rules for Roth in-plan conversions in the TSP.

The FRTIB received comments from 36 individuals and entities in response to the proposed rule regarding Roth in-plan conversions within the TSP. Overall, commenters supported adding this feature, noting its potential to increase flexibility in retirement planning for TSP participants. To organize our response, we have grouped the comments into four general categories:

• In-scope comments addressing the substance of the proposed rule;

• Out-of-scope comments about topics beyond the scope of this rulemaking;

• Comments related to tax liability implications; and

• Miscellaneous comments that did not fit neatly into the other categories.

Before addressing the public comments, we will respond to two rulemaking petitions received during the comment period. The petitioners alleged procedural deficiencies under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Specifically, the petitioners claimed the rule would negatively impact small entities and that the FRTIB failed to comply with requirements under these Acts to assess such impacts.

Upon review, we find the petitioners' concerns to be unfounded. The rule applies exclusively to TSP participants and does not impose any obligations on other entities, including other defined contribution plans. Additionally, the petition reflects a misunderstanding of the rule's origin, incorrectly attributing its issuance to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rather than the FRTIB. Accordingly, the FRTIB denies the petitions. We find no procedural deficiencies in the rulemaking process.

Two commenters recommended that the final rule specify the number of Roth conversions permitted annually, rather than leaving this determination to the discretion of the TSP record keeper. The FRTIB agrees with this recommendation and has revised the regulatory text to allow participants to request up to a maximum of 26 conversions per calendar year. This limit aligns with the biweekly pay schedule used by many federal payroll offices and provides participants with regular opportunities to manage their retirement savings strategy. Participants may make multiple conversions within a single pay period; the rule does not restrict them to one conversion per pay period.

One commenter asked for clarification regarding who may request a Roth in-plan conversion. A conversion may be requested by “a participant or a beneficiary participant.” This includes active participants, separated participants who maintain TSP accounts after leaving federal service, and surviving spouses of deceased participants for whom a separate beneficiary participant account has been established. Non-spouse beneficiaries or alternate payees are not eligible to request Roth in-plan conversions.

One commenter recommended that the rule permit Roth conversions of tax-exempt balances, such as contributions made from combat zone pay, in addition to pre-tax balances. The term “traditional balance”, as defined in the 5 CFR 1690.1, encompasses both tax-exempt balances and pre-tax balances. Accordingly, the FRTIB confirms that the final rule authorizes conversions of both tax-exempt balances and pre-tax balances. These conversions must comply with IRS pro rata requirements, which mandate that any Roth conversion proportionally include tax-exempt and pre-tax amounts based on their ratio of the total traditional balance.

One commenter recommended elimination of the $500 minimum for Roth in-plan conversions “[t]o facilitate immediate or automatic conversions.” The FRTIB established the $500 minimum to discourage small, frequent conversions that could increase administrative complexity and costs, and to promote operational efficiency. A minimum threshold ensures that conversions are substantive and mitigates potential burdens on the TSP's recordkeeping system. The $500 amount was selected as a reasonable balance between flexibility for participants and operational considerations for the TSP record keeper. Accordingly, the final rule retains the $500 conversion minimum.

Four commenters objected to the provision requiring participants to retain $500 in each balance type with payroll contributions. This requirement is designed to mitigate the impact of payroll errors and corrections, which are typically small and often under $500. For example, if a payroll office mistakenly deposits funds into the wrong balance, having a buffer in place ensures that those errors can be easily corrected without creating negative balances or operational complications. Accordingly, the final rule retains the requirement that participants keep at least $500 in each of their tax-deferred employee contribution, tax-exempt contribution, agency automatic (1%) contribution, and agency matching contribution balances when requesting a Roth conversion.

Two commenters suggested implementing a tool that would automatically convert traditional balances to Roth balances once the traditional balance reaches a certain threshold amount. While the FRTIB understands the appeal of automation, Roth in-plan conversions carry significant tax implications. To ensure participants make informed and deliberate decisions, the FRTIB will not implement automatic conversions.

Several comments offered valuable perspectives on TSP participant preferences and concerns. Although these suggestions are beyond scope of this rulemaking, the FRTIB will consider them as part of its ongoing evaluation of TSP features and efforts to address participant needs.

Fifteen commenters requested the ability to allocate Roth and traditional balances to different TSP funds. While the FRTIB understands the rationale for these requests in light of common financial planning strategies, implementing such functionality would require extensive modifications to the TSP's recordkeeping and investment systems. These changes would involve significant programming, testing, and operational adjustments, resulting in increased complexity and costs for all participants. Because these modifications are beyond the scope of this rulemaking, they are not addressed in the final regulation.

Similarly, one commenter expressed concern that investment allocations are shown for traditional and Roth balances in the aggregate and not as separate balances, on participant statements and My Account, and therefore participants are prevented from determining the allocation of specific fund holdings of those balances. The TSP's investment and recordkeeping systems are designed to apply a single investment allocation across the entirety of a participant's account regardless of tax treatment. Allowing separate allocations for traditional and Roth balances would require fundamental changes to these systems and are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. However, participants can easily determine the allocation themselves since the system applies allocations proportionally across all balances.

Four commenters suggested allowing agency automatic and matching contributions to be designated as Roth contributions, as permitted under section 604 of the SECURE Act 2.0. While the FRTIB recognizes the reasoning behind these requests, this rulemaking is narrowly focused on permitting participants to convert existing traditional balances to Roth balances. The FRTIB will consider this suggestion as a potential future enhancement.

One commenter suggested allowing participants to choose which TSP funds their withdrawals come from, rather than having withdrawals applied proportionally across all funds. This issue pertains to the broader withdrawal mechanics of the TSP and is, therefore, outside the scope of this rulemaking.

Eight commenters recommended permitting voluntary after-tax contributions in addition to Roth and traditional contributions. The TSP is governed by FERSA, which only authorizes Roth and traditional contributions. Implementing voluntary after-tax contributions would require an amendment to FERSA by Congress. Because this statutory authority does not currently exist and this topic is beyond the scope of this rulemaking, the final regulation does not address this request.

Several commenters made suggestions related to the tax implications of Roth in-plan conversions, which we address below. The FRTIB does not have authority to alter the tax consequences of Roth in-plan conversions or to determine the methods available for paying tax obligations. These tax implications are governed by section 402A of the Internal Revenue Code. Such matters fall under the jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service and cannot be addressed through FRTIB regulations. However, the FRTIB recognizes the importance of providing clear communication to help participants understand the tax consequences of their decisions.

Commenters emphasized the need for clear guidance on the tax consequences of converting traditional TSP balances to Roth and the ways in which participants can pay for the income tax due as a result of the conversion. The FRTIB agrees that education is essential and is actively developing participant communications to explain the tax implications, including that converted amounts are subject to federal income tax and must be paid using personal funds from another source, such as a savings account. These materials will be made available on the TSP website and through other participant outreach channels.

Commenters requested tools to help participants estimate their federal, state, and local tax liabilities resulting from conversions. The FRTIB is developing a calculator that will allow participants to model the estimated tax effect of their conversions. This tool will be available prior to the implementation of the Roth in-plan conversion feature.

Three commenters suggested that the final rule permit withholding or specify the withholding rates for taxable converted amounts. The FRTIB cannot adopt these suggestions because, under IRS guidance, no withholding applies to a Roth in-plan conversion of an otherwise nondistributable amount, and no part of the conversion may be withheld voluntarily pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 3402(p). Therefore, participants must use personal funds from another source, such as a savings account, to satisfy their tax obligations.

Several commenters raised questions and suggestions that fall into a miscellaneous category. These comments touched on operational clarity, participant communications, and procedural transparency. In response, the FRTIB has adopted one commenter's suggestion and offers the following clarifications.

Commenters stated the rule should require the TSP record keeper to provide participants with clear written notice of the tax consequences of a Roth in-plan conversion, and that participants acknowledge receipt of such notice before the conversion is executed. The FRTIB agrees that participant education is essential. Accordingly, the TSP will provide comprehensive communications, including web content, notices, and interactive tools explaining the tax implications of conversions. We will also require participants to acknowledge receipt and understanding of such communications prior to completing a Roth in-plan conversion.

While the FRTIB agrees that providing clear information about the tax consequences of Roth conversions is essential, we do not believe it is appropriate to include this requirement in the regulatory text because section 402(f) of the Internal Revenue Code and IRS regulations already govern the obligation of retirement plans to provide notice to plan participants of tax consequences of certain transactions. The FRTIB will ensure compliance with section 402(f) of the Internal Revenue Code and related IRS guidance.

One commenter recommended requiring the TSP record keeper to (1) provide a written explanation when a conversion request is denied, (2) identify the corrective actions needed, and (3) set a clear timeline and procedure for appeals. The FRTIB has adopted this recommendation in part. Newly added paragraph (g) requires the TSP record keeper to promptly notify the requestor if their Roth in-plan conversion request is denied. However, the rule does not prescribe the format of the notice, allowing flexibility as transaction methods evolve. Initially, conversions will be processed online only. Notice of ineligibility for a Roth in-plan conversion will be prominently displayed, in real time, on the screen. To determine corrective actions needed, participants may be required to call the ThriftLine. The timeline and procedure for appeals are set forth in 5 CFR 1605.22.

A commenter asked whether Roth conversions can be processed in years in which participants are subject to RMDs. The FRTIB clarifies that conversions may occur in such years; however, the RMD must be satisfied in full before any conversion is processed. This ensures compliance with IRS rules prohibiting the conversion of RMD amounts.

A commenter suggested FRTIB regulations should state whether converted Roth balances retain their Roth character for purposes of rollovers requested after conversion. Rules that determine tax treatment of distributions after conversion are established under the Internal Revenue Code and enforced by the IRS. Because these requirements fall under IRS authority, they are not incorporated into FRTIB regulations.

The final rule adds a definition of the term Roth in-plan conversion. The definition references 26 U.S.C. 402A(c)(4) to ensure consistency with the Internal Revenue Code, which governs the tax treatment of such conversions. By directly incorporating the statutory reference, the regulation avoids ambiguity and reduces the risk of conflicting interpretations.

The final rule also replaces all instances of the term “Roth initiation date” in 5 CFR part 1600 with the term “Roth begin date” to align with terminology now used in communications and educational materials provided to TSP participants.

This final regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulation will affect Federal employees and members of the uniformed services who participate in the TSP and who choose to convert their traditional balance to a Roth balance within the TSP.

This final regulation does not require additional reporting under the criteria of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 602, 632, 653, and 1501-1571, the effects of this regulation on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector have been assessed. This regulation will not compel the expenditure in any one year of $100 million or more by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. Therefore, a statement under 2 U.S.C. 1532 is not required.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), the FRTIB submitted a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Government Accountability Office before publication of this rule in the Federal Register . This rule is not a major rule as defined at 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the FRTIB amends 5 CFR parts 1605, 1650, and 1690 as follows:

The FAA published a final rule for Docket No. FAA-2025-0632 in the Federal Register (90 FR 56682; December 8, 2025), establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Zuni, NM. After publication, the FAA found that an incorrect region was used in the header. This action corrects the error, which listed the region as AWP (Western Pacific). The correct region is ASW (Southwest). The dimensions of the airspace remain unchanged.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Docket No. FAA-2025-0632 published in the Federal Register on December 8, 2025 (90 FR 56682), FR Doc. 2025-22145, is corrected as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the National Airspace System as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic.

The FAA published a NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2025-0277 in the Federal Register (90 FR 9884; February 19, 2025), proposing to amend Jet Route J-146 and establish RNAV Route Q-186 due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Chardon, OH, VOR/DME NAVAID. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

Subsequent to publishing the NPRM, the FAA coordinated with NAV CANADA, the air traffic service provider in Canada, for the FAA to only establish the portions of the proposed Q-186 that are within U.S. airspace and NAV CANADA to establish the portion of Q-186 that is within Canada's airspace. To accomplish that, two waypoints (WPs) are being established, named STUNK and FOODO, on the U.S./Canada border where the proposed Q-186 crosses. These two WPs will retain the route's cross-border connectivity following the removal of the J-146 route segment affected by the Chardon VOR decommissioning. This action is changed from the NPRM proposal to establish two segments of Q-186 within U.S. airspace to connect to a third segment of Q-186 that NAV CANADA is establishing within Canada's airspace. Collectively, the segments of Q-186 established within U.S. and Canadian airspace will match the route as it was proposed in the NPRM.

Jet Routes are published in paragraph 2004 and United States Area Navigation Routes (Q-routes) are published in paragraph 2006 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11K, dated August 4, 2025, and effective September 15, 2025. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11K, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending Jet Route J-146 and establishing United States RNAV Route Q-186 segments within U.S. airspace due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Chardon, OH, VOR/DME NAVAID. The Air Traffic Service route actions are described below.

J-146: Prior to this final rule, J-146 extended between the Los Angeles, CA, VOR/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) and the Kennedy, NY, VOR/DME, excluding the portion within Canada. The route segment between the Gipper, MI, VORTAC and the Keating, PA, VORTAC is removed. The exclusion language is also removed. As amended, the airway is changed to now extend between the Los Angeles VORTAC and the Gipper VORTAC, and between the Keating VORTAC and the Kennedy VOR/DME.

Q-186: Q-186 is a new United States RNAV route established to extend between the ZIINE, MI, WP located approximately 0.5 nautical mile (NM) east of the Gipper, MI, VORTAC and the STUNK, OH, WP being established on the U.S./Canada border; and between the FOODO, OH, WP that is also being established on the U.S./Canada border and the SCAAM, PA, WP being established approximately 8 NM east of the Keating, PA, VORTAC. The new route segments, when connected with the segment being established by NAV CANADA in Canadian airspace, will provide an RNAV alternative to the J-146 amendment above.

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

The FAA has determined that this action of amending J-146 and establishing Q-186 qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq. ) and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1G, FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures , paragraph B-2.5(a), which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points ( see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points) and paragraph B-2.5(i), which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review the establishment of new or revised air traffic control procedures conducted at 3,000 feet or more above ground level (AGL); procedures conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not cause traffic to be routinely routed over noise sensitive areas; modifications to currently approved procedures conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not significantly increase noise over noise sensitive areas; and increases in minimum altitudes and landing minima. As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with the FAA's NEPA implementation policy and procedures regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

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

The regulations at 15 CFR part 0 govern the responsibilities and conduct of the Department's employees. Such regulations are generally authorized by 5 U.S.C. 301, which provides that “[t]he head of an Executive department . . . may prescribe regulations for the government of his department, the conduct of its employees, the distribution and performance of its business, and the custody, use, and preservation of its records, papers, and property.”

The Department first established a comprehensive framework for employee conduct in a final rule published on November 2, 1967 (32 FR 15222). That rule was issued to conform the Department's policies with government-wide standards prescribed in Executive Order 11222 of May 8, 1965, and regulations issued by the Civil Service Commission, now codified at 5 CFR part 735. The 1967 rule aimed to address ethical and administrative challenges inherent to the Department's functions by setting forth specific policies and procedures for employee conduct. Key provisions included establishing standards to prevent conflicts of interest, or the appearance of such conflicts, and implementing a requirement for certain employees to submit statements of their outside employment and financial interests. The 1967 rule also established an administrative structure for enforcement, outlining the responsibilities of individual employees, supervisors, and the Department's operating units in upholding these ethical standards.

Over time, the Executive branch developed more centralized, government-wide ethics regulations. Following the passage of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, the Office of Government Ethics (“OGE”) promulgated comprehensive regulations governing financial disclosure and standards of ethical conduct, codified at 5 CFR parts 2634 and 2635, respectively. In a final rule published on May 9, 2003 (68 FR 24879), the Department amended its regulations to remove its own internal conduct provisions that were rendered obsolete by, or were duplicative of, the new OGE regulations. The 2003 amendment removed and reserved several subparts and sections of 15 CFR part 0 and revised § 0.735-2 to direct employees to the controlling Executive branch-wide standards.

In a final rule published on August 11, 2006 (71 FR 46073), the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) updated certain regulations governing the responsibilities and conduct of all Executive branch employees, codified at 5 CFR part 735. And, in a final rule published on June 25, 2008 (73 FR 36186), OGE issued regulations governing post-employment conflict of interest violations by former Executive branch employees, codified at 5 CFR part 2641.

Part 0 currently consists of five subparts: Subpart A, Subpart D, Subpart F, Subpart G, and Subpart H. (Subparts B, C, and E are currently reserved.)

Subpart A contains the “General Provisions” for Part 0. Specifically, it addresses the purpose of Part 0, see 15 CFR 0.735-1; it cross-references some of the applicable Executive branch-wide regulations governing employee responsibilities and conduct, see 15 CFR 0.735-2; it clarifies the applicability of Part 0 to all persons included within the term “employee,” see 15 CFR 0.735-3; and it sets forth various definitions (including for the term “employee”), see 15 CFR 0.735-4.

Subpart D sets forth regulatory limitations upon employee conduct. In particular, it discusses, in broad terms, the applicability of certain statutory limitations, see 15 CFR 0.735-10; it addresses the issue of employee indebtedness, see 15 CFR 0.735-16; it sets forth certain restrictions on activities related to gambling, see 15 CFR 0.735-17; it restricts certain general categories of conduct that are prejudicial to the government, see 15 CFR 0.735-18; and it requires each employee to report any use or attempted use of undue influence, see 15 CFR 0.735-19.

Subpart F sets forth rules government supplementary regulations related to employee conduct. Specifically, it acknowledges that the Assistant Secretary for Administration and each individual operating unit may set forth additional regulations related to employee conduct. See 15 CFR 0.735-32, 0.735-33. It also sets forth a rule regarding the effective date of any supplementary regulations. See 15 CFR 0.735-34.

Subpart G is titled “Administration.” It identifies the responsibilities of employees and of operating units within the Department. See 15 CFR 0.735-35, 0.735-36. It also sets forth requirements related to (i) the review of statements of employment and financial statements, see 15 CFR 0.735-37; (ii) the availability of employee counseling, see 15 CFR 0.735-38; (iii) authorizations for certain conduct, see 15 CFR 0.735-39; (iv) disciplinary and remedial actions, see 15 CFR 0.735-40; and (v) inquiries and exceptions, see 15 CFR 0.735-41.

Lastly, Subpart H sets forth the rules governing disciplinary actions for post-employment conflict of interest violations. Specifically, it contains regulatory provisions (i) explaining its scope, see 15 CFR 0.735-42; (ii) requiring all employees to report any known conflict of interest violations by former employees, see 15 CFR 0.735-43(a); (iii) setting forth administrative procedures for the various stages of disciplinary actions, see 15 CFR 0.735-43(b)-(d), 0.735-44, 0.735-45, 0.735-46, 0.735-47, 0.735-48, 0.735-49; and (iv) acknowledging the availability of judicial review, see 15 CFR 0.735-50.

By this rule, the Department is eliminating 15 CFR part 0 in its entirety for the following reasons.

As an initial matter, none of the regulatory provisions within Part 0 is specifically required by statute. The lack of a specific statutory mandate, by itself, suffices to warrant reconsideration of Part 0, as the Department is committed to ensuring that its regulations do not exceed the scope of its lawful authority.

And, upon careful reconsideration, the Department has determined that the regulatory provisions at Part 0 are not justified by any compelling interest. As discussed above, since the Department first established a regulatory framework governing employee conduct, numerous Executive branch-wide regulations governing employee conduct have been promulgated by OMB and OGE. See, e.g., 5 CFR part 735 (“Employee Responsibilities and Conduct”), 5 CFR part 2634 (“Executive Branch Financial Disclosure, Qualified Trusts, and Certificates of Divestiture”), 5 CFR part 2635 (“Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch”), 5 CFR part 2641 (“Post-Employment Conflict of Interest Restrictions”). The Department has also since issued numerous DAOs related to employee conduct. See, e.g., DAO 202-250 (“Delegation of Authority for Human Resources Management”); DAO 202-299 (“Clearance of Separating Employees”); DAO 202-751 (“Discipline”); DAO 203-9 (“Gifts”). The Department is satisfied that these Executive branch-wide regulations, their underlying statutory authorities, and the Department's numerous DAOs adequately address employee conduct and render Part 0 substantially obsolete. But even apart from those other authorities, certain provisions within Part 0 are obsolete by themselves. For example, § 0.735-4(a)(1)(i) references the Environmental Science Services Administration—an agency that ceased to exist back in 1970. And certain other provisions within Part 0 simply restate underlying statutory law, such as § 0.735-50 (with respect to availability of judicial review).

Furthermore, the continued maintenance of Part 0 inevitably poses some risk of distracting from—and causing confusion about the application of—the Executive branch-wide regulations on employee conduct, as well as the related statutory requirements and restrictions.

Overall, eliminating Part 0 would simplify both the Department's own regulations and the broader body of regulations and authorities pertaining to the conduct of Executive branch employees, and the Department is satisfied that the value of proceeding with this elimination outweighs the value currently added by Part 0.

The Department issues this final rule without prior public notice and comment pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act's exception for rules “relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts.” 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2). This rule falls into that exception, as all of the affected regulatory provisions pertain to agency management and/or personnel.

The Office of Management and Budget has determined this rule is not significant pursuant to E.O. 12866. This rule is an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action. This rule does not contain policies having federalism implications as the term is defined in E.O. 13132.

Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public participation are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required, and none has been prepared.

This rule will not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

The Department of Commerce (the Department) is amending its regulations at 15 CFR part 1, which establish and govern its official seal, by removing two unnecessary regulations—§§ 1.1 and 1.3.

The regulations in 15 CFR part 1 govern the description, design, and use of the official seal of the Department. The authority for these regulations originates from the Act of February 14, 1903 (32 Stat. 825, as amended; 15 U.S.C. 1501), which established the Department and directed the Secretary of Commerce to create a seal of office, subject to Presidential approval. The design for the seal was subsequently approved by the President on April 4, 1913. The current regulations were published as a final rule in the Federal Register of June 26, 1968 (33 FR 9337), to codify existing standards and formally delegate the authority to affix the seal to official documents.

Section 1.1 states that the purpose of the part is to describe the seal and to delegate authority for its use on certifications and other official documents. Section 1.2 describes the historical basis and design of the seal, including its core components: a ship symbolizing commerce, a lighthouse representing commercial enlightenment and guidance, and an American bald eagle as the crest to denote the national scope of the Department's activities. Section 1.3 delegates the Secretary's authority to affix the seal for official purposes, including certifications under 28 U.S.C. 1733(b). This authority is granted to the Chief Administrative Officer of each operating unit and the Director of the Office of Administrative Services, with a provision allowing the Assistant Secretary for Administration to make further delegations.

Following a review of these regulations, the Department is removing §§ 1.1 and 1.3 for the reasons discussed below.

This rule removes §§ 1.1 and 1.3 from 15 CFR part 1. The Department has determined that these regulations, which state the purpose of part 1 and delegate the authority to affix the Department's seal, are not necessary and do not provide any significant value to the public. Their removal represents a commonsense effort to streamline the Department's regulations and eliminate rules that provide no substantive guidance or requirements for the public.

As noted, § 1.3 delegates the authority to affix the seal to certain departmental officers and thus is a matter of internal agency administration. However, such delegations are elsewhere documented in Department Organization Orders 10-5 and 20-1 and Department Administrative Order 201-1. There is no compelling reason for these delegations to also be documented in the Code of Federal Regulations. Removing this section aligns the Department's practices with modern standards of administrative governance by separating internal management procedures from public-facing substantive regulations.

Section 1.1, meanwhile, serves as only a statement of the purpose of part 1. With the elimination of § 1.3, the Department has determined that § 1.1 is fit for elimination as well, since the purpose and contents of § 1.2—the only other section of part 1—are sufficiently clear based on the language of § 1.2 by itself.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), the provisions of the APA requiring notice of proposed rulemaking and the opportunity for public participation are inapplicable to this rule because it relates to “agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts.” This rule modifies 15 CFR part 1, which is related to the Department's management of its official seal and the authority among agency personnel to affix the seal to official documents, and thus falls within the scope of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2).

The Office of Management and Budget has determined this rule is not significant pursuant to E.O. 12866. This rule is an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action. This rule does not contain policies having federalism implications as the term is defined in E.O. 13132.

Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public participation are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required, and none has been prepared.

This rule will not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, part 1 of title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

The Department is amending its regulations at 15 CFR part 2, which govern the handling and settlement of FTCA claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2671-2680, as amended by Public Law 89-506, 80 Stat. 306. Specifically, the Department is amending Part 2 by updating the references to the “Assistant General Counsel for Finance and Litigation” in §§ 2.4(b), 2.5(a), and 2.5(b), and by removing §§ 2.2, 2.3(c), 2.4(c), 2.5(d), and 2.7. The updates will promote accuracy and clarity, and the removals will reduce regulatory complexity and clutter by eliminating language that is redundant, inconsequential, and/or otherwise unwarranted. The removals will also ensure proper conformity and alignment with underlying statutory text by removing regulatory elaboration that is neither clearly required nor clearly authorized by such text. The Department is making these revisions to clarify and simplify the regulatory requirements and processes set forth in Part 2, and to ensure that such requirements and processes are both statutorily proper and efficient.

The Department is amending its regulations at 15 CFR part 2, which pertain to the handling and settlement of claims under the FTCA. The FTCA grants private parties the ability to bring suit and seek compensation for torts committed by federal employees acting with the scope of their employment. As relevant, 28 U.S.C. 2672 provides that “[t]he head of each Federal agency or his designee, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Attorney General, may consider, ascertain, adjust, determine, compromise, and settle any claim for money damages against the United States for injury or loss of property or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the agency while acting within the scope of his office or employment.” Consistent with 28 U.S.C. 2672, the regulations at 15 CFR part 2 establish the Department's framework for the delegation of authority to settle or deny such claims and the procedures for the administrative adjudication of such claims. See 15 CFR 2.1(a).

The Department originally established the procedures in this Part 2 through a final rule published on March 7, 1967 (32 FR 3769). That rule was promulgated to implement the FTCA, as amended by Public Law 89-506, which required claimants to present a claim to the appropriate Federal agency for administrative adjudication before filing suit in court. The original 1967 rule delegated the authority to settle or deny FTCA claims to specific Department officials and required that all procedures be guided by the comprehensive regulations issued by the Attorney General, found at 28 CFR part 14.

The Department has amended its FTCA regulations twice since their original promulgation. On July 11, 1983, the Department published a final rule (48 FR 31636) that revised the regulations to reflect an organizational change, transferring the primary responsibility for handling FTCA claims from the Assistant Secretary for Administration to the General Counsel. Thereafter, in a final rule published on June 2, 1998 (63 FR 29945), the Department amended the procedures again to conform with contemporary practice, organizational shifts, and statutory changes. The 1998 amendment transferred procedural responsibilities to the Assistant General Counsel for Finance and Litigation, removed several outdated provisions including a departmental requirement for an annual report, and updated the regulations to be consistent with amendments to the FTCA made by Public Law 100-694, which expanded the personal immunity of federal employees acting within the scope of their employment.

Part 2 consists of seven regulatory sections: §§ 2.1-2.7.

Section 2.1 states the purpose of Part 2 as being “to delegate authority to settle or deny claims under the [FTCA], and to establish procedures for the administrative adjudication of such claims accruing on or after January 18, 1967.” 15 CFR 2.1(a).

Section 2.2 identifies and summarizes applicable provisions of law and other regulations thereunder. Specifically, paragraph (a) consists of quoted language from 28 U.S.C. 2672; paragraph (b) consists of quoted language from 28 U.S.C. 2675(a); paragraph (c) summarizes 28 U.S.C. 2678; paragraph (d) consists of quoted language from 28 U.S.C. 2401(b); and paragraph (e) explains that the Attorney General has issued regulations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2672 at 28 CFR part 14. 15 CFR 2.2(a)-(e).

Section 2.3 pertains to the delegation of authority. Paragraph (a) provides that “[t]he General Counsel is hereby named as the designee of the Secretary of Commerce with respect to tort claims filed under section 2672 of Title 28, U.S. Code, as described in § 2.2, with authority to act on such claims as provided in said section 2672, including denial thereof.” 15 CFR 2.3(a). Paragraph (b) provides that “[a]uthority delegated under this section may, with the approval of the General Counsel, be redelegated to other designees.” 15 CFR 2.3(b). And paragraph (c) states that “[s]ettlement or denial of any claim under this part is final for the Department of Commerce.” 15 CFR 2.3(c).

Section 2.4 pertains to the procedure for filing claims. Paragraph (a) states that such procedure shall be pursuant to §§ 14.2, 14.3, and 14.4 of the regulations set forth by the Attorney General at 28 CFR part 14. 15 CFR 2.4(a). Paragraph (b) states that claims shall be filed with the Department's Assistant General Counsel for Finance and Litigation, and that any claims filed elsewhere in the Department “shall immediately be recorded and transmitted to the Assistant General Counsel for Finance and Litigation.” 15 CFR 2.4(b)-(c).

Section 2.5 establishes administrative procedures for the adjudication and settlement of claims. In particular, it sets forth certain procedures for the Assistant General Counsel for Finance and Litigation to follow, see 15 CFR 2.5(a)-(c), and it states that “[d]esignees hereunder are responsible for the control over and expeditious handling of claims, bearing in mind the applicable statutory time limitations for adjudications of claims,” 15 CFR 2.5(d).

Section 2.6 pertains to the payment of claims. It provides that “[w]hen an award is made, the file on the case shall be transmitted to the appropriate fiscal office for payment by the Department or for transmittal for payment as prescribed by § 14.10” of the Attorney General's regulations at 28 CFR part 14. 15 CFR 2.6. Section 2.6 further provides that “[p]rior to payment[,] appropriate releases shall be obtained, as provided in said section.” Id.

Lastly, § 2.7 pertains to the issuance of supplementary regulations. Paragraph (a) provides that “[t]he Assistant General Assistant General Counsel for Finance and Litigation may from time to time issue such supplementary regulations or instructions as he/she deems appropriate to carry out the purpose of this part.” 15 CFR 2.7(a). And paragraph (b) provides that designees may issue regulations or instructions with the approval of the Assistant General Counsel for Finance and Litigation. 15 CFR 2.7(b).

The Department is amending its regulations pertaining to the administrative handling and settlement of claims under the FTCA, located at 15 CFR part 2. The Department is amending said regulations to update the outdated references to the “Assistant General Counsel for Finance and Litigation,” and to remove several provisions that are redundant, statutorily unnecessary, and/or otherwise unwarranted. The Department is making these amendments to reduce regulatory complexity and to promote accuracy, clarity, statutory conformity, and efficiency. The provisions being updated are §§ 2.4(b), 2.5(a), and 2.5(b), and the provisions being removed are §§ 2.2, 2.3(c), 2.4(c), 2.5(d), and 2.7. The reasoning for each of these amendments is explained below.

First, the Department is updating the references in Part 2 to the “Assistant General Counsel for Finance and Litigation,” see 15 CFR 2.4(b), 2.5(a)-(b), as that position does not currently exist within the Department. Instead, the appropriate official is now the Assistant General Counsel for Employment, Litigation and Information. The Department is amending Part 2 accordingly, to ensure that its regulations are accurate and up-to-date.

Next, the Department is removing certain provisions that restate other authorities and lack a sufficient, independent justification. Section 2.2, for instance, provides a redundant overview certain sections of the FTCA and regulations issued thereunder at 28 CFR part 14. 15 CFR 2.2(a)-(e). While it is of course helpful to include in Part 2 some reference to those related and applicable authorities, §§ 2.1, 2.3(a), and 2.4(a) already refer to such authorities. See 15 CFR 2.1, 2.3(a), 2.4(a). The Department is satisfied that §§ 2.1, 2.3(a), and 2.4(a) provide readers with adequate notice of the FTCA and 28 CFR part 1, and it is the Department's policy to encourage readers to consult other authorities directly. In particular, reprinting provisions of the FTCA in the Code of Federal Regulations serves no practical purpose, as those statutory provisions are legally binding on their own and are readily accessible to the public. By simply reprinting statutory language in the Code of Federal Regulations, agencies risk issuing regulations that may become outdated or inconsistent if Congress amends the underlying statute. The Department therefore considers § 2.2 to be redundant and unwarranted.

The Department considers § 2.3(c) to also be redundant and unwarranted. That provision states that a “settlement or denial of any claim under this part is final for the Department of Commerce.” 15 CFR 2.3(c). This language is duplicative of 28 U.S.C. 2672, which provides that “any . . . determination” on a claim for money damages against the United States under the FTCA “shall be final and conclusive on all officers of the Government, except when procured by means of fraud.” Because § 2.3(c) does not add any new substantive dimension beyond what 28 U.S.C. 2672 conveys, the Department considers § 2.3(c) to be unnecessary, a potential source of confusion, and appropriate for removal.

Next, the Department is removing § 2.7, which authorizes the Assistant General Counsel and other designees to issue their own supplementary regulations and instructions. As a legal matter, the text of the FTCA does not clearly require or authorize such a provision; the absence of a statutory mandate, alone, warrants reconsideration under the Department's broader deregulatory effort. As a matter of policy, the Department is of the view that § 2.7 creates a risk of fragmented and inconsistent regulations and internal directives. Given these considerations, the Department has determined that § 2.7 should be removed.

Lastly, the Department is removing two relatively minor and unnecessary provisions for the purpose of streamlining Part 2. Section 2.4(c) provides that, “[i]f a claim is filed elsewhere in the Department,” meaning not with the appropriate Assistant General Counsel, “[the claim] shall be immediately recorded and transmitted” to that Assistant General Counsel. 15 CFR 2.4(c). Similarly, § 2.5(d) states that “[d]esignees hereunder are responsible for the control over and expeditious handling of claims, bearing in mind the applicable statutory time limitations for adjudications of claims.” 15 CFR 2.5(d). Both of these provisions concern internal administrative requirements and expectations; neither is necessary or especially helpful to include in Part 2 for the public. The Department has accordingly determined that both §§ 2.4(c) and 2.5(d) are appropriate for removal.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Department finds good cause to waive the prior notice and opportunity for public participation requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act for this final rule. The Department considers this rule to be uncontroversial, and has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public participation is unnecessary, because this rule only updates outdated references and removes language that is redundant, not clearly required or authorized by statute, inconsequential, and/or otherwise unwarranted; public participation would not justify the continued inclusion of any of the affected language in 15 CFR part 2. For the same reasons, the Department has determined that delaying the effectiveness of these amendments would be contrary to the public interest. The language being removed by this rule contributes to regulatory complexity, poses a risk of confusion, and exceeds the bounds of what is clearly required or authorized by the underlying statute; its removal will immediately benefit the public at little to no cost. The Department therefore finds good cause to waive the public notice and comment period under 553(b)(B) and to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness under 553(d).

The Office of Management and Budget has determined this rule [is not] significant pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. This rule is an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action. This rule does not contain policies having federalism implications as the term is defined in E.O. 13132.

Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public participation are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required, and none has been prepared.

This rule will not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, part 2 of title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

The Department of Commerce (the Department) is amending the regulations at 15 CFR part 9, “Procedures for a Voluntary Labeling Program for Household Appliances and Equipment to Effect Energy Conservation,” by removing part 9 in its entirety. These regulations establish the procedures for a voluntary program designed to provide consumers with energy consumption and efficiency information for household appliances; however, that program has been superseded by the comprehensive, mandatory EnergyGuide labeling program administered by the Department of Energy and the Federal Trade Commission.

The Department of Commerce established the voluntary labeling program in a final rule published in the Federal Register on October 26, 1973 (38 FR 29574). The program was created in response to President Richard Nixon's 1973 Energy Message to Congress, which directed the Department, in cooperation with the Council on Environmental Quality and the Environmental Protection Agency, to develop a voluntary labeling system for energy-consuming home appliances. The stated goal of the program was to encourage manufacturers to provide consumers with clear, uniform, and easily understandable information about the energy consumption and efficiency of household appliances at the point of sale. This information would enable consumers to compare products and select those that could achieve energy savings. The primary statutory authorities cited for the establishment of this part were 15 U.S.C. 272, Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946, and the President's Message Concerning Energy Resources of April 18, 1973.

The Department later amended the regulations in a final rule published on August 13, 1975 (40 FR 33966). This amendment made two primary changes: it revised the definition of manufacturer to clarify the inclusion of private brand labelers, and it expanded the scope of the program by adding television receivers to the list of covered equipment.

The regulations at 15 CFR part 9 created a comprehensive framework for the voluntary labeling program. Section 9.0 states the purpose of the part is to establish the procedures for this program. Section 9.1 outlines the program's goal, which is to provide consumers with energy consumption and efficiency information for household appliances to help them make informed purchasing decisions. Section 9.2 provides definitions for key terms used throughout the part, such as manufacturer, energy consumption, and energy efficiency; the definition for manufacturer was revised in 1975 to explicitly include private brand labelers. Section 9.3 specifies the initial appliances and equipment included in the program, such as air conditioners, refrigerators, and water heaters, and was amended in 1975 to also include television receivers.

The regulations also established the operational mechanics of the program. Section 9.4 details the process for the Secretary of Commerce to develop “Voluntary Energy Conservation Specifications” for different classes of appliances. This process included publishing proposed specifications for public comment and ensuring each specification contained test methods, a prototype label, and conditions for manufacturer participation. Section 9.5 outlines the requirements for manufacturers who chose to participate, including notifying the Department, conducting tests to generate the data on the label, and displaying the label on their products. Section 9.6 specifies the conditions under which a manufacturer's participation could be terminated. Section 9.7 required the Department to develop and register a “Department of Commerce Energy Conservation Mark” for use on the labels.

Finally, the part includes provisions for program maintenance and outreach. Section 9.8 provides a procedure for amending or revising the specifications. Section 9.9 directs the Department to conduct a consumer education program to explain the significance of the labels. Section 9.10 requires the Department to coordinate with State and local governments to promote uniformity in appliance labeling programs. Section 9.11 mandates that the Secretary prepare an annual report on the program's activities.

The Department of Commerce is removing 15 CFR part 9 in its entirety. These regulations, established in 1973, created a voluntary labeling program for household appliances to promote energy conservation. After a thorough review, the Department has determined that this program is obsolete and has been entirely superseded by subsequent, more comprehensive federal energy conservation and labeling programs.

The primary policy basis for removing 15 CFR part 9 is that its purpose and function have been rendered unnecessary and duplicative by the mandatory energy labeling program established under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA). That program, which is jointly administered by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), created the familiar yellow “EnergyGuide” label found on major home appliances today. The EnergyGuide program is a comprehensive, mandatory, and nationally recognized system that effectively achieves the original goals of the Department's voluntary program from 1973. It provides consumers with clear, standardized information on appliance energy consumption and efficiency, enabling them to make informed purchasing decisions.

Given the success and ubiquity of the mandatory DOE/FTC program, the Department's older, voluntary program serves no remaining practical purpose. Its continued existence in the Code of Federal Regulations is redundant and creates the potential for public confusion. Removing these obsolete regulations is a common-sense administrative action that streamlines the regulatory code and eliminates a program that no longer provides a benefit to the public, regulated entities, or the government. The removal of the entire part, from the purpose and definitions in §§ 9.0 through 9.2 to the operational procedures in §§ 9.3 through 9.8 and the outreach and reporting requirements in §§ 9.9 through 9.11, is necessary as all of these provisions are integral components of a program that is no longer active or needed.

The Department has concluded that the establishment of this specific voluntary labeling program is not mandated by statute. The program was originally created under the Department's general authorities, including those found in 15 U.S.C. 272, and in response to a 1973 Presidential message. However, the cited statutory authorities grant general functions related to standards and technology; they do not contain a specific congressional command to create or maintain this particular appliance labeling program. Because the underlying program is not statutorily required and has been fully superseded by a congressionally mandated program administered by other federal agencies, the Department believes that its complete removal is the most appropriate course of action.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4)(B), the Department finds good cause to waive the prior notice and opportunity for public participation requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act for this final rule. The Department has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public participation is unnecessary because, as discussed above, the voluntary program being eliminated by this action has already been superseded and rendered obsolete by the comprehensive Appliance Labeling Rule, administered by the Department of Energy and the Federal Trade Commission, and the EnergyGuide program. Furthermore, because the Department firmly expects that it would not receive any comments—let alone any significant comments—on this rulemaking, and because eliminating clutter from the Code of Federal Regulations would provide some immediate benefits to the public, the Department finds that proceeding with notice and comment for this rulemaking would be contrary to the public interest

For these reasons, there is also good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness.

This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866. This rule is an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.

Because prior notice and an opportunity for public participation are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required, and none has been prepared.

For the purposes of compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Department has concluded that this rulemaking action falls within the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) categorical exclusion (CE) A-2, “Preparation of policy directives, rules, regulations, and guidelines of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature, or for which the environmental effects are too broad, speculative or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis and will be subject later to the NEPA process, either collectively or on a case-by-case basis.” The Department has consulted with NTIA pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4336 and agreed that the Department will adopt this CE for the purposes of this rulemaking.

These regulations do not contain any information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

Commerce is amending 15 CFR part 16, “Procedures for a Voluntary Consumer Product Information Labeling Program,” by removing all of the regulatory sections contained therein.

Commerce first established its procedures for the CPILP in a final rule on May 25, 1977 (42 FR 26648). The regulations were promulgated under the authority of 15 U.S.C. 272, among other statutes, and were initially instituted on a limited pilot project basis. The stated goal of the program was to provide information on important product performance characteristics in a useful form, educate consumers and retailers on its use, and offer participating manufacturers a way to convey the advantages of their products.

The program sought to achieve its objectives by developing standardized test methods and labeling specifications for selected consumer products. The performance characteristics chosen for labeling were those of demonstrable importance to consumers that could not be evaluated by mere inspection but could be measured objectively. Any person could petition the Secretary of Commerce to find a need for labeling a particular product. If such a need was established, Commerce would develop a Performance Information Labeling Specification through a public notice-and-comment process. Each specification included the performance characteristics covered, the test methods to be used, a prototype label, and the conditions for participation.

Shortly after the program's inception, Commerce issued several amendments to its procedures. In a rule published on November 4, 1977 (42 FR 57686), Commerce granted the Secretary the authority to suspend the program's fees and charges. This change was made to provide greater flexibility and encourage manufacturer participation during the program's pilot phase, modifying the original intent to make the program self-sufficient. Subsequently, in a rule published on March 1, 1978 (43 FR 8255), Commerce amended the program's description to allow for the inclusion of performance information required by other Federal agencies on CPILP labels, provided the other agency agreed. This was intended to simplify product comparison for consumers and reduce labeling complexity for manufacturers. A final technical amendment was published on September 18, 1990 (55 FR 38315), which updated the name of the National Bureau of Standards to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Notably, that notice also indicated that the office responsible for such programs, the Office of Product Standards Policy, had been terminated on August 23, 1988, as part of a broader reorganization.

The regulations at 15 CFR part 16 established the framework for the CPILP. Section 16.1 stated the purpose of the part, and § 16.2 described the program's goals and methods. Section 16.3 provided definitions for key terms such as consumer, participant, consumer product, and performance characteristic. The process for initiating and developing labeling standards was outlined in § 16.4, which detailed the requirements for a petition to find a need for a label, and § 16.5, which described the development of Performance Information Labeling Specifications. To ensure the program's viability, § 16.6 authorized the establishment of fees and charges, intended to make the program's operation self-sufficient. These fees were associated with the use of a Department of Commerce Mark, described in § 16.10, which was to be developed and registered for use on program labels. The procedures for manufacturers, importers, and other entities to voluntarily join the program were set forth in § 16.7, while § 16.8 outlined the conditions for the termination of participation, either by the Secretary for non-compliance or voluntarily by the participant. Section 16.9 established rules for “designated agents,” such as trade associations, which could be authorized to collect fees and statistical information from multiple participants. Finally, the part included provisions for the amendment of specifications (§ 16.11), consumer education (§ 16.12), coordination with State and local programs (§ 16.13), and the preparation of an annual report on the program's activities (§ 16.14).

By this rule, Commerce is eliminating 15 CFR part 16 in its entirety. As an initial matter, no statutory authority mandates the promulgation and maintenance of the regulations at part 16. To be sure, while 15 U.S.C. 272 grants general authority to Commerce and NIST to cooperate with other government entities and industry on voluntary standards and to disseminate technical information, it does not require the specific procedural framework established by part 16. In the absence of a statutory mandate, and upon review, Commerce now finds part 16 to be unwarranted. The program to which part 16 relates is no longer active or relied upon within Commerce and, given current business practices as well as the existence of other mechanisms for the development of metrology-based packaging and labeling standards and practices, the regulations at part 16 no longer serve any meaningful function. The removal of part 16 is therefore consistent with Commerce's broader deregulatory approach of reconsidering and eliminating regulations that are neither statutorily required nor justified by a compelling interest. The removal of part 16 will also reduce regulatory complexity and clutter and therefore reduce the possibility of public confusion related to the labeling of consumer products.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), Commerce finds good cause to waive the prior notice and opportunity for public participation requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act for this final rule. Commerce considers this rule to be uncontroversial, and has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public participation is unnecessary, because this rule only removes outdated regulations that are not required by statute, that no longer serve any meaningful function, and that pose a genuine risk of creating confusion regarding governmental processes for the labeling of consumer products; the program to which part 16 relates is now fully defunct, and that would be not be changed by inviting public comment. For the same reasons, Commerce has determined, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d), that delaying the effectiveness, of these amendments would be contrary to the public interest. The outdated regulations being removed by this rule currently pose a risk of confusion and distraction; their immediate removal will benefit the public at little to no cost. Commerce therefore finds good cause to waive the public notice and comment period under 553(b)(B) and to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness under 553(d).

The Office of Management and Budget has determined this rule is not significant pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. This rule is an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action. This rule does not contain policies having federalism implications as the term is defined in E.O. 13132.

Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public participation are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required, and none has been prepared.

This rule will not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

The Department is amending the regulations at 15 CFR part 23, “Use of Penalty Mail in the Location and Recovery of Missing Children.” This part governs the Department's participation in a national program to assist in the location and recovery of missing children through the use of official government mail, known as penalty mail.

In response to growing public concern over the interstate problem of missing and exploited children, Congress enacted the Missing Children's Assistance Act of 1984. This Act, along with 39 U.S.C. 3220, established a federal role in coordinating assistance for this issue. Subsequently, the Department published a final rule in the Federal Register of December 24, 1986 (51 FR 46614), establishing 15 CFR part 23. The purpose of this rule was to create internal management procedures for the Department to supplement the national effort by disseminating information about missing children on its penalty mail. The regulations were designed to be a cost-effective implementation plan that aligned with guidelines issued by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). The rule established a detailed operational framework, designated the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) as the sole source for photographic and biographical materials, and set priorities for distributing these materials on mail sent to the public and federal employees.

As relevant, § 23.2, “Contact person,” designated a specific individual within the Department at the time to serve as the central point of contact for the program. This was connected to the detailed procedures outlined in § 23.7, “Notice to Department of Commerce organizational units of implementation and procedures,” which established the specific roles and responsibilities for this Department Contact Person, as well as for the heads of the Department's various Operating Units and Administrative Support Centers. This section tasked the Contact Person with serving as the sole representative for ordering, supplying, and controlling all missing children materials from NCMEC. To support these procedural sections, § 23.6, “Definitions,” provided definitions for terms such as Operating units and Organizational units.

Additionally, the rule included provisions related to the initial implementation of the program that are now obsolete. Section 23.4, “Cost and percentage estimates,” provided the Department's initial first-year cost estimate of $39,530 and a projection that 9% of its penalty mail would be used for the program once fully implemented. Finally, § 23.5, “Report to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,” required the Department to submit a one-time consolidated report to OJJDP by June 30, 1987. This report was to detail the Department's experiences during the initial implementation period, including costs, problems encountered, and recommendations for making the program more effective.

Following a review of these regulations, the Department has determined that certain sections are appropriate for removal for the reasons discussed below.

The Department is amending its regulations governing the use of penalty mail to assist in the location and recovery of missing children by removing provisions that are obsolete, have fulfilled their purpose decades ago, or contain overly prescriptive internal administrative procedures that are not appropriate for codification in the Code of Federal Regulations. This action is part of the Department's ongoing effort to review and streamline its regulations to ensure they are current, effective, and not unduly burdensome. The removal of these sections will not weaken the Department's underlying authority or commitment to participating in this important national program.

The Department is removing §§ 23.2, 23.6, and 23.7, as these sections collectively establish a detailed and rigid internal management framework for the penalty mail program that is now outdated and administratively inefficient. Specifically, § 23.2 identifies a specific contact person for the program who is now deceased, while § 23.7 outlines a highly detailed set of roles and responsibilities for this contact person, as well as for the heads of various departmental operating units and administrative support centers. Section 23.6 provides definitions for internal organizational terms that are relevant only in the context of the procedures described in § 23.7.

The Department has determined that codifying such specific internal administrative assignments and procedures in the Code of Federal Regulations is impractical and overly prescriptive. This level of detail hinders the Department's ability to adapt its internal operations and staffing to meet current needs without undertaking the formal rulemaking process. Matters of internal agency management, such as designating points of contact and assigning specific duties to personnel, are more appropriately handled through internal directives and standard operating procedures, which can be updated as necessary to maintain efficiency. Furthermore, the statute authorizing this program, 39 U.S.C. 3220, requires the Department to prescribe regulations for the use of penalty mail but does not mandate the codification of these specific internal administrative structures. Removing these sections streamlines the regulation by focusing on the program's substantive requirements while allowing the Department the flexibility to manage its internal implementation effectively.

The Department is also removing §§ 23.4 and 23.5, as these provisions are purely historical and have no future applicability. Section 23.4 contains cost and usage percentage estimates that were projected for the program's first year of implementation in 1986. This information is now obsolete and serves no practical purpose. Similarly, § 23.5 required the Department to submit a one-time report to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention by June 30, 1987, detailing its initial experiences with the program. The requirement in § 23.5 was fulfilled decades ago, and the provision is now legally moot. Retaining these sections in the Code of Federal Regulations clutters the regulatory text with irrelevant, historical data and expired requirements, which can cause confusion for the public. The authorizing statutes for this part do not require the ongoing codification of such historical estimates or one-time reporting mandates. The removal of these sections is a common-sense action to clean up the regulations and ensure the Code of Federal Regulations contains only current and relevant rules.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Department finds good cause to waive the prior notice and opportunity for public participation requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act for this final rule. The Department considers this rule to be uncontroversial, and has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public participation is unnecessary, because this rule only removes outdated and/or overly-prescriptive regulations that are not required by statute; public participation could not justify the continued inclusion of the such regulations under the Department's broader deregulatory policies. For the same reasons, the Department has determined that delaying the effectiveness of these amendments would be contrary to the public interest. The outdated regulations being removed by this rule currently pose a genuine risk of confusion and distraction, and the overly-prescriptive regulations being removed by this rule currently impose burdens that restrict the effective use of penalty mail in the location and recovery of missing children; the removal of these regulations will immediately improve a critical program and benefit the public at little to no cost. The Department therefore finds good cause to waive the public notice and comment period under 553(b)(B) and to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness under 553(d).

The Office of Management and Budget has determined this rule is not significant pursuant to Executive Order (“E.O.”) 12866. This rule is an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action. This rule does not contain policies having federalism implications as the term is defined in E.O. 13132.

Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public participation are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required, and none has been prepared.

This rule will not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department amends 15 CFR part 23 as follows:

Consistent with U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives, which recognize the need to maintain the United States' technological superiority, BIS is adjusting the license review policy to case-by-case for exports of certain commercially available advanced computing commodities to end-users located in China and Macau. BIS finds this action necessary to ensure the national security benefits of U.S. leadership in artificial intelligence (AI).

Specifically, for advanced computing commodities with a TPP less than 21,000 (as defined in Technical Note 2 to 3A090.a and 3A090.b), and a `total DRAM bandwidth' less than 6,500 GB/s (as defined in the notes to paragraph (dd)(1) in supplement no. 2 to part 748), such as the NVIDIA H200 or AMD MI325X, this final rule specifies certain conditions that, if satisfied, allow for license applicants to move from a presumption of denial to a case-by-case license review policy for exports from the United States destined to China or Macau.

This rule maintains a presumption of denial licensing policy for exports to end-users located outside of Macau or destinations in Country Group D:5 to entities that are headquartered or have a parent company headquartered in Macau or a destination in Country Group D:5.

As part of the licensing process associated with the new case-by-case license review policy, the applicant must certify and provide necessary supporting data, that:

• the items operate below the performance criteria included in this final rule and specify how many units of the items have been shipped in the United States at the time of license application;

• there is sufficient supply of the product in the United States such that export of the product authorized by this license would not result in any delay in fulfilling any existing or new orders of any of its “advanced-node integrated circuits” from customers in the United States for end use in the United States (taking into account normal lead times); that global foundry capacity that would otherwise be used to produce similar node or more advanced integrated circuits for end users in the United States will not be diverted to produce the commodities authorized by this license for exports to China;

• the aggregate shipments of the product to China and Macau will be no more than 50% of the total product shipped to customers for end use in the United States of that product;

• the transaction is not prohibited by end user/use controls and controls for nonmilitary end uses/end-users;

• the ultimate consignee will employ rigorous Know Your Customer (KYC) procedures to screen and prevent unauthorized remote access to unauthorized parties ( e.g., prohibited part 744 parties); and

• prior to export from the United States, every shipment of advance computing commodities will be reviewed by a qualified third-party testing lab to confirm the technical capabilities and functions of the AI commodities described in the exporter's license application.

The applicant must also provide a list of remote end users located in Belarus, China, Cuba, Iran, Macau, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela, or whose ultimate parent company is headquartered in, Belarus, China, Cuba, Iran, Macau, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela. Based on the records and information provided as part of the application process, BIS and reviewing agencies will determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether to approve or deny the license of these specific commodities.

Section 742.6 (Regional stability) is being amended to provide a case-by-case licensing policy for license applications for certain advanced computing commodities described in § 742.6(a)(6)(iii). BIS is revising paragraph (b)(10)(iii)(A)(1) to include a case-by-case license review policy for license applications to export from the United States commodities with a TPP less than 21,000, and a `total DRAM bandwidth' less than 6,500 GB/s ( e.g., NVIDIA H200 or AMD MI325X), when destined to end-users located in either China or Macau, provided certain conditions are met. The additional conditions are set forth in supplement no. 2 to part 748 and described in section IV of this rule; they are intended to protect U.S. national security interests while allowing for a discretionary case-by-case licensing policy. These additional conditions will provide additional transparency on the commodities being exported and are intended to ensure that the advanced computing capabilities of the destination country do not exceed the capabilities or supply capacity of the United States, or negatively impact the global foundry capacity that would otherwise be used to produce similar node or more advanced integrated circuits, in a way that would be detrimental to U.S. national security interests. For reexports (including exports from abroad) and transfers (in-country) of AI commodities subject to the EAR with a TPP less than 21,000, and a `total DRAM bandwidth' less than 6,500 GB/s, when destined to either Macau or a destination specified in Country Group D:5, the licensing policy remains a presumption of denial. For exports to entities that are headquartered or have a parent company headquartered in Macau or a destination in Country Group D:5, including end-users located outside of destinations in Country Group D:5 or Macau, the licensing policy is a presumption of denial. If a license application meets the criteria of more than one licensing policy, then this licensing policy and its requirements will apply. This final rule also makes a conforming change for case-by-case review policy under § 744.23 with revised § 742.6(b)(10)(iii). See Section III for more details.

This final rule makes a change to add a case-by-case license review policy based on the case-by-case license review policy described in § 742.6(b)(10)(iii) of the EAR. This final rule makes this change in § 744.23(d) (License review standards) by redesignating paragraph (d)(3)(iii) as new paragraph (d)(3)(iv) and adding a new paragraph (d)(3)(iii) to specify that license applications for items specified in § 744.23(a)(3)(i)(A) that meet the criteria for case-by-case license review under § 742.6(b)(10)(iii), will also be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for purposes of § 744.23. This final rule also includes a change that removes “or” at the end of paragraph (d)(3)(ii) and revises newly redesignated paragraph (d)(3)(iv) to add a reference to paragraph (d)(3)(iii).

This final rule adds paragraph (dd) to supplement no. 2 to part 748 to set forth the conditions that enable moving from a license review policy of presumption of denial to one of case-by-case for exports of advanced-node ICs with a TPP less than 21,000, and a `total DRAM bandwidth' less than 6,500 GB/s, from the United States to end-users located in China or Macau.

BIS will require, prior to export from the United States, that an exporter confirm as part of the license application process that the AI commodities described in their license application will be reviewed by a qualified third-party testing lab to confirm the technical capabilities and functions of the AI commodities described in the exporter's license application. Such a review can be performed by a representative sampling of a batch of semiconductors chosen by the lab, rather than the lab reviewing every individual semiconductor that the exporter intends to export. Third-party testing labs are independent organizations that evaluate products to ensure they meet quality, safety, and regulatory standards, and their impartiality sets them apart from in-house testing facilities. Because third-party testing labs must be free from any ties to manufacturers or suppliers, these labs provide unbiased assessments to produce test results that are credible and reliable.

Among the qualifications for a third-party testing lab, it must be headquartered in the United States, not otherwise under the control of a company or other entity headquartered in or whose ultimate parent company or other entity is headquartered in Country Group D:5 or Macau, and the testing must take place in the United States. Further, the lab must not have any financial interest or ownership in any party to the transaction, and it must have the expertise to confirm that representations made on the technical capabilities and functions of the AI commodities described in the exporter's license application—including but not limited to the `total processing performance,' `total DRAM bandwidth,' `interconnect bandwidth,' and `copackaged DRAM capacity'—are accurate. Paragraph (dd)(3) of supplement no. 2 to part 748 describes the requirements and responsibilities of a third-party testing lab for an exporter to obtain the case-by-case licensing policy review described in § 742.6(b)(10)(iii)(A)(1).

The export application must clearly enumerate KYC and physical security measures adopted by the ultimate consignee/customer and stipulate that the receiving facility will also manage and limit Infrastructure as a Service (including AI model training and inference) for its customers to prevent unauthorized access to these advanced computing commodities.

In § 748.8 “Unique application and submission requirements,” this final rule adds a conforming change for the addition of new paragraph (dd) in supplement no. 2 to part 748, by adding a new paragraph (bb) (Export license application for advanced computing commodities) to make export license applicants aware of this new application requirement.

On August 13, 2018, the President signed into law the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, which included the Export Control Reform Act (ECRA) (codified, as amended, at 50 U.S.C. 4801-4852). ECRA provides the legal basis for BIS's principal authorities and serves as the authority under which BIS issues this rule. In particular, and as noted elsewhere, Section 1753 of ECRA (50 U.S.C. 4812) authorizes the regulation of exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) of items subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Further, Section 1754(a)(1)-(16) of ECRA (50 U.S.C. 4813(a)(1)-(16)) authorizes, inter alia, the establishment of a list of controlled items; the prohibition of unauthorized exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country); the requirement of licenses or other authorizations for exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) of controlled items; apprising the public of changes in policy, regulations, and procedures; and any other action necessary to carry out ECRA that is not otherwise prohibited by law. Pursuant to Section 1762(a) of ECRA (50 U.S.C. 4821(a)), these changes can be imposed in a final rule without prior notice and comment.

1. This rule has been determined to be significant pursuant to section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Although it is a “significant regulatory action” for purposes of E.O. 12866, this rule is exempt from the requirements of E.O. 14192, because its primary direct benefit is to improve national security, per section 5(a) of E.O. 14192.

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number.

This rule involves the following OMB-approved collections of information subject to the PRA:

• 0694-0088, “Multi-Purpose Application,” which carries a burden hour estimate of 29.7 minutes for a manual or electronic submission;

• 0694-0096 “Five Year Records Retention Period,” which carries a burden hour estimate of less than 1 minute;

• 0694-0122, “Licensing Responsibilities and Enforcement;” which carries a burden hour estimate of 10 minutes per electronic submission;

• 0694-0137, “License Exceptions and Exclusions;” which carries a burden hour estimate of 5 minutes per electronic submission; and

• 0607-0152 “Automated Export System (AES) Program,” which carries a burden hour estimate of 3 minutes per electronic submission.

The revision of license review policy for advanced computing commodities will affect the collection under control number 0694-0088, for the multipurpose application because of the increase of 100 more license applications per year, because industry is more likely to submit licenses when there is a case-by-case review versus a presumption of denial license review policy. BIS estimates that these changes will result in an increase in burden hours of 28.3 hours. However, the increase in burden falls within the existing burden estimates currently associated with these control numbers. BIS also estimates a minimal increase under OMB control number 0694-0122 to account for the responsibility of the exporter to report the results from third-party testing lab confirmation.

Changes impacting OMB control numbers 0694-0096, 0694-0137, and 0607-0152 are not expected to result in an increase in burden hours.

Additional information regarding these collections of information—including all background materials—can be found at: https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain by using the search function to enter either the title of the collection or the OMB Control Number.

3. This rule does not contain policies with federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

4. Pursuant to Section 1762 of ECRA (50 U.S.C. 4821), this action is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) requirements for notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date.

5. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under the APA (5 U.S.C. 553) or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required, and none has been prepared.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, parts 742, 744, and 748 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730 through 774) is amended as follows:

The Department of Commerce is amending the regulations at 15 CFR part 801, which govern the collection of data on international trade in services and direct investment between United States and foreign persons. These data collection programs are conducted by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) under the authority of the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act (22 U.S.C. 3101-3108) (the Act). The regulations in this part provide a framework for various surveys that gather comprehensive and reliable economic statistics on international investment and trade to support U.S. commercial policy, monitor the U.S. economy, and improve the ability of U.S. businesses to evaluate market opportunities.

The current structure of 15 CFR part 801 was established in a final rule published on April 24, 2012 (77 FR 24374). The primary purpose of the 2012 rulemaking was to simplify and streamline the process by which BEA conducts its surveys. Previously, the implementation of individual surveys often required separate notice-and-comment rulemaking actions. The 2012 rule created a more efficient, generalized framework by allowing BEA to issue specific survey requirements, such as reporting criteria and due dates, through individual notices published in the Federal Register . BEA received no public comments on the proposed rule, indicating general acceptance of that procedural shift. That action also consolidated the regulatory framework by revising part 801 and removing and reserving 15 CFR parts 806 and 807. The legal basis for these regulations includes the Act, as well as 5 U.S.C. 301, 15 U.S.C. 4908, and Executive Orders 11961, 12318, and 12518.

Following the establishment of that framework, BEA has periodically amended part 801 to implement or modify specific mandatory benchmark surveys that are essential for producing accurate economic accounts. For example, in a final rule published on August 14, 2014 (79 FR 47575), BEA reinstated the BE-13, Survey of New Foreign Direct Investment in the United States, to gather information on the acquisition or establishment of U.S. business enterprises by foreign investors. Similarly, the regulations have been updated to set the requirements for other recurring benchmark surveys, such as the BE-10, Benchmark Survey of U.S. Direct Investment Abroad (84 FR 60915, Nov. 12, 2019) and the BE-12, Benchmark Survey of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States (87 FR 58954, Sept. 29, 2022). To better measure U.S. trade in services, BEA also established benchmark surveys for specific sectors, including the BE-120 for transactions in selected services and intellectual property (87 FR 54887, Sept. 8, 2022); the BE-140 for insurance transactions (87 FR 54888, Sept. 8, 2022); and the BE-180 for financial services transactions (85 FR 31052, May 22, 2020). BEA continually refines these surveys to adapt to the evolving economy and reduce respondent burden. These refinements often incorporate public feedback, such as when BEA added definitions and guidance to the BE-10 survey forms in response to requests for clarification on new digital economy questions (84 FR 60915, Nov. 12, 2019). In that same rulemaking, BEA also removed questions on contract manufacturing services that were burdensome for companies to provide and not widely used by data users.

As part of that framework, the regulations set forth general provisions that apply to the various surveys. Section 801.1 outlines the purpose of the regulations, stating that they provide general information on the data collection programs and reiterate the purpose of the Act, which is to collect comprehensive information with minimal burden on respondents. Section 801.5 establishes the confidentiality of the information collected, explicitly stating that information collected pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 3104(c) is confidential. It restricts access to the data to designated Federal government officials and their contractors for analytical or statistical purposes only and prohibits the disclosure of information in any way that could identify an individual respondent. Section 801.6 specifies the civil and criminal penalties for noncompliance, in accordance with 22 U.S.C. 3105. It details that failure to report may result in civil penalties of not less than $2,500 and not more than $25,000, which are subject to inflationary adjustments, and that willful failure to report may result in criminal penalties, including a fine of not more than $10,000 and, for an individual, imprisonment of not more than one year.

The Department of Commerce has determined that the second sentence of § 801.1, and §§ 801.5 and 801.6 in their entirety, are appropriate for removal for the reasons discussed below.

This rule removes the second sentence of § 801.1 and both §§ 801.5 and 801.6 in their entirety. The Department has determined that each of these provisions merely restates what is already provided by the underlying statute and serves no meaningful purpose. By eliminating these sections, the Department aims to ensure that the Code of Federal Regulations generally contains only essential implementing rules and otherwise directs the public to the underlying statutes for foundational legal requirements. This action is part of the Department's ongoing commitment to reducing regulatory complexity and clutter, improving the clarity and efficiency of its rules, and recentering statutory text without any superfluous regulatory overlay.

To begin, the Department is removing § 801.5, which addresses the confidentiality of information collected through the surveys. The Department's primary policy rationale for this change is that the regulation is unnecessary and duplicative. The confidentiality protections that § 801.5 describes are already established with sufficient detail and force of law directly within the Act itself at 22 U.S.C. 3104(c). That statutory provision is comprehensive and self-executing, clearly defining who may access the data, the limited purposes for which it may be used, and the strict prohibitions against any disclosure that could identify a specific person or entity. Because the statute provides a complete and legally binding framework for confidentiality, the corresponding regulation adds no substantive value. The removal of § 801.5 streamlines the regulatory landscape by making the statute the single, authoritative source for these critical protections, which enhances clarity and eliminates a superfluous regulatory layer. As a legal matter, the Department has determined that no provision within the Act mandates the issuance of implementing regulations for confidentiality, rendering § 801.5 not statutorily required.

Similarly, the Department is removing § 801.6, which outlines the civil and criminal penalties for failing to comply with the reporting requirements. The policy basis for this removal is that the regulation is redundant. Section 801.6 largely repeats the penalty provisions already explicitly detailed in the Act at 22 U.S.C. 3105. The statute itself clearly sets forth the fines and potential terms of imprisonment for violations, and these provisions are self-executing, meaning they are legally effective without any need for implementing regulations. Restating these penalties in the Code of Federal Regulations serves no practical purpose, provides no additional guidance to the public, and creates unnecessary regulatory text. Removing this section will direct the public to the statute as the definitive source for penalty information, promoting clarity and reducing regulatory complexity. And the Department has concluded that this regulation is not statutorily required because the Act does not necessitate any further rules to make its penalty provisions functional or enforceable.

The Department is revising the introductory text of §§ 801.7, 801.8, 801.10, 801.11, 801.12, and 801.13 to reflect the removal of §§ 801.5 and 801.6.

Lastly, the Department is removing certain language from § 801.1, which describes the purpose of the part. Specifically, the Department is removing the second sentence of this section. This sentence purports to restate the purpose of the Act itself, which is already more fully articulated by Congress in 22 U.S.C. 3101(b). The second sentence of § 801.1 is therefore, at the very least, redundant and unnecessary. Removing this sentence makes the regulation more concise and makes the text of the Act the single, authoritative source of the Act's purpose.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Department finds good cause to waive the prior notice and opportunity for public participation requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act for this final rule. The Department has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public participation is unnecessary because this rule only removes regulatory language that restates the underlying statute (and makes minor, conforming amendments). The redundant and unnecessary nature of the removed language is apparent and will not be affected by any public comment. For the same reason, the Department has determined that delaying the removal of this language for the sake of carrying out the notice and comment process would be contrary to the public interest. The Department therefore finds good cause to waive the public notice and comment period under 553(b)(B) and, for reasons stated above, to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness under 553(d).

The Office of Management and Budget has determined this rule is not significant pursuant to E.O. 12866. This rule is an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action. This rule does not contain policies having federalism implications as the term is defined in E.O. 13132.

Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public participation are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required, and none has been prepared.

This rule will not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department amends 15 CFR part 801 as follows:

The United States is a party to the 1971 United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances (1971 Convention), Feb. 21, 1971, 32 U.S.T. 543, 1019 U.N.T.S. 175, as amended. Procedures respecting changes in drug schedules under the 1971 Convention are governed domestically by 21 U.S.C. 811(d)(2)-(4). When the United States receives notification of a scheduling decision pursuant to Article 2 of the 1971 Convention indicating that a drug or other substance has been added to a schedule specified in the notification, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary), 1 after consultation with the Attorney General, shall first determine whether existing legal controls under subchapter I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act meet the requirements of the schedule specified in the notification with respect to the specific drug or substance. 2 In the event that the Secretary did not so consult with the Attorney General, and the Attorney General did not issue a temporary order, as provided under 21 U.S.C. 811(d)(4), the procedures for permanent scheduling set forth in 21 U.S.C. 811(a) and (b) control.

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1) and (2), the Attorney General (as delegated to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100) may, by rule, and upon the recommendation of the Secretary, add to such a schedule or transfer between such schedules any drug or other substance, if she finds that such drug or other substance has a potential for abuse, and makes with respect to such drug or other substance the findings prescribed by 21 U.S.C. 812(b) for the schedule in which such drug or other substance is to be placed.

4-Fluoroamphetamine (also known as 4-FA and para- fluoroamphetamine) is a central nervous system stimulant and shares structural and pharmacological similarities with schedule II stimulants, such as amphetamine and methamphetamine, and the schedule I substance 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine. (MDMA). On May 15, 2018, the Secretary-General of the United Nations advised the Secretary of State of the United States that the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND), during its 61st session held in March 2018, voted to place 4-FA in Schedule II of the 1971 Convention (CND Dec/61/12).

As a signatory to the 1971 Convention, the United States is required, by scheduling under the CSA, to place appropriate controls on 4-FA to meet the minimum requirements of the treaty. Because the procedures in 21 U.S.C. 811(d)(3) and (4) for consultation and issuance of a temporary order for 4-FA, discussed in the above legal authority section, were not followed, DEA is utilizing the procedures for permanent scheduling set forth in 21 U.S.C. 811(a) and (b) to control 4-FA. Such scheduling would satisfy the United States' international obligations.

In a letter dated March 2, 2021, in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(b), and in response to DEA's September 6, 2019, request, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) provided to DEA a scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation for 4-FA. DEA reviewed the scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation for schedule I placement provided by HHS, and all other relevant data, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(b) and (c), and conducted its own analysis under the eight factors stipulated in 21 U.S.C. 811(c). DEA found, under 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1), that this substance warrants control in schedule I. Both DEA's and HHS' Eight-Factor analyses are available in their entirety under the tab Supporting Documents of the public docket for this action at https://www.regulations.gov under docket number DEA-1180.

On June 3, 2025, DEA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to permanently control 4-FA in schedule I. 3 Specifically, DEA proposed to add 4-FA to the list of stimulant substances under 21 CFR 1308.11(f). The NPRM provided an opportunity for interested persons to file a request for hearing in accordance with DEA regulations on or before July 3, 2025. DEA did not receive any requests for such a hearing. The NPRM also provided an opportunity for interested persons to submit comments on or before July 3, 2025.

DEA received nine comments in response to the NPRM for the placement of 4-FA into schedule I of the CSA. The submissions were from individuals or anonymous commenters. Two commenters supported the placement of 4-FA in schedule I of the CSA, five commenters were against the placement of 4-FA in schedule I of the CSA, and two commenters expressed statements that were neither for nor against the proposed rule (one of which noted 4-FA has helped them feel calmer).

Support of Rulemaking: DEA received two comments in support of the placement of 4-FA in schedule I.

DEA Response: DEA appreciates these comments in support of this rulemaking.

Opposition to Rulemaking: DEA received five comments against the placement of 4-FA in schedule I of the CSA. Of these comments, one asserted that 4-FA is already controlled under schedule II of the CSA under the Controlled Substances Analogue Act, and that criminal illicit use is already illegal. Three of these comments noted that placing 4-FA in schedule I would negatively impact the ability to do research. One commenter asserted 4-FA could be an effective treatment for PTSD and depression and should not be controlled until additional studies have been conducted. The following is DEA's response to the comments against the proposed rulemaking.

DEA Response: DEA appreciates these comments and would like to emphasize that 4-FA is not currently scheduled under the CSA and to provide further clarification regarding the control of 4-FA. 4-FA has been placed under international control. In order to comply with treaty obligations, DEA must place 4-FA under the most appropriate schedule, taking into consideration all appropriate scientific data. Additionally, as set forth in the NPRM, 4-FA has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, nor were there any New Drug Applications. Therefore, 4-FA must be placed in schedule I of the CSA along with other substances which have no currently accepted medical use, lack accepted safety for use under medical supervision, and possess a high potential for abuse. With respect to research for potential medical use, the placement of substances in schedule I of the CSA does not preclude academic research on these substances. 4 Those wishing to conduct research on 4-FA must seek permission to do so with the DEA. 5

After consideration of the public comments, scientific and medical evaluation and accompanying scheduling recommendation from HHS, and after its own eight-factor evaluation, DEA finds that these facts and all relevant data constitute substantial evidence of potential for abuse of 4-FA. As such, DEA is permanently scheduling 4-FA as a controlled substance under schedule I of the CSA. The permanent scheduling of 4-FA fulfills the United States' obligations as a party to the 1971 Convention.

The CSA establishes five schedules of controlled substances known as schedules I, II, III, IV, and V. The CSA also specifies the findings required to place a drug or other substance in any particular schedule, 21 U.S.C. 812(b). After consideration of the analysis and recommendation of the then Assistant Secretary for Health of HHS and review of all other available data, the Administrator of DEA, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1), finds that:

(1) 4-FA has a high potential for abuse that is comparable to other scheduled I and II substances, such as amphetamine, methamphetamine, and MDMA.

(2) 4-FA has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. In HHS' 2021 recommendation to control 4-FA, it was noted there are no approved New Drug Applications for 4-FA and no known therapeutic applications for 4-FA in the United States. DEA is not aware of any other evidence suggesting that 4-FA has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. 6

(3) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of 4-FA under medical supervision. Because 4-FA has no approved medical use and has not been investigated as a new drug, its safety for use under medical supervision has not been determined.

Based on these findings, the Administrator of DEA concludes that 4-FA, as well as its salts, isomers, and salts of isomers whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible, warrants control in schedule I of the CSA.

4-FA is subject to the CSA's schedule I regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to the manufacture, distribution, reverse distribution, import, export, engagement in research, conduct of instructional activities or chemical analysis with, and possession of, schedule I controlled substances, including the following:

1. Registration. Any person who handles (manufactures, distributes, reverse distributes, imports, exports, engages in research, or conducts instructional activities or chemical analysis with, or possesses), or who desires to handle, 4-FA must register with DEA to conduct such activities pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 822, 823, 957, and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1301 and 1312. Any person who currently handles 4-FA and is not registered with DEA must submit an application for registration and may not continue to handle 4-FA, unless DEA has approved that application for registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 822, 823, 957, 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1301 and 1312. Retail sales of schedule I controlled substances to the general public are not allowed under the CSA. Possession of any quantity in a manner not authorized by the CSA is unlawful and those in possession of any quantity may be subject to prosecution pursuant to the CSA.

2. Disposal of Stocks. Any person unwilling or unable to obtain a schedule I registration must surrender or transfer all quantities of currently held 4-FA to a person registered with DEA before the effective date of the final scheduling action in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, local, and Tribal laws. 4- FA must be disposed of in accordance with 21 CFR part 1317, in addition to all other applicable Federal, State, local, and Tribal laws

3. Security. 4-FA is subject to schedule I security requirements and must be handled and stored pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.71-1301.76, as of the effective date of this final scheduling action. Non-practitioners handling 4-FA must comply with the employee screening requirements of 21 CFR 1301.90 through 1301.93.

4. Labeling and Packaging. All labels, labeling, and packaging for commercial containers of 4-FA must comply with 21 U.S.C. 825 and be in accordance with 21 CFR part 1302.

5. Quota. Generally, only registered manufacturers are permitted to manufacture 4-FA in accordance with a quota assigned pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 826, and in accordance with 21 CFR part 1303.

6. Inventory. Every DEA registrant who possesses any quantity of 4-FA must take an inventory of 4-FA on hand, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11(a) and (d).

Any person who registers with DEA must take an initial inventory of all stocks of controlled substances (including 4-FA) on hand on the date the registrant first engages in the handling of controlled substances, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11(a) and (b).

After the initial inventory, every DEA registrant must take an inventory of all controlled substances (including 4-FA) on hand every two years, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11.

7. Records and Reports. Every DEA registrant must maintain records and submit reports for 4-FA, or products containing 4-FA, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.74(b) and (c), 1301.76(b), and parts 1304, 1312 and 1317. Manufacturers and distributors must submit reports regarding 4-FA to the Automated Reports and Consolidated Ordering System pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1304 and 1312.

8. Order Forms. Every DEA registrant who distributes 4-FA must comply with the order form requirements, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 828 and 21 CFR part 1305.

9. Importation and Exportation. All importation and exportation of 4-FA must comply with 21 U.S.C. 952, 953, 957, and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1304 and 1312.

10. Liability. Any activity involving 4-FA not authorized by, or in violation of, the CSA or its implementing regulations, is unlawful, and may subject the person to administrative, civil, and/or criminal sanctions.

In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(a), this final scheduling action is subject to formal rulemaking procedures performed “on the record after opportunity for a hearing,” which are conducted pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. The CSA sets forth the procedures and criteria for scheduling a drug or other substance. Such actions are exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to section 3(d)(1) of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and the principles reaffirmed in E.O. 13563. DEA scheduling actions are not subject to either E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, or E.O. 14294, Overcriminalization of Federal Regulations.

This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988 to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, and promote simplification and burden reduction.

This rulemaking does not have federalism implications warranting the application of E.O. 13132. The rule does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

This rule does not have Tribal implications warranting the application of E.O. 13175. It does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

The Administrator of DEA, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has reviewed this final rule, and by approving it, certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

DEA is placing the substance 4-FA (chemical name: 1-(4-fluorophenyl)propan-2-amine), including its salts, isomers, and salts of isomers, in schedule I of the CSA to enable the United States to meet its obligations under the 1971 Convention. This action imposes the regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to schedule I controlled substances on persons who handle (manufacture, distribute, reverse distribute, import, export, engage in research, conduct instructional activities or chemical analysis with, or possess) or propose to handle 4-FA.

Based on the review of HHS' scientific and medical evaluation and all other relevant data, DEA determined that 4-FA has high potential for abuse, has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and lacks accepted safety for use under medical supervision. There appear to be no legitimate sources for 4-FA as a marketed drug in the United States, but DEA notes that this substance is available for purchase from legitimate suppliers for scientific research. There is no evidence of significant diversion of 4-FA from legitimate suppliers. Therefore, this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This action does not impose a new collection of information requirement under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 7 This action would not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. However, this rule requires compliance with the following existing OMB collections: 1117-0003, 1117-0004, 1117-0006, 1117-0008, 1117-0009, 1117-0010, 1117-0012, 1117-0014, 1117-0021, 1117-0023, 1117-0029, and 1117-0056. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1532, DEA has determined that this action would not result in any Federal mandate that may result “in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 year . . . .” Therefore, neither a Small Government Agency Plan nor any other action is required under UMRA of 1995.

This rule is not a major rule as defined by the Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 804. However, pursuant to the CRA, DEA is submitting a copy of this rule to both Houses of Congress and to the Comptroller General.

For the reasons set out above, 21 CFR part 1308 is amended as follows:

On May 20, 2024, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) finalized its update to the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) (89 FR 44144). Paragraph (j) of the HCS specifies the dates by which compliance with the updated provisions of the HCS is required. OSHA adopted a tiered approach to compliance and finalized two sets of compliance dates for chemical manufacturers, importers, and distributors evaluating substances and mixtures (see 29 CFR 1910.1200(j)).

The initial compliance deadline in section 1910.1200(j)(2)(i) of January 19, 2026, for manufacturers, importers, and distributors evaluating substances, is imminent. Members of the regulated community have asked for additional guidance to comply with the updated HCS. Although OSHA has been working to finalize key guidance about the updated HCS for both the regulated community and agency personnel, the agency has not been able to complete these documents with sufficient time for the regulated community and OSHA personnel to benefit from them before the initial compliance date. OSHA has determined it is necessary to extend the initial compliance date in paragraph (j)(2)(i) by four months to allow time for the agency to publish the necessary guidance materials and for the regulated community to review those materials before the revised provisions take effect. To maintain the tiered approach to compliance adopted in the final rule (89 FR 44144, 44302), OSHA is also extending each of the subsequent compliance dates in paragraph (j)(2)(ii) and (j)(3) by four months.

This action does not alter existing paragraph (j)(4). Under that provision, between May 20, 2024 and the now-extended compliance dates in paragraphs (j)(2) and (j)(3), chemical manufacturers, importers, distributors, and employers may comply with either the previous version of this standard (77 FR 17574, Mar. 26, 2012), the updated HCS (89 FR 44144, May 20, 2024), or both.

OSHA's implementation of this action without opportunity for public comment is based on the good cause exception in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), in that seeking public comment here would be impracticable, unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. OSHA finds that there is good cause to forgo notice and comment because of the imminence of the initial compliance deadline (29 CFR 1910.1200(j)(2)(i)). The regulated community has an immediate need to know whether compliance will be expected by the existing compliance date, despite the lack of official agency guidance, and the additional time needed for notice and comment would add further uncertainty about compliance obligations. Further, because the regulated community must continue to comply with the 2012 HCS, the revised standard, or a combination of both until the compliance date pursuant to paragraph (j)(4), this extension merely maintains the status quo for a short period of time. OSHA therefore finds that notice and comment in this instance would be impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest.

OSHA also finds that there is good cause to extend the compliance dates in sections 1910.1200(j)(2)(ii), 1910.1200(j)(3)(i), and 1910.1200(j)(3)(ii) by four months without notice and comment. In the final rule, OSHA determined that a tiered approach to compliance was necessary to address commenters' implementation concerns (89 FR 44144, 44302). OSHA finds no reason to revisit that finding. Accordingly, because OSHA is merely extending these subsequent compliance dates to maintain the agency's previously established tiered approach, additional public comment is unnecessary.

In establishing the effective date of this action, OSHA invokes the good cause exception in 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), which allows the action to be immediately effective for “good cause” rather than subject to the requirement that rules become effective no earlier than 30 days after publication (5 U.S.C. 553(d)). OSHA finds that the nature of this action, which merely maintains the status quo for a short period time, along with the imminence of the initial compliance deadline, and the confusion that could result from a failure to timely amend paragraph (j), make it unnecessary, impractical, and contrary to the public interest to delay the effectiveness of this action by 30 days.

David Keeling, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this document. It is issued under the authority of sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); 5 U.S.C. 553; Section 304, Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-549, reprinted at 29 U.S.C.A. 655 Note); Section 41, Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941); Section 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 3704); Section 1031, Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 4853); Section 126, Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, as amended (reprinted at 29 U.S.C.A. 655 Note); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 07-2025 (90 FR 27878); and 29 CFR part 1911.

For the reasons set forth above, 29 CFR 1910 is hereby amended as follows:

Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its approved State program includes, among other things, State laws and regulations that govern surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the Act and consistent with the Federal regulations. See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the Pennsylvania program on July 30, 1982.

You can find background information on the Pennsylvania program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of approval of the Pennsylvania program in the July 30, 1982, Federal Register (47 FR 33050). You can also find later actions concerning the Pennsylvania program and program amendments at 30 CFR 938.11, 938.12, 938.13, 938.15 and 938.16.

By letter dated August 4, 2017 (Administrative Record No. PA 899.00), the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) sent us an amendment to its program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq. ). On July 21, 2017, the Pennsylvania General Assembly enacted Act 32, which amended section 5 of the Commonwealth's Bituminous Mine Subsidence and Land Conservation Act (BMSLCA), 52 P.S. 1406.5, by specifying circumstances where a finding of presumptive evidence of potential pollution, as the term “pollution” is defined under the Commonwealth's Clean Streams Law, 35 P.S. 691.1 (Definitions), is not warranted. The specified circumstances appear in new subsections 5(i) and 5(j) (52 P.S. 1406.5(i), -(j)).

Act 32 also amended subsection 9a(d) of BMSLCA, 52 P.S. 1406.9a(d), to except 52 P.S. 1406.5(i) from the rule in subsection 1406.9a(d) prohibiting anything in BMSLCA from being construed to amend, modify, or otherwise supersede any standard contained in the Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law at 35 P.S. 691.1 et seq. Notably, the new sections of 52 P.S. 1406.5(i)-(j) are not excepted from the rule at 52 P.S. 1406.9a(d)(1) prohibiting any part of BMSLCA from being construed to amend, modify, or otherwise supersede the standards related to prevailing hydrologic balance in SMCRA. Finally, section 3 of Act 32 specified that the amendments to 52 P.S. 1406.5(i)-(j) apply only to permits issued after October 8, 2005.

We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the March 12, 2018. Federal Register (83 FR 10647). In the same document, we opened the public comment period and provided an opportunity for a public hearing or meeting on the adequacy of the amendment. The public comment period was originally set to end on April 11, 2018. At the request of thirteen citizens, however, we reopened the public comment period and approved a request for a public hearing.

In a May 8, 2018, Federal Register notice (83 FR 20774), we erroneously stated that a public hearing would be held on May 1, 2018, with public comment period ending June 7, 2018. But in a May 16, 2018, Federal Register notice (83 FR 22607), we published a correction to the public hearing date. As corrected, the public comment period ended on June 15, 2018, and we held a public hearing on May 17, 2018, in Green Tree, Pennsylvania (Administrative record number PA 899.13). We received 55 substantive written comments and additional oral comments at a public hearing which are addressed in the “Public Comments” section of Part IV, “Summary and Disposition of Comments,” below.

We are approving the amendment as described below. We made the following findings concerning Pennsylvania's amendment under SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.5, 732.15, and 732.17. Any revisions that we do not specifically discuss below concerning non-substantive wording or editorial changes can be found in the full text of the program amendment available at www.regulations.gov, searchable by the docket ID numbers referenced at the top of this notice.

Through Act 32, Pennsylvania added language to section 5 of BMSLCA, 52 P.S. 1406.5, specifying circumstances where a finding of presumptive evidence of potential pollution is not warranted. In particular, 52 P.S. 1406.5(i) states that, in a permit application to conduct underground bituminous coal mining operations, planned subsidence (that is, subsidence occurring in a predictable and controlled manner which is not predicted to result in the permanent disruption of premining existing or designated uses of surface waters) will not be considered presumptive evidence that the proposed operations have the potential to cause “pollution,” as that term is defined in section 1 of the Clean Streams Law (Pub. L. 1987, No. 394, 35 P.S. 691.1 et seq. ).

Act 32 provided language, at 52 P.S. 1406.5(j)(1), that section 52 P.S. 1406.5(i) only applies if (1) a person submits an application to conduct bituminous mining operations that specifically provides for the restoration of the premining range of flows and for restoration of premining biological communities in any waters of Pennsylvania predicted to be adversely affected by subsidence and (2) the application is approved by the Department. Act 32 further states, at 52 P.S. 1406.5(i)(1), that the referenced “restoration” must be consistent with the premining existing and designated uses of the waters of Pennsylvania.

The criteria for permit approval in Pennsylvania's administrative code appear in 25 Pa. Code 86.37. 25 Pa. Code 86.37(a)(3) currently provides that, to obtain a permit, an applicant must demonstrate that there is “no presumptive evidence of potential pollution of the waters of this Commonwealth.” Act 32 specifies that planned subsidence in a predictable and controlled manner, which is not predicted to result in the permanent disruption of premining existing or designated uses of Pennsylvania surface waters, will not constitute evidence that the proposed bituminous coal mining operations have the potential to cause pollution as defined in section 1 of the Clean Streams Law.

While there is no Federal counterpart to 25 Pa. Code 86.37(a)(3), the most closely related provisions for underground mining are found in (1) 30 CFR part 784, which governs permit applications for underground mining and sets forth the minimum requirements for the reclamation and operation plans required of operators and (2) 30 CFR part 817, which sets forth operational performance standards. 30 CFR part 784 includes provisions identifying the information required in reclamation and operation plans submitted during the application process, including information relating to hydrologic conditions (30 CFR 784.14) and fish and wildlife resources (30 CFR 784.21).

For example, 30 CFR 784.14(g) requires that such plans identify the steps to be taken to minimize disturbance to the hydrologic balance from underground mining within and adjacent to the permit area and to prevent material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area. Similarly, 30 CFR 817.41(a) requires that underground mining and reclamation activities be “conducted to minimize disturbance of the hydrologic balance within the permit and adjacent areas, to prevent material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area, and to support approved postmining land uses.” These provisions, including use of the term “minimize,” make clear that some amount of disturbance is permissible, provided it does not rise to the level of material damage.

PADEP, in approving applications for planned subsidence and addressing operational deficiencies, has historically interpreted the provisions in this manner. Act 32 codifies this interpretation and, contrary to the suggestions of several commenters, does not authorize destruction of streams, as we further explain in our responses to public comments in section IV.

We find that the Pennsylvania program, even with the addition of Act 32, exceeds Federal standards. The proposed statutory language leaves intact the regulatory requirement in 25 Pa. Code 86.37(a)(3) that mining applicants demonstrate there is no presumptive evidence of potential pollution and provides that subsidence, done in a predictable and controlled manner that is not predicted to result in the permanent disruption of premining existing or designated uses of surface waters, is not presumptive evidence of potential pollution. We find this specification to be a proper exercise of regulatory authority given the broad language on presumptive evidence in the current version of 25 Pa. Code 86.37(a)(3).

Even with the addition of Act 32's specification that properly planned subsidence is not presumptive evidence of potential pollution, the Pennsylvania program remains more effective than the relevant Federal regulations, particularly 30 CFR 784.14, 784.21, and 817.41, as discussed below. It also remains more stringent than section 516 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1266).

Specifically, 30 U.S.C. 1266 provides that mine operators must “minimize” disturbances to the prevailing hydrologic balance and “avoid” acid or other mine drainage. By contrast, Pennsylvania's Act 32 imposes an affirmative duty on permit applicants to demonstrate the absence of any “presumptive evidence of potential pollution,” even while limiting the scope of what automatically qualifies as such presumptive evidence. Moreover, section 5(j) of Act 32 provides that this exemption from presumptive evidence of pollution is only available when the permit application provides for the restoration of the premining range of flows and restoration of premining biological communities in any waters predicted to be adversely affected by subsidence, and that the restoration shall be consistent with the premining existing and designated uses of the waters of Pennsylvania.

Even as amended by Act 32, Pennsylvania's regulatory scheme promotes the core objective of 30 U.S.C. 1266(b)(9), which is to minimize disturbances to the prevailing hydrologic balance at the minesite and in associated offsite areas and to the quantity of water in surface groundwater systems both during and after coal mining operations and during reclamation. Thus, the Pennsylvania regulatory scheme remains in accordance with SMCRA and consistent with (and more stringent than) the Federal regulations.

For these reasons, we are approving the proposed changes.

We announced the receipt of the proposed amendment in the March 12, 2018, Federal Register (83 FR 10647). In the same notice, we initially opened the public comment period through April 11, 2018, and provided an opportunity for a public hearing or meeting on the adequacy of the amendment. As discussed in section II, above, the comment period was extended to June 15, 2018, and a public hearing was held in Green Tree, Pennsylvania, on May 17, 2018.

Public comments were received in writing and orally at the public hearing. Seven individuals spoke at the public hearing (three opposed to Act 32 and four in favor). Additionally, we received written public comments during the comment period. The substantive comments about the amendment that we received are summarized below, which also includes our responses. In addition, we received 62 non-substantive comments or comments that are beyond the scope of this amendment; no response to those comments are necessary. The comments are available in their entirety at www.regulations.gov.

Comment 1: This commenter opposed the amendment and raised specific concerns about the amendment's consistency with a premise in the Pennsylvania regulatory scheme that if someone can show that mining will cause irreparable stream damage, no permit will be issued.

OSMRE Response: We disagree with the commenter's characterization of the Pennsylvania program. Both before and after the enactment of Act 32, under the Pennsylvania program, the operator is required to demonstrate the absence of presumptive evidence of pollution. The proposed amendment simply adds that, if planned subsidence will be done in a predictable and controlled manner and is not predicted to result in the permanent disruption of streams, then it will not be considered presumptive evidence of pollution under the Clean Streams Law. In addition, this exemption is only available when the operator's application provides for the restoration of the premining range of flows and restoration of premining biological communities predicted to be adversely affected by subsidence, and that such restoration is consistent with the premining existing and designated uses of Pennsylvania waters. Furthermore, to undertake planned subsidence, an operator must obtain approval from PADEP. This approval must be based on PADEP's technical review of applications and supporting data. Under section 5(j) of Act 32, PADEP must conclude that the application adequately “provide[s] for” restoration of premining flows and premining biological communities.

Comment 2: Commenter stated that Act 32 fails to regulate and protect the common resources of State streams.

OSMRE Response: We disagree with the commenter's assessment of the proposed amendment; Act 32 clarifies the Pennsylvania regulatory program, and, operating in conjunction with the existing regulatory scheme, the program is in accordance with SMCRA and consistent with the Federal regulations that govern the protections for streams potentially impacted by coal mining. Section 5(j) ensures that permit applications specifically “provide for” restoration of the premining range of flows and for restoration of premining biological communities. It also directs that “restoration” be consistent with the premining existing and designated uses of the water resources. These additional regulatory requirements have no specific counterparts in the Federal regulations, and we find they make the Pennsylvania program more stringent than SMCRA in regard to hydrologic balance. Before enactment of Act 32, planned subsidence was allowable under long-standing practice, supported by PADEP's view that it does not constitute presumptive evidence of pollution under the Clean Streams Law. Act 32 codifies that practice, which clarifies the law for operators, regulators, and the public. As noted, it also adds a safeguard by requiring operators that seek approval of planned subsidence to submit applications that “provide for” restoration of premining flows and premining biological communities. Additional safeguards are discussed in the responses to comments below.

Comment 3: Commenter claimed that most longwall mines dewater the streams above them, and this dewatering is often complete. Commenter claimed that, when this occurs, industry is unable to restore both the premining flow and the premining aquatic biology, which means that the damage to streams is often not reparable, and the water chemistry irreparably affected.

OSMRE Response: Under Federal and Pennsylvania law both before and after Act 32, “perfect” stream restoration is not required. Subsection 516(b)(1) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1266(b)(1)) regulates surface effects of underground mining, requiring operators to adopt measures “consistent with known technology in order to prevent subsidence causing material damage to the extent technologically and economically feasible.” This standard is echoed in Pennsylvania law at 52 P.S. § 1406.5(e). In addition, subsection 516(b)(9) of SMCRA requires that activities be conducted to “minimize disturbance of the hydrologic balance within the permit and adjacent areas, to prevent material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area, and to support approved postmining land uses.” OSMRE's regulations echo and reinforce these requirements. Under 30 CFR 817.41, underground mining and reclamation activities must be “conducted to minimize disturbance of the hydrologic balance within the permit and adjacent areas, to prevent material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area, and to support approved postmining land uses.” As these provisions make clear, some amount of damage is permissible, provided it does not rise to the level of material damage. If it rises to material damage, remedies and enforcement mechanisms for addressing damage exist under the Pennsylvania program and the Federal regulations. See, e.g., 25 Pa. Code § 86.211 (abatement orders); 25 Pa. Code § 86.194(b)(1)(i) (assessment of civil penalties for “damage or injury to the lands or to the waters . . . or their uses”); 30 CFR 843.11 (federal cessation orders, including imposition of “affirmative obligations” on the permittee to abate “imminent danger or significant environmental harm”). For all these reasons, we disagree with commenter's suggestion that risk of dewatering or impacting water chemistry precludes approval of Act 32. In our oversight role, we will continue to monitor success with stream restoration following planned subsidence in accordance with the applicable standards.

Comment 4: Commenter pointed to proposed section 5(i), which adds planned subsidence to the circumstances where a finding of presumptive evidence of potential pollution is not warranted, and contended that operators will never predict permanent damage because there is “no solid evidence to assure [any disruption] won't be permanent.”

OSMRE Response: Permit applications and supporting data are reviewed by PADEP technical staff. If an application predicts no permanent damage but the operational plans or supporting data (considered in light of site geology and hydrology) fail to support that prediction, PADEP would be obligated to disapprove the application. If an interested party objects to how PADEP exercises its discretionary authority and applies its technical expertise in approving planned subsidence, legal mechanisms exist for challenging PADEP's approval, including appeal to Pennsylvania's Environmental Hearings Board. Commenters' concern that permanent damage is never predicted (and the implication that it would be carelessly approved) do not make Act 32 less stringent or less effective than SMCRA or its implementing regulations, which is the standard governing OSMRE approval of state program amendments.

Comment 5: Commenter stated that the amendment is an attempt to ensure that environmental groups cannot argue that a longwall mine that predicts dewatering damage should be denied a permit.

OSMRE Response: Permit applications and supporting data are reviewed by PADEP technical staff. If an application predicts no permanent damage but the operational plans or supporting data (considered in light of site geology and hydrology) fail to support that prediction, PADEP would be obligated to disapprove the application. If an interested party objects to the how PADEP exercises its discretionary authority and applies its technical expertise in approving the permit, legal mechanisms exist for individuals or groups to challenge PADEP's approval, including appeal to Pennsylvania's Environmental Hearings Board. We recognize the commenter may be referring to a recent appeal of a PADEP permitting decision before Pennsylvania's Environmental Hearings Board (Docket No. 2014-072-BP), in which the groups argued any stream subsidence is pollution within the meaning of the Clean Streams Law and that permit approval in such circumstances is unlawful. While the amendment may dissuade these groups from arguing in the future that subsidence is pollution, the fact is the legislature simply agreed with PADEP's view (consistent with long-standing practice) that properly planned subsidence is not pollution within the meaning of the Clean Streams Law, and it enacted Act 32 to make that point explicit. OSMRE has no reason or authority to question the motives of the legislature or PADEP in submitting the proposed amendment. OSMRE must assure that a proposed amendment is in accordance with SMCRA and consistent with the relevant Federal regulations. In the case of Act 32, we conclude that it is.

Comment 6: Commenters opposed the amendment and argue that Act 32 was a response to the litigation discussed in comment 4, that it was intended to extinguish the arguments of the conservation organizations, and that the Pennsylvania legislature enacted Act 32 to “weaken the protections afforded to Pennsylvania streams and allow destruction of public natural resources for private profit.”

OSMRE Response: We refer commenters to our response to comment 4, in particular, our statement that it is our duty to assess the proposed amendment to ensure that it is in accordance with SMCRA and consistent with the Federal regulations, which Act 32 is.

Comment 7: Commenters opined that the provisions in Act 32 are not in accordance with SMCRA and its implementing regulations because Act 32 does not adequately protect waters of the Commonwealth and their existing and designated uses.

OSMRE Response: We disagree with commenters' conclusion that Act 32 does not adequately protect streams. For the reasons stated in our response to comment 2, we believe it enhances stream protection over the level required by SMCRA and the Federal regulations. Under the proposed amendment, an operator seeking authorization for planned subsidence must submit an application that “provides for” restoration of the “premining range of flows” and restoration of “premining biological communities” in waters predicted to be adversely affected by subsidence, a provision that has no counterpart in the Federal regulations. Pennsylvania's previously approved program remains in effect, and Act 32 enhances that program, while codifying PADEP's long-standing regulatory interpretation of what constitutes evidence of presumptive pollution, which gives Act 32 a limited substantive effect. If commenters are concerned that the existing Pennsylvania program is inadequate, SMCRA provides other avenues for that challenge; however, for this amendment, we are only looking at the changes made to the Pennsylvania program by Act 32, which are in accordance with SMCRA and consistent with the Federal regulations.

Comment 8: Commenters stated that Act 32 was enacted for the sole benefit and private profit of the coal mining industry, and they alleged that article III, section 32, of the Pennsylvania Constitution prohibits such “special laws.” Another commenter reiterated this concern and provided that “special laws” include laws granting special privileges to a “select industry,” which does not serve to promote the general welfare of the public.

OSMRE Response: OSMRE has no authority to review whether acts of the Pennsylvania legislature violate the Pennsylvania Constitution. Our review of proposed amendments to the Pennsylvania program is limited to ensuring that such changes are in accordance with SMCRA and consistent with the Federal regulations.

Comment 9: Commenters stated that Act 32 attempts to exempt predicted impairment of streams from the Clean Streams Law and that this contradicts Federal water quality standards required under the Clean Water Act.

OSMRE Response: We disagree with this characterization of the amendment. The Pennsylvania program, with the addition of Act 32, requires operators to submit applications; these applications now must include the supporting analysis and data that was contained in PADEP's 2005 Technical Guidance Document (TGD) and must “provide for” the restoration of premining flows and premining biological communities. The TGD set out PADEP's process for evaluating the sufficiency of mitigation plans for mining operations predicting flow loss to ensure that mitigation and restoration measures would restore protected uses. Act 32 codifies this process into law and eliminates PADEP discretion to deviate from its now-codified interpretation.

Act 32 also makes clear that planned subsidence, which meets existing regulatory requirements (as well as the regulatory requirements in Act 32), is not presumptive evidence of pollution. However, technical staff at PADEP still must apply their expertise to the applications and supporting data to make predictive judgments in approving permits allowing planned subsidence to ensure the regulatory requirements are met. They make this determination within the construct of the approved Pennsylvania program, which includes various regulations that we have found to be consistent with Federal standards for protecting the hydrologic balance at coal mining sites. In particular, the Pennsylvania program has been found to be consistent with the Federal regulation at 30 CFR 817.42 (Water quality standards and effluent limitations). Section 817.42 provides that water discharges “shall be made in compliance with all applicable State and Federal water quality laws and regulations and with the effluent limitations for coal mining promulgated by the [EPA] set forth in 40 CFR part 434,” and this includes the Clean Water Act. Act 32 makes no change to this part of the Pennsylvania program's regulatory scheme pertaining to water quality and effluent limitations, except to the extent it strengthens stream protection through the specific requirements of section 5(j) of the Act (in particular, the requirement that an application “provide for” restoration of premining flows and premining biological communities). As these prior regulations in the Pennsylvania program require water discharges be in compliance with the Clean Water Act, we fail to see how Act 32 would contradict this existing requirement.

Comment 10: Commenters stated that Act 32 creates an exception to State water quality standards and antidegradation standards, where operators predict subsidence-induced impairment to uses of overlying streams. According to commenters, such revisions to state water quality programs are not effective until approved by EPA under 40 CFR 123.62; therefore, this requirement necessitates, at the very least, consulting with EPA before making a decision approving the amendment.

OSMRE Response: As explained in the response to comment 9, Act 32 neither revises water quality standards or antidegradation standards nor does it create any exceptions or exemptions. Further, OSMRE did seek EPA comment, but EPA declined to comment.

Comment 11: Commenters opined that the amendment is incompatible with PADEP's duties as a trustee of Pennsylvania's public natural resources under article I, section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which protects individual environmental rights of citizens (citing Robinson Township v. Commonwealth, 83 A.3d 901 (Pa. 2013)).

OSMRE Response: OSMRE has no authority to review whether acts of the Pennsylvania legislature violate the Pennsylvania Constitution. Our review of proposed amendments to the Pennsylvania mining program is limited to ensuring that the proposed amendments are in accordance with SMCRA and consistent with the Federal regulations.

Comment 12: Commenter raised concerns that the amendment would allow “predicted adverse stream impacts . . . with no assurance that those adverse effects will ever be corrected.”

OSMRE Response: The commenter misstates the relevant standard. Under 30 CFR 817.41(a), mining activities must be conducted “to minimize disturbance of the hydrologic balance” and to “prevent material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area.” As discussed in the response to comment 3, some amount of damage is permissible, provided it does not rise to the level of material damage.

Comment 13: Commenter stated that the amendment allows damage to streams and employs “Orwellian doublespeak to declare that such damages are not a violation of the Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law.”

OSMRE Response: We refer the commenter to the responses in comments 3, and 12. SMCRA does not prohibit adverse impacts to streams; it only prohibits those impacts that rise to the level of material damage outside of the permit area. Act 32 does not change the standard by which we review program amendments for consistency with the Federal regulations.

Comment 14: Commenter stated that accurate predictions as to whether undermined streams are likely to experience significant flow loss still are not being made, indicating that at least six streams had been irreparably damaged during the 2003-2008 period.

OSMRE Response: As discussed in response to the responses in comments 3, “perfect” stream restoration is not required under preexisting Pennsylvania and Federal law. SMCRA does not prohibit any impacts to streams. OSMRE cannot disapprove an amendment unless it is not in accordance with SMCRA or inconsistent with the Federal regulations.

Comment 15: Commenters noted that PADEP must prepare assessments on the effects of underground mining every five years and claimed that those assessments “consistently demonstrate” that damages from longwall mines have been increasing in numbers and severity over time and that repair of damage to “natural features particularly streams cannot be assured.” They cited a 2014 PADEP report that said the ability to repair stream damage “remains largely unknown.” Similarly, commenters stated that stream restoration “still is in its infancy” and does not have a “documented record of success.” Another commenter cited a 2012 report indicating that current stream restoration practices “cannot be assumed to provide demonstrable physical, chemical, or biological functional improvements” and cited additional studies, in 2002, 2003 and 2014 reaching similar conclusions.

OSMRE Response: As discussed in the response to comment 3, “perfect” stream restoration is not required under preexisting Federal law or even under the Pennsylvania program (either before or after the enactment of Act 32). SMCRA does not prohibit impacts so long as those impact do not rise to the level of material damage outside the permit area. OSMRE cannot disapprove an amendment unless it is not in accordance with SMCRA or inconsistent with the Federal regulations.

Comment 16: Because predicting restoration is difficult and because full restoration has a low chance of occurring, this commenter suggested that OSMRE should disapprove the amendment.

OSMRE Response: The relevant standard for OSMRE to approve a program amendment is whether the amendment is “in accordance with” SMCRA and “consistent with” the Federal regulations as those terms are defined in 30 CFR 830.5. As we explain in the Findings and in the response to comment 3, Act 32 meets these standards. The comment appears to ignore the role of PADEP's expert technical staff who review and approve applications under the requirements of Pennsylvania's approved program. As discussed in the response to comment 4, if an application predicts no permanent damage but the operational plans or supporting data (considered in light of site geology and hydrology) fail to support that prediction, PADEP would be obligated to disapprove the permit application.

Comment 17: Commenter stated that approval of this amendment would be contrary to 30 CFR 817.41, which directs that underground mining be conducted to minimize disturbance to the hydrologic balance within the permit and adjacent areas, to prevent material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area, and to support approved postmining land use(s).

OSMRE Response: We disagree. Approving Act 32 does not change the standards for protecting the hydrologic balance in Pennsylvania's approved program below what is required in 30 CFR 817.41 and the other Federal regulations. As discussed in the response to comment 9 and elsewhere, Act 32 codifies PADEP's prior regulatory interpretation of what constitutes evidence of presumptive pollution and adds requirements that strengthen stream protections. In particular, section 5(j) of Act 32 requires that permit applications specifically “provide for” restoration of the premining range of flows and for restoration of premining biological communities, which is a standard above that found in the Federal regulations. Thus, the Pennsylvania program with Act 32 is no less stringent than SMCRA and no less effective than the Federal regulations with regard to the protection of the hydrologic balance.

Comment 18: Commenter opined that approving the amendment would violate three SMCRA regulations—(i) 30 CFR 783.10 (requiring that each applicant provide an adequate description of the environmental baseline), (ii) 30 CFR 784.14 (requiring baseline hydrologic information); and (iii) 30 CFR 783.2 (requiring that applicants provide a complete and accurate description of the environmental resources that may be impacted or affected by proposed underground mining activities)—because the amendment allows applicants to predict there will be no permanent disruption of premining uses and predicting is uncertain.

OSMRE Response: We disagree with the contention that Act 32 violates the cited provisions. As discussed above, Act 32 is more stringent than SMCRA and no less effective than the Federal regulations; Act 32 adds to the stream protections of SMCRA and makes no changes to the portions of the Pennsylvania program that give effect to the cited Federal regulations. In addition, the comment appears to ignore the role of PADEP's expert technical staff who review and approve each application under requirements of the approved Pennsylvania program. As discussed in the response to comment 4, if an application predicts no permanent damage but the PADEP expert technical staff who review the operational plans or supporting data (considered in light of site geology and hydrology) determine that the application fails to support that prediction, PADEP would be obligated to disapprove the application.

Comment 19: Commenter stated that PADEP compiled no evidence to determine the reliability of such predictions, despite numerous requests to gather such evidence, and imposed no consequences on applicants who wrongly predicted no permanent damage.

OSMRE Response: We disagree. The commenter appears to ignore Act 32's narrow scope, which leaves the other provisions of the current Pennsylvania program intact while codifying PADEP's long-standing regulatory interpretation of what constitutes evidence of presumptive pollution and adding safeguards that enhance stream protections. We also note that the Pennsylvania program and Federal regulations include numerous enforcement mechanisms, including penalties and cessation orders, as discussed in the response to comment 3.

Comment 20: Commenter raised concerns that approving the amendment would violate unspecified provisions of Subchapter J, 30 CFR part 800 (Bond and Insurance Requirements), by removing “any assignment or determination of liability” and thereby negating any need for performance bonds.

OSMRE Response: We believe the commenter is incorrect in suggesting that Act 32 somehow negates the need for performance bonds. Pennsylvania's bonding requirements in Subchapter F of Chapter 86, Title 25, will still apply following approval. Act 32 neither addresses bonding and nor amends Pennsylvania's approved bonding scheme.

Comment 21: Commenter alleged that 30 CFR 732.15(c) prohibits state program provisions that interfere with or preclude implementation of SMCRA.

OSMRE Response: Although the commenter failed to provide a reason explaining how Act 32 purportedly interferes with or precludes implementation of SMCRA, we have reviewed Act 32 and compared it to SMCRA and the Federal regulations and disagree with the commenter's allegation. As discussed in the Findings section and in the response to comment 4, OSMRE must assure that a proposed amendment is in accordance with SMCRA and consistent with the Federal regulations. In the case of Act 32, after our review, we conclude that it meets that standard.

Comment 22: Commenter claimed that the amendment violates section 303 of the Clean Water Act and EPA's antidegradation regulations, which mandate that when the regulatory authority approves coal mining permits or approvals, it must ensure that the existing and designated uses of surface waters are maintained and protected.

OSMRE Response: Section 303 of the Clean Water Act sets forth an “anti-degradation policy,” which requires that state standards be sufficient to maintain existing beneficial uses of navigable waters, preventing their further degradation. See 33 U.S.C. 1313(d)(4)(B). Pennsylvania's Clean Water Act program has met these requirements, and SMCRA provides that nothing in it can “be construed as superseding, amending, modifying or repealing” the Clean Water Act. See 30 U.S.C. 1292(a)(3). Act 32 does not change the fact that Pennsylvania must comply with the remainder of its SMCRA regulatory program and with all applicable portions of the Clean Water Act, including the anti-degradation policy. Rather, Act 32 leaves the rest of the current Pennsylvania SMCRA regulatory program as well as the Clean Water Act requirements intact. Act 32 simply codifies PADEP's long-standing regulatory interpretation of what constitutes evidence of presumptive pollution and adds safeguards that enhance stream protections. Moreover, as noted above we sought comments from EPA, which regulates the Clean Water Act, but EPA did not provide any comments.

Comment 23: Commenter suggested that the amendment will lead to the wholesale destruction of streams in coalfields where longwall mining occurs. According to the commenter, mine operators will no longer need to make even a pretense of trying to avoid or minimize damage to streams.

OSMRE Response: As stated above, we conclude that Act 32 enhances and clarifies the existing Pennsylvania regulatory program. Section 516(b)(9) of SMCRA directs that permits require operators to minimize disturbances to the “prevailing hydrologic balance” and to the “quantity of water in surface ground water systems both during and after coal mining operations and during reclamation.” See 30 U.S.C. 1266(b)(9). Pennsylvania's approach is more rigorous than that standard. As discussed in response to comment 2, Act 32 operates in conjunction with the existing regulatory scheme and expressly requires that permit applications “provide for” restoration of premining range of flows and restoration of premining biological communities. There is no comparable requirement in SMCRA that requires those restoration metrics. Act 32 imposes on operators the additional duty of demonstrating the absence of “presumptive evidence of potential pollution,” something also not required by SMCRA or its implementing regulations. Given the protections in the Pennsylvania program, which is in accordance with SMCRA and consistent with the Federal regulations, we disagree with this commenter's allegations.

Comment 24: Commenter asserted that changes in baseflow of a stream can have “marked effects on the integrity of macroinvertebrate communities in stream ecosystems.”

OSMRE Response: We agree that changes in baseflow can affect stream biology, but that fact does not support disapproval of this amendment. Planned subsidence is permissible under SMCRA and the approved Pennsylvania program. Act 32 clarifies the Pennsylvania program in regard to presumptive evidence of pollution and enhances the permitting process by adding greater stream protections, including the restoration of premining biological communities, as discussed in the response to comments 2 and 23.

Comment 25: Commenter requested that the scope of “biological communities” be more clearly defined and include invertebrate, algal, and piscivorous species, among others.

OSMRE Response: While we understand the commenter's request, the fact that Pennsylvania could have more clearly defined “biological communities” does not make the amendment not in accordance with SMCRA or inconsistent with the Federal regulations. If Pennsylvania later determines that additional clarification of that term is necessary, Pennsylvania could always propose another amendment to their program to further define this term.

Comment 26: Commenter stated that the proposed changes do not facilitate the goals of the Clean Streams Law because altered streamflow regimes can adversely impact health of ecosystems, which will not lead to their net improvement.

OSMRE Response: We agree that altered streamflow can adversely impact stream ecosystems, but we note that “net improvement” is not a requirement under the Clean Streams Law or SMCRA. Instead, the SMCRA standard for approving a program amendment requires us to determine whether the amendment is in accordance with SMCRA and consistent with the Federal regulations as those terms are defined in 30 CFR 730.5. The applicable Federal regulation is 30 CFR 817.41(a), which requires that mining activities be conducted “to minimize disturbance of the hydrologic balance” and to “prevent material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area.” SMCRA's standards do not require “net improvement.” As discussed in the response to comment 3, some amount of damage is permissible so long as it does not rise above the acceptable level of damage. If it does, remedies and enforcement mechanisms for addressing damage exist under the Pennsylvania program and Federal regulations.

Comment 27: Commenter raised concerns that Act 32 seeks to weaken the protections afforded to streams and allows the destruction of public natural resources for private profit.

OSMRE Response: We disagree and believe that Act 32 enhances the Pennsylvania program, as discussed in the responses in comments 2 and 23.

Comment 28: Commenter asserted that Act 32 “contradicts the minimum statutory floors” in Part 817 of SMCRA, referring specifically to 30 CFR 817.41(a), and contended that Act 32 violates the requirement that mining activities be conducted “to minimize disturbance of the hydrologic balance” and to “prevent material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area.”

OSMRE Response: As noted in our response to comment 26, we do not agree that Act 32 violates or contradicts 30 CFR 817.41(a). The current Pennsylvania program meets the standard of section 817.41, and, as explained further in the responses to comments 2 and 23, the addition of Act 32 serves to clarify and enhance the existing program.

Comment 29: Commenter stated that Act 32 uses “dangerously vague language,” by not defining “permanent,” as used in sec. 5(i), which provides that applications for planned subsidence cannot be approved if they predict “permanent disruption of premining existing or designated uses of surface waters . . . .”

OSMRE Response: Courts read terms in a statute or regulation that are not defined according to their plain meaning, a rule we observe in this instance. The absence of a definition for “permanent” in Act 32 does not demand disapproval of the amendment.

Comment 30: Commenter stated that healthy ephemeral streams could be predicted to change to intermittent streams which “would then essentially be gone” and their “aquatic life largely wiped out for [up to decades] before any restoration to premining flow occurs.”

OSMRE Response: While we recognize this possibility exists, we note that the approved Pennsylvania program includes numerous regulatory requirements serving as safeguards to assist in avoiding such outcomes, as discussed in the response to comment 6. As discussed in the response to comments 2 and 23, Act 32, with the new requirements related to restoration of premining range of flows and biological communities should actually enhance stream protections over the minimum standards contained in SMCRA and makes the outcomes described by the commenter less likely. Under the approved Pennsylvania program, technical staff at PADEP will apply their expertise to the applications and supporting data to make predictive judgments in approving planned subsidence. Act 32 does not change this requirement, except to the extent it enhances stream protection, as discussed throughout these comment responses.

Comment 31: Commenter states successful restoration is “extraordinarily difficult” to predict and argues Act 32 should not be approved because it “banks heavily on the viability of successful stream restoration techniques,” adding that “banking on modern day methodology to prevent future harms can and does fail.”

OSMRE Response: We refer the commenter to the responses to comments 16 and 23.

Comment 32: Commenter suggested that Act 32 was intended to “affirm the PADEP interpretation of the Clean Streams Law allowing temporary material damage to water resources from `planned subsidence' provided that a plan was submitted to restore the damaged resource.” Commenter also stated that Act 32 seeks to “legislatively resolve the question left open in” UMCO Energy v. Department of Environmental Protection, 938 A.2d 530 (2007).

OSMRE Response: We refer commenters to the response to comment 5, including the statement that it is the duty of PADEP and OSMRE to faithfully execute the law and that OSMRE has no reason or authority to question the legislature's motives. It is our duty is to assess the proposed amendment under the SMCRA standard discussed in the response to comment 3.

Comment 33: Commenter stated that Act 32 “eliminates the presumption that planned subsidence . . . has the potential to cause pollution, provided that the permit application contains a plan to restore [premining flows and biological communities].”

OSMRE Response: This comment mischaracterizes the effect of section 5(j) of Act 32. Even prior to the enactment of Act 32, under the approved Pennsylvania program, there was no blanket presumption that planned subsidence has the potential to cause pollution; thus, the enactment of Act 32 could not cause such presumption to be eliminated. We recognize, however, that Act 32 does add language to section 5 of the Bituminous Mine Subsidence and Land Conversation Act, which specifies that planned subsidence meeting regulatory requirements is not a circumstance where a finding of presumptive evidence of potential pollution under the Clean Streams Law is warranted.

Comment 34: Commenter alleged that Act 32 ignores “temporal losses” of a stream's “function, use, and values” and “sanctions temporary impacts on [water resources] in a fashion repugnant to SMCRA.”

OSMRE Response: Nothing in SMCRA would prohibit temporal losses; SMCRA requires restoration after subsidence, which necessarily means that temporal losses are expected under SMCRA between the time of impact and restoration. As discussed in the response to comment 3, some degree of disturbance is allowable under SMCRA; Act 32 does not go beyond what is allowable.

Comment 35: Commenter stated that Act 32 is arbitrary, capricious, and inconsistent with law as a matter of law and as a matter of fact and because it excludes temporary damage from “pollution.”

OSMRE Response: We disagree. As stated in responses other comments and our findings, the amendments made to the Pennsylvania program by Act 32 are in accordance with SMCRA and consistent with the Federal regulations.

Comment 36: Commenter extensively summarized the law (including prior OSMRE rulemakings on protection of the hydrologic balance and prevention of material damage) and asserts that the Pennsylvania legislature “cannot linguistically redefine `pollution' in a manner that effectively redefines `material damage' . . . to mean only permanent or irreparable material damage.”

OSMRE Response: As stated elsewhere in this preamble, we do not believe Act 32 lowers the standard of “material damage” below the standard set forth in SMCRA. As stated in the response to comment 2, even before the enactment of Act 32, planned subsidence was permissible under the Pennsylvania program and PADEP's long-standing practice. This practice was supported by PADEP's view that planned subsidence, in and of itself, does not constitute presumptive evidence of pollution under the Clean Streams Law. While we recognize that some commenters may have a different interpretation, Act 32 codifies the interpretation that had previously been used by PADEP, which clarifies the operative standard for operators, regulators, and the public.

Comment 37: Commenter contended that neither the factual record nor the law supports approval of a state program amendment allowing PADEP the authority to approve planned subsidence “without an affirmative demonstration by the permit applicant and a finding by the agency” that the operation is designed to “ `prevent material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area' inclusive of both permanent and temporary interference with the designated and actual uses of the waterbody due to subsidence.”

OSMRE Response: Act 32 did not change the requirement of the approved Pennsylvania program at 25 Pa. Code § 86.37(a) that mandates that an application cannot be approved unless the application “affirmatively demonstrates and [PADEP] finds, in writing, on the basis of the information in the application or from information otherwise available,” that the “activities proposed under the application have been designed to prevent material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the proposed permit area.” In addition, under section 5(j) of Act 32, operators are required to make an affirmative demonstration sufficient for PADEP to conclude that the application adequately “provide[s] for” restoration of premining flows and premining biological communities. Thus, PADEP still must make the findings required by SMCRA related to material damage caused by underground mining.

Comment 38: Commenter raised concerns that the amendment creates an exemption to an 80-year-old law that protects streams and water supplies and will allow mining companies to predictably damage or pollute streams based on a promise to clean them up later.

OSMRE Response: We disagree with the commenter's characterization of the amendment. As explained in the response to comment 7, Act 32 codifies PADEP's prior interpretation of what constitutes evidence of presumptive pollution and adds requirements that strengthen stream protection. To describe Act 32 as creating an exemption to Pennsylvania's Clean Streams Law would ignore PADEP's long-standing practice and regulatory interpretation that law's application to underground mining with planned subsidence.

Comment 39: Commenter noted that PADEP identified six streams in December 2012 as having been irreparably damaged after being dewatered, and, restoration of those streams were unsuccessful after five years.

OSMRE Response: While stream damage, such as the commenter has described, has occurred in the past, neither that fact nor the fact that PADEP has overseen many successful restorations is the standard by which we evaluate a proposed state program amendment. The Pennsylvania program, as amended by Act 32 and in accordance with SMCRA and consistent with the Federal regulations, does not require perfect restoration. Some amount of damage is permissible under these authorities, provided it does not rise to the level of material damage. If it does rise to the level of material damage, in accordance with SMCRA and consistent with the Federal regulations, the Pennsylvania program contains remedies and enforcement mechanisms to allow PADEP to address such a violation.

Comment 40: Commenter requested an extension of the comment period, because of the “horrendous damage this change would allow to Pennsylvania streams.”

OSMRE Response: As indicated in section II, OSMRE extended the comment period April 11, 2018, to June 15, 2018. We disagree with commenter's allegation regarding the consequences of this amendment. As discussed in the Findings and in responses to comments 2 and 3, by imposing on operators a duty of affirmatively demonstrating the absence of any “presumptive evidence of potential pollution,” even while excepting planned subsidence from the demonstration, the proposed amendment promotes the core objective of subsection 516(b)(9) of SMCRA.

Comment 41: Commenter claimed that changes in baseflow can have “marked effects on the integrity of macroinvertebrate communities in stream ecosystems.”

OSMRE Response: We agree that changes in baseflow can affect stream biology, but this fact is not a reason for disapproval. Planned subsidence is permissible under SMCRA and the approved State program. Act 32 clarifies the Pennsylvania program with regard to presumptive evidence of pollution and enhances the permitting process by adding greater stream protections, as discussed in the response to comments 2, and 23

Comment 42: Commenter stated that the scope of “biological communities” should be more clearly defined and should include invertebrate, algal, and piscivorous species, among others.

OSMRE Response: While we understand why the commenter suggested that a definition of “biological communities” be included, such a definition is not necessary for us to consider and approve this amendment. As written the proposed amendment is in accordance with SMCRA and consistent with the Federal regulations, as discussed in the response to comments 2 and 23.

At a public hearing in Green Tree, PA, OSMRE heard from three individuals opposed to the amendment. The comments in opposition to the proposed amendment raised concerns similar to those set out above and are addressed by these responses. At the same public hearing, OSMRE heard statements from four individuals in favor of the proposed amendment, who indicated, among other things, that Act 32 reaffirms the permitting protocols already employed under the Pennsylvania program and does not lessen existing standards; long wall mining is consistent with section 516 of SMCRA, which has been construed as allowing use of longwall mining methods; and some amount of stream damage is permissible so long as it does not rise to the level of material damage. We generally agree with these statements, and we appreciate all parties' participation in the process.

On February 21, 2019, pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and section 503(b) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253(b)), we requested comments on the amendment from various Federal agencies with an actual or potential interest in the Pennsylvania program (Administrative Record No. PA-899). We did not receive any comments.

Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we are required to obtain written concurrence from EPA for those provisions of the program amendment that relate to air or water quality standards issued under the authority of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. ) or the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. ).

None of the revisions that Pennsylvania proposed to make in this amendment pertain to air or water quality standards. Therefore, we did not ask EPA to concur on the amendment. However, on August 7, 2017, under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), we requested comments from the EPA on the amendment (Administrative Record No. PA-899.00). The EPA responded (Administrative Records No. PA-899.003) via letter dated October 31, 2017, that they have reviewed the proposed amendment and would not be providing comments.

Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), we are required to request comments from the SHPO and ACHP on amendments that may have an effect on historic properties. On August 7, 2017, we requested comments on the amendment (Administrative Record No. PA-899). We did not receive any comments.

Based on the above findings, we are approving the Pennsylvania amendment that was submitted on August 4, 2017 (Administrative Record No. PA-899.00). To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations at 30 CFR part 938 that codify decisions concerning the Pennsylvania program. In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), this rule will take effect 30 days after the date of publication.

This rule would not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications that would result in public property being taken for government use without just compensation under the law. Therefore, a takings implication assessment is not required. This determination is based on an analysis of the corresponding Federal regulations.

Executive Order 12866, provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. Pursuant to OMB guidance, dated October 12, 1993 (OMB Memo M-94-3), the approval of State program amendments is exempted from OMB review under Executive Order 12866.

The Department of the Interior has reviewed this rule as required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988. The Department has determined that this Federal Register document meets the criteria of section 3 of Executive Order 12988, which is intended to ensure that the agency review its legislation and proposed regulations to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; that the agency write its legislation and regulations to minimize litigation; and that the agency's legislation and regulations provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, and promote simplification and burden reduction. Because section 3 focuses on the quality of Federal legislation and regulations, the Department limited its review under this Executive order to the quality of this Federal Register document and to changes to the Federal regulations. The review under this Executive order did not extend to the language of the State regulatory program or to the program amendment that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania drafted.

This rule has potential federalism implications as defined under section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132. Executive Order 13132 directs agencies to “grant the States the maximum administrative discretion possible” with respect to Federal statutes and regulations administered by the States. Pennsylvania, through its approved regulatory program, implements and administers SMCRA and its implementing regulations at the state level. This rule approves an amendment to the Pennsylvania program submitted and drafted by the State and, thus, is consistent with the direction to provide maximum administrative discretion to States.

The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Tribes through a commitment to consultation with Tribes and recognition of their right to Tribal self-governance and sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under the Department's consultation policy and under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and have determined that it has no substantial direct effects on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Tribes.

The basis for this determination is that our decision on the Pennsylvania program does not include Indian lands as defined by SMCRA or other Tribal lands, and it does not affect the regulation of activities on Indian lands or other Tribal lands. Indian lands under SMCRA are regulated independently under the applicable Federal Indian program. The Department's consultation policy also acknowledges that our rules may have Tribal implications where the State proposing the amendment encompasses ancestral lands in areas with mineable coal. We are currently working to identify and engage appropriate Tribal stakeholders to devise a constructive approach for consulting on these amendments.

Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare a statement of energy effects for a rulemaking that is (1) considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and is not significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211, a statement of energy effects is not required.

Consistent with sections 501(a) and 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1251(a) and 1292(d), respectively) and the U.S. Department of the Interior Departmental Manual, part 516, section 13.5(A), State program amendments are not major Federal actions within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C).

This rule does not include requests and requirements of an individual, partnership, or corporation to obtain information and report it to a Federal agency. As this rule does not contain information collection requirements, a submission to the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) is not required.

This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). The State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon corresponding Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was prepared, and certification made that such regulations would not have a significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small entities. In making the determination as to whether this rule would have a significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and assumptions for the corresponding Federal regulations.

This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: (a) does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million; (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) does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This determination is based on an analysis of the corresponding Federal regulations, which were determined not to constitute a major rule.

This rule will 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. This determination is based an analysis of the corresponding Federal regulations, which were determined not to impose an unfunded mandate. 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 set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 938 is amended as set forth below:

This final rule removes the DoD regulation at 32 CFR part 246, “Stars and Stripes (S&S) Newspaper and Business Operations,” because it addresses internal policy, responsibilities, and procedures for Stripes. The rule was published on April 22, 1994 (59 FR 19137). Although a proposed rule was published in the Federal Register (89 FR 30296-30299) on April 23, 2024, for a 60-day public comment period to update its content and make the public aware of the unique mission of Stripes, after further review of the proposed rule and the public comments, which largely addressed internal procedures, the Department has determined this rule is not necessary. Rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act is not required and internal policy and procedures governing Stripes will continue to be published in DoD Directive 5122.11, “Stars and Stripes (S&S) Newspapers and Business Operations” (available at https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodd/512211p.pdf ).

During the public comment period for the proposed rule, a total of 91 comments were received. Three of the comments were not related to the rule and are not discussed in this preamble. In general, commenters were supportive of the Stripes program. The majority of the 88 public comments advocated for Stripes employees to be allowed to make Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, to have unescorted access to DoD facilities to cover events or activities open to those with installation access even if commercial media did not have the same unescorted access, or to republish previously classified or controlled unclassified materials. One commenter raised a concern regarding Stripes employees being able to make FOIA requests in their official capacity because section 551 of title 5, United States Code, excludes a Federal agency from the definition of “person” for the purposes of obtaining information under FOIA. These comments will be considered in the update to DoD Directive 5122.11.

Some of the comments also advocated for not changing the existing rule because of perceived concerns that changes would restrict Stripes in continuing its mission of providing editorially independent news and information. However, the existing rule is outdated and does not reflect the current operation of Stripes, only referencing Stripes as a hardcopy/print publication and not the multi-platform (including web-based) publication it has become.

It has been determined that publication of this rule removal for public comment is unnecessary because the underlying rule addresses internal agency policies and procedures and its removal has no impact on the public.

This rule is administrative in nature with no requirements imposed on the public. This rule does not affect the cost of the program or require changes on behalf of Stripes subscribers. Stripes is partially funded through revenue-generating activities as a nonappropriated fund instrumentality. While Stripes also receives some appropriated funding, it is required to be funded to the maximum extent possible through the sale and distribution of the newspapers, other products, authorized advertising, and other sources of revenue. These internal DoD procedures are outlined in DoD Directive 5122.11.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

This rule is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

This action is subject to the CRA (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), and DoD will submit a rule report to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

The Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs certified that this rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) because the rule only addresses the operations of Stripes, and it would not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

This rule does not impose reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

This action will not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it is not expected to have 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. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply to this action.

This action will not have Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it is not expected to have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes, significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal governments and does not involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply to this action.

An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded by accessing the Office of the Federal Register's home page at: www.federalregister.gov.

This action conforms 46 CFR part 350 to Executive Order 14172 by changing “Gulf of Mexico” to “Gulf of America” in the name of a seaman's service award during World War II specified in the regulations. 1 The rule would also provide necessary clerical updates to DOT's regulations, such as updating citations to authority, physical office addresses, and office names.

MARAD issues this final rule without prior notice and the opportunity for public comment and the 30-day delayed effective date ordinarily prescribed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), general notice and the opportunity for public comment are not required with respect to a rulemaking when an “agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” MARAD has determined that there is good cause to waive the opportunity for prior notice and comment, finding it unnecessary with respect to a geographic name change effectuated previously by Executive direction and for factual clerical changes such as updating citations to authority, physical office addresses, and office names. Neither of these updates imposes any regulatory requirements or costs on members of the public. MARAD waives the 30-day delay in effective date under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for the same reasons.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563, provides for determining whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of E.O. 12866.

Today's final rule is not significant and has not been reviewed by OMB under E.O. 12866. This rule is limited to conforming the agency's implementing regulation at 46 CFR part 350 to a geographic name change previously effectuated by Executive direction and making clerical updates to citations of authority, physical office addresses, office names. This rule does not result in any changes to costs or benefits.

Executive Order 14192, titled “ Unleashing Prosperity through Deregulation,” directs that, unless prohibited by law, whenever an executive department or agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it must identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed. In addition, any new incremental costs of all new regulations must be significantly less than zero. Only those rules deemed significant under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, “ Regulatory Planning and Review,” are subject to these requirements. Per OMB Memo M-25-20, E.O. 14192 applies to a rulemaking action that is “a significant regulatory action as defined in Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 that has been finalized and that imposes total costs greater than zero.” As discussed above, this rule provides clerical updates to the regulation and changes the name “Gulf of Mexico” to the “Gulf of America.” Accordingly, this action is neither a regulatory nor a deregulatory rule under Executive Order 14192.

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), MARAD has considered the impacts of this rulemaking action on small entities (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). Rules that are exempt from notice and comment are also exempt from the RFA requirements, including conducting a regulatory flexibility analysis, when among other things the agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a). Because, as discussed above, this rule is exempt from the APA notice and comment requirements, MARAD is not required to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis.

MARAD has examined this final rule pursuant to E.O. 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional consultation with States, local governments, or their representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The Agency has concluded that the rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The final rule will not have, pursuant to E.O. 13132 section 1(a): “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.”

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually, adjusted annually for inflation. This action will not result in additional expenditures by State, local, or tribal governments or by any members of the private sector. Therefore, MARAD has not prepared an economic assessment pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in the Spring and Fall of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This final rule includes no new collection of information and will not change any existing collections of information as it does not actually waive any regulatory requirements.

Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit https://www.transportation.gov/privacy.

Accordingly, the Department of Transportation amends 46 CFR Part 350 as follows:

On October 30, 2024, NHTSA published a final rule that established FMVSS No. 217a, “Anti-ejection glazing for bus portals; Mandatory applicability beginning October 30, 2027” (89 FR 86255, Docket No. NHTSA-2024-0061). The purpose of this safety standard is to drive the installation of advanced glazing in over-the-road buses (motorcoaches) and other large buses  1 to reduce passenger and driver ejections. The standard is designed to ensure window glazing remains securely bonded to window frames, no potential ejection portals are created due to breaking of the glazing, and windows do not open during a crash, even if an occupant is thrown against the glazing. The October 30, 2024 final rule fulfilled a statutory mandate in the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act of 2012, which was incorporated and passed as part of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). Under section 32702 of MAP-21, “advanced glazing” means “glazing installed in a portal on the side or the roof of a motorcoach that is designed to be highly resistant to partial or complete occupant ejection in all types of motor vehicle crashes.”

To accomplish this safety objective, FMVSS No. 217a specifies minimum requirements that applicable bus window glazing must meet when it is contacted by an impactor launched at the window at a specified speed. The impactor and impact speed are designed to simulate an average size unrestrained adult male thrown from one side of a large bus and impacting a window on the opposite side of the bus in a rollover. Each side window and glass panel/window on the roof may be subject to any one of three impacts, as selected by NHTSA in a compliance test: (a) an impact near a latching mechanism or (for windows without latches) the center of the lower window edge of an intact window; (b) an impact at the center of the daylight opening of an intact window; and (c) an impact at the center of the daylight opening of a pre-broken window. No part of the window may displace past a pre-defined ejection reference plane during the impact, and the window must prevent passage of a 102-millimeter (mm) (4 inch) diameter sphere after the impact. In addition, emergency exits must remain operable after the impactor test.

These requirements ensure that the glazing is securely bonded to the window frames, no potential ejection portals are created due to breaking of the glazing, the windows remain closed when impacted, and emergency exits remain operable after the crash. The test with the pre-broken glazing encourages the installation of advanced glazing. The requirements also help ensure the advanced glazing retains occupants within the structural sidewall of the bus in a crash.

NHTSA received a petition for reconsideration of the October 30, 2024 final rule from one respondent, IC Bus, LLC (“IC Bus”). 2 In its petition, IC Bus requested that NHTSA adjust aspects of the final rule and requests clarification on aspects of the final rule. IC Bus also identified two typographical errors in the published standard.

IC Bus requested two adjustments to the definition of “daylight opening.” It requested that NHTSA include the following statement in the daylight opening definition: “Only the innermost portion of the window frame is used to determine the daylight opening.”  3 IC Bus also requested that NHTSA add a figure from the Technical Support Document that was included in the docket with the October 2024 final rule. 4 The figure represents the cross-section of an example bus window, which illustrates the periphery of the daylight opening. The original figure can be found in the Technical Support Document published with the final rule in Docket No. NHTSA-2024-0061. IC Bus stated in its petition that, “the regulation does not provide any reference to this Technical Supporting Document, which leads to a concern that manufacturers looking at this regulation in the future may not be aware that such helpful clarification exists.”  5

As defined in FMVSS No. 217a, daylight opening means, for openings on the side of the vehicle (other than a door opening), the locus of all points where a horizontal line, perpendicular to the vehicle longitudinal centerline, is tangent to the periphery of the opening. For openings on the roof of the vehicle, daylight opening means the locus of all points where a vertical line is tangent to the periphery of the opening. The periphery includes surfaces 100 millimeters (mm) inboard of the inside surface of the window glazing and 25 mm outboard of the outside surface of the window glazing. The periphery excludes the following: Any flexible gasket material or weather stripping used to create a waterproof seal between the glazing and the vehicle interior; grab handles used to facilitate occupant egress and ingress; and any part of a seat. 6 This definition is modified slightly from the definition used in FMVSS No. 226, “Ejection Mitigation” which establishes requirements for ejection mitigation systems to reduce the likelihood of occupant ejections in light-duty vehicles. 7

Agency Response: NHTSA partially grants the petition to revise the definition of “daylight opening” as requested by IC Bus.

First, IC Bus requested NHTSA add the following statement into the definition of daylight opening: “Only the innermost portion of the window frame is used to determine the daylight opening.”  8 This statement is unnecessary and may increase confusion interpreting the definition without also specifying what is meant by “innermost.”

Because the current definition explains that the periphery includes surfaces 100 mm inboard and 25 mm outboard of the glazing surface, the concept of IC Bus's request is already included in the definition. Further, the definition of “daylight opening” is modified only slightly from the existing standard FMVSS No. 226, and manufacturers have not informed NHTSA of any confusion when complying with that standard. Therefore, NHTSA denies IC Bus's request to add the statement into the definition of “daylight opening.”

Next, IC Bus requested that Figure 7 in the Technical Support Document, 9 which was submitted to the docket with the FMVSS No. 217a final rule, be included in the standard. The purpose of that figure and the Technical Support Document was to provide helpful context and examples for aspects of the final rule. This supplemental document and the figures within it will remain accessible on the public docket to manufacturers or other interested parties. However, NHTSA agrees with IC Bus that the figure could be a helpful addition to the regulatory text by making it easier for manufacturers to understand how to determine the daylight opening periphery. This figure is for illustrative purposes only and does not represent all possible daylight opening configurations. Therefore, NHTSA is adding the figure to the regulatory text and amending the definition of “daylight opening” to include the following sentence: “An example of a daylight opening periphery is provided in Figure 3 for illustrative purposes only.”

FMVSS No. 217a states in paragraph S5 that the standard's requirements do not apply to a side or roof portal whose minimum surface dimension measured through the center of its area is less than 279 mm. This minimum size requirement ensures that the glazing being tested is large enough for the impactor to effectively evaluate its anti-ejection capabilities without impacting the window frame or other structural components. IC Bus petitioned NHTSA to specify in paragraph S5 that the minimum size requirement applies to the daylight opening of the portal, and not the portal itself. Specifically, IC Bus recommended changing the relevant sentence of paragraph S5 to read as follows: “The requirements of this paragraph S5 do not apply to portals other than side and roof portals, and do not apply to a side or roof portal with a daylight opening whose minimum surface dimension measured through the center of its area is less than 279 mm.”

Agency Response: NHTSA agrees with IC Bus and grants its petition as requested. The definition of a “portal” according to FMVSS No. 217a is “an opening that could, in the event of a crash involving the vehicle, permit the partial or complete ejection of an occupant from the vehicle, including a young child.” While a door or roof hatch may meet the definition of a portal even if there is no glazing present, such portals are outside the scope of FMVSS No. 217a. As previously stated, the intent of FMVSS No. 217a is to drive the installation of advanced glazing in motorcoaches and other large buses to reduce passenger and driver ejections. Therefore, to better align the requirements of the standard to the intent of the standard, NHTSA is adjusting paragraph S5 to state that the requirements “do not apply to a side or roof portal with a daylight opening whose minimum surface dimension measured through the center of its area is less than 279 mm.”

Paragraph S6.1.1 of FMVSS No. 217a describes the test location for the edge impact test procedure. During the 2013 Motorcoach Side Glazing Retention Research testing, 10 NHTSA determined there was a safety need for a test that assesses the ability of window latches to keep the window closed when subjected to impactor loading. The edge impact test is designed to test the glazing near the window latch if a latch is present. If the window does not have a latch, the glazing is impacted at the edge of the glazing as described in paragraph S6.1.1(a) or S6.1.1(b).

Paragraph S6.1.1 states that when aligning the impactor face to the test location for the edge impact test, it is positioned such that the center of the impactor face plate is as close as practicable to the center of the latch attachment point or discrete attachment point. In the preamble of the October 2024 final rule, NHTSA justified that choice because the location where the latch attaches to the movable portion of the window is where the latch is most likely to fail. The regulatory text specified the impactor face plate must align as closely as practicable to the center of the latch attachment point or discrete attachment point. The purpose of adding the term “discrete attachment point” was to account for varying latch designs, where the handle of the latch, body of the latch, and attachment point of the latch to the window may be laterally or vertically offset from one another.

IC Bus requested that NHTSA define or clarify what is meant by a “discrete attachment point.” It emphasized that, according to the standard, the impactor face must be positioned adjacent to a latch or discrete attachment point when setting up the edge impact test. Since there is not a definition of “discrete attachment point” provided in the standard, IC Bus requested that NHTSA provide one. It also asked if discrete attachment points are in reference to physical fasteners that attach the window to the window frame, or to emergency exit window hinges that connect the overall window frame to the vehicle body.

Agency Response: As NHTSA described in the final rule preamble, the term “discrete attachment point” is applicable only in the context of a bus window latch. 11 NHTSA also stated in the May 2016 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)  12 that an intent of the edge impact test was to evaluate window latches if they are present. However, NHTSA agrees with IC Bus that the term could be misinterpreted in the regulatory text. In addition to latches, bus windows may have hinges or other hardware with discrete attachment points that connect the window to the bus frame. Targeting attachment components other than latches for testing is not included in the scope of this standard.

To address this request in IC Bus's petition for reconsideration, NHTSA will remove the term “discrete attachment point” and define the term “latch attachment point.” The regulatory text does not need to reference both a “latch attachment point” and a “discrete attachment point” because both terms describe the same location. This approach simplifies the paragraph and ensures the test location is identified clearly for any window type or latch type. The term “latch attachment point” will be defined in paragraph S4 as “the center point of the latch's interface connecting the window and the bus structure when the window is closed and the latch is in the locked position.”

This change removes reference to the term “discrete attachment point” within paragraph S6.1.1 and defines “latch attachment point” within paragraph S4. This point represents the part of the latching mechanism that connects the window to the bus structure. This is the point where an insufficient latch could result in a failure to comply with the impactor testing as demonstrated in NHTSA's 2013 Motorcoach Side Glazing Retention Research. Testing near this location also aligns with the intent of the edge impact test. The revisions to paragraphs S4 and S6.1.1 clarify any confusion surrounding discrete attachment points, answers IC Bus's specific questions, and better describes the test location for the edge impact test.

The daylight opening for a typical bus window is usually a regular geometric shape with a clearly defined and easily measurable center point. However, there are scenarios where a window may be partially blocked by a structure such as a stowed wheelchair lift or a luggage rack, resulting in an irregularly shaped daylight opening. It may be difficult to accurately locate the center of an irregularly shaped daylight opening.

IC Bus provided a figure on page 5 of its petition for reconsideration, which depicts a bus window partially blocked by a stowed wheelchair lift. It noted that the resulting daylight opening may not be a regular geometric shape where the center would be obvious. IC Bus asked how NHTSA would measure the minimum surface dimension through the center of the daylight opening during a compliance test.

Agency Response: NHTSA will address this issue about locating the center of regular and irregular daylight openings in the test procedure for compliance testing and not in the regulatory text of the final rule. The regulatory text of the final rule outlines the general requirements and procedures of the standard and does not need to outline the specific measurement techniques and equipment the agency will use in compliance testing. Those details will be described in the applicable test procedure and that will be available on NHTSA's website. 13

As a related example, the test procedure associated with FMVSS No. 226, “Ejection Mitigation” is outlined in TP-226-00, 14 specifies the use of a portable Coordinate Measuring Machine (CMM) for determining the center of the side daylight opening. A CMM can precisely measure the geometry of the daylight opening, allowing NHTSA to mathematically calculate the geometric center. NHTSA will use a similar approach to determine the center of daylight openings for FMVSS No. 217a. The associated test procedure document will outline these details. Therefore, no further details will be included in the final rule regulatory text.

IC Bus also sought clarification from NHTSA on three additional points: (1) Whether restraining barriers, stanchions, and Lexan safety shields would be included or excluded from the periphery of the daylight opening; (2) if a stowed wheelchair lift needs to be within 100 mm of the interior window surface to be considered “blocking” the window; and (3) whether one window could be split up into multiple daylight openings if the window is blocked by something like a luggage rack or shelves, and whether each daylight opening would be tested separately. IC Bus provided graphical illustrations of the scenarios for points (2) and (3).

NHTSA provides responses below with the intent to assist in the understanding of the final rule for IC Bus and any other interested parties. However, these items are not petitions for reconsideration because they do not request regulatory text changes.

According to the daylight opening definition, the periphery includes surfaces within 100 mm inboard and 25 mm outboard of the glazing surface. The periphery excludes flexible gasket material or weather stripping used to create a waterproof seal between the glazing and the vehicle interior, grab handles used to facilitate occupant egress and ingress, and any part of a seat.

IC Bus requested clarification on whether restraining barriers, stanchions, and Lexan safety shields would be included or excluded from the periphery. IC Bus claimed restraining barriers are “essentially the same as seatbacks, and seats are specified as excluded. . . .” Thus, IC Bus sought confirmation that restraining barriers would be excluded from the periphery. For stanchions, IC Bus described them as “upright bars or posts used to support the roof, luggage, or storage compartment.” IC Bus sought confirmation that stanchions would not be excluded from the periphery. IC Bus stated Lexan safety shields are “used to separate interior sections or compartments or prevent passenger contact with interior items.” IC Bus sought confirmation that Lexan safety shields would not be excluded from the periphery.

Agency Response: The agency agrees with IC Bus's evaluation that restraining barriers are excluded from the periphery while stanchions and Lexan safety shields are not. In other words, if Lexan safety shields or stanchions are within 100 mm of the interior glazing surface or 25 mm of the exterior glazing surface, they would be included in the periphery of the daylight opening.

IC Bus manufactures primarily school buses and other buses based on school bus platforms. 15 Restraining barriers are padded panels, similar to school bus seat backs, generally located in front of a school bus seat without any seat in front of it. Restraining barriers may also be in buses that are based on school bus platforms. Similar to school bus seat backs, restraining barriers provide passenger crash protection by absorbing impact energy and containing students within a designated safety zone. While restraining barriers are capable of preventing passenger movement past the barrier in a frontal crash or a sudden braking maneuver, these barriers are not designed to prevent passengers from being ejected through an ejection portal in a rollover or side impact crash. Therefore, NHTSA is excluding restraining barriers from the periphery of the daylight opening and will update the daylight opening definition to reflect this exclusion.

Stanchions are typically solid structures capable of providing a positive effect in terms of ejection mitigation. Stanchions are also distinct from “grab handles,” which are excluded from the periphery. Grab handles are excluded from the periphery in FMVSS No. 217a for the same reason they are excluded from the periphery in FMVSS No. 226. These grab handles are typically located on the A-pillar of the vehicle and often protrude into the daylight opening. They are also typically non-structural and unlikely to provide a positive effect in terms of ejection mitigation. Since stanchions are distinct from these grab handles, and they are expected to have a positive effect in terms of ejection mitigation, NHTSA confirms IC Bus's understanding that they are not excluded from the periphery of the daylight opening.

Lexan, or polycarbonate, is a transparent thermoplastic material with high stiffness and impact resistance. 16 This material is often installed in large buses and motorcoaches to prevent passengers from entering certain areas, to prevent occupants from throwing items at drivers, or as partitions between sections of a bus's interior. To leverage polycarbonate's high stiffness, the sheet must be securely mounted within the bus to minimize deflection. Such an installation will block a passenger's movement past the barrier. Since polycarbonate barriers are not listed as an exclusion to the periphery and are likely to have a positive effect on ejection mitigation due to the high stiffness of the material, NHTSA confirms IC Bus's understanding that they will not be excluded from the periphery.

IC Bus stated its understanding that a stowed wheelchair lift would need to be within 100 mm of the interior window surface in order for it to be considered “blocking” the window. Additionally, IC Bus stated it understands that the portion of the wheelchair lift blocking the window becomes part of the periphery of the daylight opening, and the unblocked portion of the window becomes the daylight opening. IC Bus provided an illustration of the scenario it described on page 7 of its petition for reconsideration. The figure shows a graphical representation of a rectangular bus window with the bottom portion blocked by a stowed wheelchair lift. IC Bus sought confirmation that its understanding was correct, and that the resulting daylight opening as described would need a minimum surface dimension of 279 mm to be required to comply with the FMVSS No. 217a impact requirements.

Agency Response: IC Bus's understanding of the scenario is correct. The daylight opening is the unblocked portion of the window when the wheelchair lift that blocks the bottom of the window is within 100 mm of the interior glazing surface.

IC Bus requested clarification on a scenario where a bus window may be split up into multiple daylight openings if it is blocked by equipment such as shelves, stanchions, or a luggage rack. Specifically, IC Bus asked whether each daylight opening for the window would require separate edge, center, and pre-broken glazing impact validation, assuming the minimum surface dimension measured through the center of each daylight opening was greater than or equal to 279 mm. IC Bus provided a figure to illustrate this scenario on page 8 of its petition for reconsideration. The figure is a graphical representation of a rectangular bus window blocked by two long, horizontal bars representing shelves or a luggage rack. When these bars are within 100 mm of the interior glazing surface, they are included in the periphery of the daylight opening. Additionally, because these bars are longer than the width of the window, the result is a single window split into three separate daylight openings. IC Bus specifies in the figure that two of the three daylight openings have a minimum surface dimension greater than 279 mm.

Agency Response: For the scenario described and illustrated by IC Bus, NHTSA agrees that the single window would be split into multiple daylight openings. If there are multiple daylight openings that meet the minimum size requirements, any of those daylight openings could be selected for impact test validation by NHTSA in a compliance test. Any daylight openings that do not meet the minimum size requirement would not be subject to any impact test validation.

In addition to the requests discussed above, IC Bus also notified NHTSA of two typographical errors in the published version of the October 2024 final rule regulatory text. NHTSA is correcting both errors with this final rule.

The first correction is in paragraph S5 in the regulatory text. The letter “n” erroneously appears in the middle of the second sentence. NHTSA is deleting the letter “n” in this paragraph.

The second correction is in the figures in the regulatory text of the standard. As IC Bus noted, the figure numbers are not included in the figures. NHTSA is adding the figure numbers to those figures with this final rule.

NHTSA finds that issuing this final rule without additional notice and comment is appropriate under the “good cause” exception in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). The APA authorizes agencies to issue regulations without notice and public comment when an agency finds, for good cause, that notice and comment is “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest,” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), and to make the rule effective immediately for good cause. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). NHTSA has determined that an opportunity for notice and comment on this final rule is unnecessary. The changes in this final rule are made in response to petitions for reconsideration submitted to NHTSA in response to and docketed in the record of the October 2024 final rule, which is supported by an extensive administrative record, in accordance with 49 CFR 553.35 and 49 CFR 553.37. 17 This final rule makes only technical changes within the ambit of the comments already received and addressed in the October 2024 final rule. Specifically, NHTSA includes a figure from the Technical Support Document in the standard for illustrative purposes. NHTSA also updates the regulatory text to clarify that doors and roof hatches with a daylight opening whose minimum surface dimension is less than 279 mm are outside the scope of FMVSS No. 217a. NHTSA also substitutes the term “latch attachment point” for “discrete attachment point” and defines “latch attachment point” as the part of the latching mechanism that connects the window to the bus structure. This change is intended to clarify that the regulation refers to a latch, not hinges or other hardware with discrete attachment points that connect the window to the bus frame.

In addition, NHTSA notes that given the long development times involved in motor vehicle design and manufacturing, manufacturers are nearing the time at which design changes required by the October 2024 final rule must be made and finalized to meet production schedules for the model years that must comply.

NHTSA has considered the impact of this rule under Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 14192. NHTSA has considered the costs and benefits of the final rule under the principles of these executive and departmental orders. Please refer to the October 2024 final rule for this discussion. This rule, which clarifies certain aspects of the October 2024 final rule, may facilitate compliance by regulated entities, but is not expected to result in any costs or benefits beyond those examined in the October 2024 final rule. Therefore, this rule is neither a regulatory or a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192.

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities ( i.e., small businesses, small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions), unless the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Agencies must also provide a statement of the factual basis for this certification. Because NHTSA is not required to publish this rule for comment, the analytical requirements of the RFA do not apply.

NHTSA notes, however, that NHTSA does not believe this final rule will have a significant economic impact on affected small entities as identified in the October 2024 final rule. This final rule revises the minimum size requirement verbiage for applicable portals, adds a figure to illustrate a daylight opening periphery, and clarifies the target location for edge impact tests. These are minor adjustments to the October 2004 final rule and are not expected to impose costs above those already considered as part of the October 2024 final rule. NHTSA determined that the October 2024 final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and the amendments in this rule do not change that finding.

NHTSA has examined this final rule pursuant to E.O. 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. NHTSA has concluded that the rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. This final rule would not have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in two ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision stating that, if NHTSA has established a standard for an aspect of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance, a State may only prescribe or continue in effect a standard for that same aspect of performance if the State standard is identical to the Federal standard. 18 It is this statutory command by Congress that preempts any non-identical State legislative and administrative law addressing the same aspect of performance.

The express preemption provision described above is subject to a savings clause under which “[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from liability at common law.”  19 Pursuant to this provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express preemption provision are generally preserved.

NHTSA rules can also preempt State law if complying with the FMVSS would render the motor vehicle manufacturers liable under State tort law. Because most NHTSA standards established by an FMVSS are minimum standards, a State common law tort cause of action that seeks to impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers will generally not be preempted. However, if and when such a conflict does exist—for example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum and a maximum standard—the State common law tort cause of action is impliedly preempted. 20

Pursuant to E.O. 13132, NHTSA has considered whether this final rule could or should preempt State common law causes of action. The agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding the preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation. To this end, the agency has examined the nature ( e.g., the language and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of this final rule and finds that this final rule, like many NHTSA rules, prescribes only a minimum safety standard. Accordingly, NHTSA does not intend that this final rule preempt state tort law that would effectively impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers than that established by this final rule. Establishment of a higher standard by means of State tort law would not conflict with the minimum standard finalized in this document. Without any conflict, there could not be any implied preemption of a State common law tort cause of action.

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

The issue of preemption is discussed in the section discussing Executive Order 13132 (Federalism). NHTSA believes that this final rule specifies clearly the changes made to FMVSS No. 217a and that this rule provides a clear legal standard for manufacturers to follow. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceedings before they may file suit in court.

Executive Order 13609, “Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation,” promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.

The agency participates in the negotiation and development of technical standards for Safety Glazing in the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29). As a signatory member, NHTSA is obligated to initiate rulemaking to incorporate safety requirements and options specified in Global Technical Regulations (GTRs) if the U.S. votes in the affirmative to establish the GTR. No GTR for anti-ejection glazing for bus portals has been developed at this time.

NHTSA has analyzed this rule under the policies and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609 and has determined this rulemaking will have no effect on international regulatory cooperation.

The Department has analyzed the environmental impacts of this rulemaking pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and DOT Order 5610.1D. 21 Pursuant to 49 CFR 1.81, the Secretary has delegated the “functions” under NEPA to the Administrators “as they relate to the matters within the primary responsibility of each Operating Administration.” NHTSA has determined that this rule is categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4). Categorical exclusions are actions identified in an agency's NEPA procedures that do not normally have a significant impact on the environment and therefore do not require either an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). This rulemaking, which proposes to partially grant a petition for reconsideration of the October 30, 2024, final rule that established Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217a, “Anti-ejection glazing for bus portals; Mandatory applicability beginning October 30, 2027,” revises the minimum size requirement verbiage for applicable portals; adds a figure to illustrate a daylight opening periphery; clarifies the target location for edge impact tests; and denies other portions of the petition for reconsideration, including revising the definition of “daylight opening.” This rulemaking is categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4) (Planning and administrative activities not involving or leading directly to construction, such as: Training, technical assistance and research; promulgation of rules, regulations, directives, or program guidance; approval of project concepts; engineering; and operating assistance to transit authorities to continue existing service or increase service to meet routine demand). NHTSA does not anticipate any environmental impacts, and there are no extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.

Under the procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. ), a Federal agency must request and receive approval from OMB before it collects certain information from the public and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This rulemaking does not contain any information collection requirements as defined by OMB in 5 CFR part 1320.

Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), “all Federal agencies and departments shall use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies and departments.” Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as SAE. The NTTAA directs the agency to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. The NTTAA requires agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in lieu of government-unique standards except where inconsistent with law or otherwise impractical. There are no voluntary consensus standards developed by voluntary consensus standards bodies pertaining to this final rule.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of regulatory actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $206 million (the value equivalent of $100 million in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 2025) or more in any 1 year. This final rule does not contain Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local and Tribal governments, or the private sector of $206 million or more in any one year. Thus, the analytical requirements of the UMRA do not apply to this action.

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

Petitions for review of the final rule will be placed in the docket. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all documents received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, see DOT Privacy Program | U.S. Department of Transportation. 22 To see the list of DOT's systems of records notices, please visit https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices.

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

In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as follows:

The regulations contained in 50 CFR part 26 govern the circumstances under which the public can enter and use a national wildlife refuge. This rule will rescind redundant and therefore unnecessary regulations contained within 50 CFR part 26.34, special regulations concerning public access, use, and recreation for individual national wildlife refuges. The streamlining of these identified regulations will create consistency across National Wildlife Refuges and reduce confusion to the public due to the variance in wording of the regulations in multiple locations. Currently, a member of the public could be fined two different fine amounts for the same offense depending on which regulation is cited for the offense. As provided below, the identified sections will be revised and redesignated by removing redundant sections. The rescinded regulations relate to activities such as use of fireworks, damaging vegetation, dogs that disturb wildlife or habitat, use of firearms and other weapons, littering, alcohol use, and boat speed within Havasu National Wildlife Refuge, Pond Creek National Wildlife Refuge, St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge, and Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge. The removal of these regulations is not anticipated to be controversial because they are redundant. Additionally, these revisions will not inhibit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from successfully fulfilling its statutory mandate to manage these Refuges for the purposes for which they were established or managing each Refuge to fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Table 1, below, summarizes the regulations to be removed from 50 CFR 26.34.

The Department has determined that these reasons, independently and alone, justify revision of 50 CFR 26.34. The Department has no interest in maintaining regulations that are redundant.

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.” 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 revision of the rule and raise, alone or in combination, (1) reasons why the revision of the rule is inappropriate, including challenges to the revision's underlying premise; or (2) serious unintended consequences of the revision. 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.

E.O. 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.

E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866, while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, reduce uncertainty, and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. E.O. 13563 directs agencies to 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. E.O. 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.

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. As the Department is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this direct final rule, the RFA does not apply.

This direct final 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 direct final 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.

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

Under the criteria of section 1 of E.O. 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.

In accordance with E.O. 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule will not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated potential effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes and have determined that this rule would not interfere with Tribes' abilities to manage themselves, their funds, or Tribal lands.

This direct final rule does not contain any new collection of information that requires approval by the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

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

For the reasons stated in the preamble, we amend part 26, subchapter C of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

The Department of the Interior's (Department) regulations governing the annual apportionments to fish and wildlife agencies of States, U.S. Territories, and the District of Columbia authorized under the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (Wildlife Restoration Act, 50 Stat. 917, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 669 et seq. ) and the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act (Sport Fish Restoration Act, 64 Stat. 430, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 777-777m, except 777e-1 and g-1) (Acts) are contained in 50 CFR part 80. The Service regularly reviews its regulations implementing the Acts to ensure they are both efficient and effective. The Service has determined that certain regulations in 50 CFR part 80 are duplicative or redundant of the Acts or other regulations or are more appropriately located in the annual notice of funding opportunities (NOFO) which includes the information that is necessary for the effective communication of the program objectives.

Accordingly, the Department will remove §§ 80.10(a-c), 80.11, and 80.12 because they restate language that is found in the Acts. We further revise § 80.10 to only include language that is unique to the regulation.

We also remove §§ 80.66, 80.121, and 80.123 because these sections restate regulations that are found in 2 CFR part 200, the regulations for Federal financial assistance for all Federal agencies.

Finally, we will remove §§ 80.80 and 80.90 as they restate or explain language that is found in the annual NOFO for these grant programs.

The Department has determined that these reasons, independently and alone, justify revision of 50 CFR part 80. The Department has no interest in maintaining regulations that are obsolete or unclear.

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.” 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 revision of the rule and raise, alone or in combination, (1) reasons why the revision of the rule is inappropriate, including challenges to the revision's underlying premise; or (2) serious unintended consequences of the revision. 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.

E.O. 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.

E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866, while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, reduce uncertainty, and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. E.O. 13563 directs agencies to 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. E.O. 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 DFR is an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.

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. 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.

This rule does not result in a taking of private property or otherwise have regulatory takings implications under E.O. 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 therefore not required.

Under the criteria of section 1 of E.O. 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.

In accordance with E.O. 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule will not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988.

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated potential effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes and have determined that this rule would not interfere with Tribes' abilities to manage themselves, their funds, or Tribal lands.

This proposed rule does not contain any new collection of information that requires approval by the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has approved the information collection requirements associated with the Service's grants and financial assistance activities and assigned OMB Control No. 1018-0100 (exp. 06/30/2028).

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 direct final rule is not a significant energy action as defined in E.O. 13211. Therefore, a statement of energy effects is not required.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, we amend part 80, subchapter F of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below: