The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on July 2, 2025 (90 FR 28916). The NPRM was prompted by AD CF-2024-38, dated November 12, 2024 (Transport Canada AD CF-2024-38) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada. The MCAI states that Bombardier has been advised that the overhaul required by certificate maintenance requirement (CMR) task 27-40-00-104* was not fully completed on some units. As a result, some of the parts that were required to be replaced on the affected HSTAs as part of the overhauled task were re-installed in error. This condition, if not corrected, can lead to the failure of HSTA components, which can contribute to horizontal stabilizer surface disconnect at the actuator level and could lead to loss of continued safe flight and landing.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require verification of the HSTA serial number, and, if applicable, replacement of the HSTA. The FAA also proposed to prohibit the installation of affected parts under certain conditions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-1351.

The FAA received a comment from NetJets. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response.

NetJets asked whether an affected HSTA, found during the proposed inspection or records review, would need to be replaced if its modification plate is marked with Moog Service Bulletin C47100-27-07, as specified in section 2.B. of Bombardier Service Bulletin 350-27-014.

The FAA clarifies that an affected HSTA does not need to be replaced if it has a modification plate marked with Moog Service Bulletin C47100-27-07 because that marking indicates the part has already been properly reworked. The FAA recognizes that this relief is specified in paragraph 2.B.(4)(b) of the Bombardier service bulletin, and that Transport Canada AD CF-2024-38 allows installation of a part marked with the Moog service bulletin. Accordingly, the FAA has revised paragraph (h) of this AD to except any affected HSTA marked with the Moog service bulletin.

These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed the following Bombardier material:

• Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-27-23, dated October 28, 2024;

• Bombardier Service Bulletin 350-27-014, dated October 28, 2024.

This material specifies procedures for verifying the HSTA serial number and, if applicable, corrective actions to include replacing the HSTA. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane configurations.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 982 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any on-condition action that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this on-condition action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments using a method listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2026-0013; Project Identifier MCAI-2025-01774-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

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

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Fatin Saumik, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 516-228-7300; email: fatin.r.saumik@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Transport Canada AD CF-2025-63, dated November 28, 2025 (Transport Canada AD CF-2025-63) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440), CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702), CL-600-2C11 (Regional Jet Series 550), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900), and CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The MCAI states that multiple events were reported of elevator autopilot control cable failure leading to elevator control restriction. Further investigation found that the autopilot control cable can fracture due to cyclic fatigue. Failure of the elevator autopilot control cable may cause jamming of the elevator servo drum, restricting elevator movement in one direction. An elevator servo drum jam during the landing phase can result in insufficient elevator control authority and could lead to loss of continued safe flight and landing.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2026-0013.

The FAA reviewed Transport Canada AD CF-2025-63, which specifies procedures for replacing the elevator autopilot control cables with new cables. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

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

This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-63 described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. See “Differences Between This AD and the MCAI” for a discussion of the general differences included in this AD.

Table 1 of the MCAI specifies compliance times ranging from 8 months to 23 months, depending on the airplane configuration. However, the FAA has reduced each compliance time by 3 months as specified in Figure 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD. The FAA has determined a significant portion of the U.S. fleet is at risk of experiencing a cable break during flight, resulting in an immediate safety of flight issue for the U.S. fleet. The majority of the U.S. fleet has accumulated over 40,000 total flight hours and has elevator autopilot control cables with over 40,000 total flight hours on the cables. Those airplanes must do the replacement required by this AD within 5 months after the effective date of this AD. The FAA has coordinated the revised compliance times with Transport Canada.

In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, Transport Canada AD CF-2025-63 is incorporated by reference in this AD. This AD requires compliance with Transport Canada AD CF-2025-63 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. Material required by Transport Canada AD CF-2025-63 for compliance will be available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2026-0013 after this AD is published.

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

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies forgoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because elevator autopilot control cable failure, if not addressed, could result in jamming of the elevator servo drum, restricting elevator movement in one direction. An elevator servo drum jam during the landing phase can result in insufficient elevator control authority and could lead to loss of continued safe flight and landing. If the unsafe condition is discovered during landing, there will not be enough time for the crew to adapt to the issue. Additionally, the compliance time in this AD is shorter than the time necessary for the public to comment and for publication of the final rule. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

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

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 711 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs in the cost estimate.

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

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

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

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

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

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2018-19-16, Amendment 39-19416 (83 FR 50818, October 10, 2018) (AD 2018-19-16). AD 2018-19-16 applied to all CFM Model LEAP-1A23, -1A24, -1A24E1, -1A26, -1A26E1, -1A26CJ, -1A29, -1A29CJ, -1A30, -1A32, -1A33, -1A33B2, and -1A35A engines with certain FADEC and PHM software installed. AD 2018-19-16 was prompted by aborted takeoffs after engines did not advance to the desired takeoff fan speed due to icing in the pressure sensor line which, if not addressed, could result in loss of engine thrust control and reduced control of the airplane. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on August 6, 2025 (90 FR 37808). The NPRM was prompted when the manufacturer developed a new PSS with a heater element to evaporate potential moisture on the PSS manifold/transducer interface and prevent freezing at low temperature. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require replacing certain FADEC and PHM software with new versions that are eligible for installation, replacing certain harnesses with newly designed harnesses, and replacing the PSS with a newly designed heated PSS. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

The FAA received comments from three commenters. The commenters were Airline Pilots Association International (ALPA), American Airlines (AAL), and CFM. ALPA supported the NPRM without change. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

AAL and CFM requested that the FAA include additional material references in the required actions. CFM stated that the material referenced in paragraph (g)(1) of the NPRM includes concurrent actions and refers to specific material for each of those actions. CFM also indicated that the concurrent requirements are necessary to fully enable the newly installed PSS heater system. AAL pointed out that operators may not be aware that there is additional material which may be used to help complete the concurrent actions and that a useful method to alert the operators is by including the specific material for the concurrent actions in additional notes to the required actions in the NPRM.

The FAA agrees that the actions required by this AD are not independent actions, and must all be done concurrently to fully enable the newly installed PSS heater system, and that additional material is helpful to complete the actions required by this AD. Therefore, the FAA has revised this final rule by adding note 2 to paragraphs (g)(2) and (3) of this AD and note 3 to paragraph (g)(4) of this AD, with each note referring to specific material that may be used as guidance in completing the actions required by paragraphs (g)(2), (3), and (4) of this AD.

CFM requested that the FAA revise the unsafe condition statement throughout the NPRM to be consistent. CFM noted that in the NPRM, the unsafe condition statement is not consistent between the Background section and paragraph (e) of the NPRM.

The FAA agrees for the reasons provided and has revised the wording of the unsafe condition in the Background section to be consistent with the wording used in paragraph (e) of this AD.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting the AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 306 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On June 6, 2025, the President issued E.O. 14307, “Unleashing American Drone Dominance” (90 FR 24727). E.O. 14307 tasked the Secretary of Commerce to review and, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, amend the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) “to enable the expedited export of U.S.-manufactured civil UAVs to foreign partners, provided such end users and recipient countries are not identified as foreign adversaries and the export does not pose a risk of diversion to programs of concern, or are otherwise restricted under applicable statutes or regulations.” See Sec. 8(a) of E.O. 14307 that tasked the Secretary of Commerce to take these actions. Through this IFR, BIS is taking action in response to this tasking in E.O. 14307.

E.O. 14307 promotes the U.S. UAV industry, which is enhancing United States productivity, creating highly-skilled jobs, and reshaping the future of aviation. UAVs are already transforming industries from logistics and infrastructure inspection to precision agriculture, emergency response, and public safety. Although the UAV industry has made significant technological advancements in the past decade, and capabilities that once provided a military advantage have become increasingly available to consumers at significantly reduced costs, relevant export controls have not kept pace with the advancement of the commercial UAV market. Expanding the export of trusted, U.S.-manufactured UAVs and related technologies to global markets supports a strong and secure domestic UAV industry vital to the U.S. defense industrial base and advances U.S. national security interests as articulated in the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA) (50 U.S.C. 4811(2) and (7)).

With this IFR, BIS has identified specific regulatory changes, detailed in section II below, which achieve the President's objectives of facilitating the export, reexport, and transfer (in-country) of UAVs and related technologies subject to the EAR under conditions that do not pose a risk to U.S. national security and foreign policy interests. Pursuant to ECRA, BIS administers U.S. laws, regulations, and policies governing the export, reexport, and transfer (in-country) of commodities, software, and technology (collectively, “items”) subject to the EAR (15 CFR parts 730-774).

This IFR makes two primary regulatory changes by: (1) revising the reason for control for UAVs described under Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) 9A012.a.1; and (2) making certain UAVs described in ECCNs 9A012 and 9A120 eligible for License Exception STA under newly added § 740.20(c)(1)(ii).

Prior to the effective date of this IFR, UAVs described under ECCN 9A012.a.1 were controlled for National Security Column 1 (NS1) reasons and were only eligible for export “no license required” to Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, pursuant to the Commerce Control List (CCL)-based license requirements specified under the CCL in supplement no. 1 to part 774 and the Commerce Country Chart under supplement no. 1 to part 738. See the April 19, 2024, BIS IFR, “Export Control Revisions for Australia, United Kingdom, United States (AUKUS) Enhanced Trilateral Security Partnership” (89 FR 28594). This IFR revises the applicable reason for control to NS Column 2 (NS2) for .a.1 items, making them eligible for export and reexport to destinations in Country Group A:1 without a license. All other items detailed under ECCN 9A012 will retain their original NS1 reason for control.

Certain UAVs described under ECCNs 9A012 and 9A120 are also subject to a Missile Technology Column 1 (MT) reasons for control. These UAVs are MT-controlled because they are capable of either a maximum range of at least 300 km (certain ECCN 9A012 items) or incorporate an aerosol dispensing system/mechanism with a capacity greater than 20 liters (all ECCN 9A120 items).

Prior to the effective date of this IFR, MT-controlled UAVs were not eligible for License Exception STA. The License Exceptions available to MT-controlled items are listed in § 740.2(a)(5)(i) of the EAR, and STA was not listed as a License Exception available for MT-controlled items prior to this rule. Additionally, prior to this rule, § 740.20(b)(2)(iii) prohibited items controlled for MT reasons from using License Exception STA, and § 740.20(c) did not include an authorizing paragraph addressing MT reasons for control that is required for STA eligibility. Accordingly, an Individual Validated License (IVL) (a.k.a. a license under the EAR) issued by BIS was typically required to export such items to all destinations other than Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom.

This IFR makes exports and reexports of certain MT-controlled UAVs eligible for License Exception STA. Specifically, MT-controlled UAVs will be eligible for License Exception STA when exported, reexported, or transferred (in-country) to or within Country Group A:5, provided they are not capable of delivering at least a 500 kg payload to a distance of at least 300 km. Likewise, UAVs with spraying functionality controlled for MT reasons under ECCN 9A120 will be eligible for License Exception STA when exported, reexported, or transferred (in-country) to or within Country Group A:5, provided they are not capable of delivering at least a 500 kg payload to a distance of at least 300 km.

This IFR does not need to make any conforming changes to MT-controlled ECCNs on the CCL to implement this new License Exception STA eligibility because this IFR retains the general restriction structure on the use of license exceptions for MT-controlled items under §§ 740.2(a)(5) and 740.20(b)(2)(iii). Only those MT-controlled items specified under § 740.20(c)(1)(ii)(A) may overcome these restrictions for MT-controlled items for purposes of License Exception STA. This IFR adopts this structure to eliminate the need to add a Special Conditions for License Exception STA section to MT-controlled ECCNs. This IFR redesignates what had been paragraph (c)(1) in § 740.20 as paragraph (c)(1)(i) and what had been the note to paragraph (c)(1) as note paragraph (c)(1)(i). This IFR also adds a new paragraph (c)(1)(ii) to specify that certain MT-controlled UAVs described in new paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(A) are eligible for export to Country Group A:5 under License Exception STA. This IFR also adds a new note to paragraph (c)(1) to further clarify that only MT-controlled items that meet the criteria of paragraph (c)(1)(ii) and are controlled for one or more of the reasons for control specified under paragraph (c)(1)(i) may be authorized to Country Group A:5 under paragraph (c)(1).

To overcome the general restriction on the use of license exceptions for MT-controlled items and make the UAVs detailed above eligible for License Exception STA to Country Group A:5, BIS: (1) revises § 740.20(b)(2)(iii), which now provides a carveout for these MT items under License Exception STA; and (2) makes a conforming change by adding § 740.2(a)(5)(i)(G), an exclusion from the general restriction on the use of License Exceptions for MT items. With these changes, certain MT-controlled UAVs described in ECCNs 9A012 and 9A120 will become eligible for License Exception STA to or among Country Group A:5, provided the export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) is not otherwise restricted under one of the other general restrictions under § 740.2 and meets all of the applicable terms and conditions of License Exception STA under § 740.20, including new paragraph (c)(1)(ii) that this IFR adds.

On August 13, 2018, the President signed into law the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, which included 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. BIS has examined the impact of this rule as required by E.O.s 12866 and 13563, which 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 ( e.g., potential economic, environmental, public, health, and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Pursuant to E.O. 12866, as amended, this IFR has been determined to be a “significant regulatory action.” 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 it is being issued with respect to a national security function of the United States, 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 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) (PRA), 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, “Simple Network Application Process and Multipurpose Application Form,” which carries a burden hour estimate of 29.4 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; and

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

BIS estimates that these new controls under the EAR will result in a decrease of 30 license applications submitted annually to BIS. 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 under E.O. 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 neither the APA nor any other law requires that notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this rule, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) are not applicable. Accordingly, no Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is required, and none has been prepared.

Accordingly, parts 740 and 774 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) are amended as follows:

I. Background

This interim final rule revises TVA's implementing procedures for assessing the effects of TVA's actions in accordance with NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), codified at 18 CFR part 1318. TVA first established its procedures for implementing NEPA in 1980 (45 FR 54511-15, August 15, 1980). In 1983, TVA amended the procedures to incorporate requirements relating to floodplain management and protection of wetlands, among other things (48 FR 19264, April 28, 1983). In 2020, TVA amended its procedures to update organizational references, improve clarity, and revise its list of categorical exclusions. To promote greater transparency in the NEPA process, TVA incorporated its procedures into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at that time. In its final rule preamble, TVA stated that, “[l]ike TVA's previous NEPA procedures, the final rule supplements the CEQ regulations” (85 FR 17434; March 27, 2020). Since established in 1980, the TVA procedures have stated that they serve to ensure compliance with not only NEPA itself but CEQ's NEPA implementing regulations. 18 CFR 1318.10(c).

CEQ's NEPA implementing regulations were rescinded as of April 11, 2025. See Removal of National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations (90 FR 10610; Feb. 25, 2025). CEQ's rescission of its regulations was necessitated by and is consistent with E.O. 14154, Unleashing American Energy (90 FR 8353; January 29, 2025), in which President Trump rescinded President Carter's E.O. 11991, Relating to Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality (42 FR 26967; May 24, 1977), which directed CEQ to issue regulations to Federal agencies for implementing NEPA's procedural provisions. E.O. 14154 further directed agencies to revise their NEPA implementing procedures consistent with the E.O. and implementation guidance from CEQ.

Congress passed the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, Public Law 118-5, signed into law on June 3, 2023, that among other things added substantial detail and direction in Title I of NEPA, including procedural issues that CEQ, TVA, and other agencies had previously addressed in their own regulations. In addition, Congress passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025, Public Law 119-21, title VI, § 60026, (July 4, 2025), adding Section 112 of NEPA, entitled “Project Sponsor Opt-in Fees for Environmental Reviews.” This provision allows project sponsors to pay a fee to obtain shortened NEPA review deadlines. TVA needs to update its procedures in light of these statutory changes.

Finally, the Supreme Court on May 29, 2025, issued Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, 145 S. Ct. 1497 (2025), which affirmed that agencies have broad discretion when conducting NEPA reviews, including with regard to the scope of the analysis in agencies' NEPA reviews given the agency's authority and the importance of the issue to the decisionmaker. In issuing this interim final rule, TVA seeks to align its procedures with the Supreme Court's guidance in this decision.

NEPA requires Federal agencies to “identify and develop methods and procedures,” in consultation with CEQ, with respect to their environmental analysis of their proposed actions, see 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(B). E.O. 14154 directs agencies to ensure their NEPA implementing regulations “prioritize efficiency and certainty” in the NEPA process.

TVA is revising its NEPA procedures at 18 CFR part 1318 to reflect the rescission of CEQ's regulations, the direction to agencies under E.O. 14154, the statutory amendments to NEPA, and the Supreme Court's decision in Seven County. TVA has completed an internal review of its NEPA procedures and practices and has identified opportunities to improve its practices and clarify its procedures. By these revisions, TVA intends to ensure it complies with NEPA and that the procedures reduce paperwork and delay to the extent possible. A summary of the procedures revised by TVA are described below. TVA is also moving its procedures at Subpart G, for compliance with E.O. 11988, Floodplain Management, and E.O. 11990, Protection of Wetlands, into a separate part of the CFR, a new Part 1319. These floodplain and wetland procedures are not part of TVA's procedures for implementing NEPA. TVA made minor clarifying edits but is not proposing any substantive changes to its floodplain and wetland procedures.

NEPA is a “purely procedural statute” which prescribes a process for a federal agency to conduct environmental review of a project but does not require any substantive outcome for a project. Seven County, 145 S. Ct. at 1511. NEPA does not substantively constrain an agency's ultimate decision on a proposed project, and “is relevant only to the question of whether an agency's final decision . . . was reasonably explained.” Id. at 1511.

TVA is repealing and replacing its prior procedures for implementing NEPA. Notice and comment procedures are not required under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for “rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). TVA's procedures for implementing NEPA are themselves purely procedural. See, e.g., 18 CFR 1318.10 (“This part establishes procedures for Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to use for compliance with . . . NEPA . . . .”). They do not dictate outcomes or impose binding legal obligations on private citizens. They only prescribe how TVA will conduct NEPA reviews. Procedural regulations that do not require notice and comment procedures to promulgate similarly do not require notice and comment procedures to remove.

TVA's revised implementing procedures are also procedural. Since NEPA itself is a procedural statute that does not mandate outcomes, Seven County, 145 S. Ct. at 1510, regulations implementing NEPA are also necessarily procedural. TVA's regulations describe how TVA will implement the NEPA process, prepare and structure environmental documents, and incorporate NEPA as a part of agency decision-making. They will guide TVA's internal practice in implementing NEPA but will not dictate substantive outcomes.

Notice and comment procedures are also not required under the APA for “interpretative rules” or “general statements of policy.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). Even if, and to the extent that, TVA's regulations were not procedural rules, they may be characterized as interpretative rules or general statements of policy. An interpretative rule provides an interpretation of a statute, rather than making discretionary policy choices that establish enforceable rights or obligations for regulated parties under delegated congressional authority. General statements of policy provide notice of an agency's intentions as to how it will enforce statutory requirements, again without creating enforceable rights or obligations for regulated parties under delegated congressional authority. To the extent anything in TVA's regulations is not a procedural rule it would be considered TVA's interpretation of NEPA or general policy statements about TVA's application of NEPA. Both of these are expressly exempted from notice and comment by statute. Although TVA is voluntarily providing notice and an opportunity to comment on this interim final rule, the agency has determined that notice and comment procedures are not required.

TVA also finds that, even if prior notice and solicitation of public comment would otherwise be required or this action could not immediately take effect, the need to expeditiously replace its existing rules satisfies the APA's “good cause” exceptions. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), (d)(3). 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,” and to make the rule effective immediately for good cause. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), (d)(3). As discussed above, TVA's prior procedures were promulgated with CEQ's NEPA regulations as a foundation and to be used in conjunction with those regulations. See 85 FR 17434 (“Like TVA's previous NEPA procedures, the final rule supplements the CEQ regulations. The rule was drafted with the objective of minimizing repetition of requirements already contained in the CEQ regulations and with the understanding that the TVA-specific regulations would be applied with the CEQ regulations.”). With the rescission of CEQ's NEPA regulations, TVA's prior procedures were premised on a framework that no longer exists. In the interim, TVA has continued to apply its procedures as though CEQ's NEPA regulations still existed where necessary to fill gaps. This makeshift substitute was, at best, a temporary solution; now that TVA has had the opportunity to draft revised standalone procedures in consultation with CEQ, it is critical that TVA begin following them as soon as possible. Immediate rescission of former procedures without replacement would result in uncertainty and potential delays to TVA projects and authorizations. Therefore, if notice-and-comment were otherwise required, doing so here would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. For these reasons, TVA finds that “good cause” exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay of the effective date that would otherwise be required. This interim final rule will accordingly be effective immediately. TVA will consider comments submitted in response to this action and may address them when issuing a final rule, if warranted, after consideration of the comments received.

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

TVA's revised NEPA procedures, developed in consultation with CEQ, will facilitate compliance with the statutory obligations of NEPA. TVA's NEPA procedures will continue to be maintained at 18 CFR part 1318, subparts A through F. TVA is moving the regulations currently in Subpart G, procedures addressing floodplain management and protection of wetlands, to a new Part 1319. Moving the floodplain management and protection of wetlands procedures to a separate part clarifies that those procedures do not address the implementation of NEPA.

Throughout the revised procedures, TVA removes citations to the rescinded CEQ regulations and implements key structural features of the 2023 statutory amendments to NEPA, such as deadlines and page limits for environmental assessments (EA) and environmental impact statements (EIS), as directed at NEPA § 107(g). The procedures provide that TVA will adhere to the page limits and timelines established by Congress. The revised procedures also incorporate new definitions (NEPA § 111) and statutory requirements for determining the appropriate level of NEPA review (NEPA § 106), content for EISs (NEPA § 102(2)(C)), and public notice associated with issuing a notice of intent to prepare an EIS (NEPA § 107(c)). In revising its procedures, TVA also relied upon CEQ's Memorandum for Heads of Federal Departments and Agencies: Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (September 29, 2025) (“CEQ Guidance”). 1

TVA also revises the procedures by grouping similar subjects together to improve readability and clarity. Substantial revisions to subparts A through F are included, although some of TVA's former implementing procedures remain intact. Throughout the procedures, and also in Part 1319, TVA removes references to specific TVA management and staff positions and office titles and replaces those with “TVA”; such detail about administrative roles and responsibilities within TVA is unnecessary in the regulations.

The following paragraphs contain a section-by-section summary of key changes under each subpart from those currently in TVA's NEPA procedures.

§ 1318.10 Purpose and policy. In this section, TVA combines provisions relating to the purpose of the procedures and TVA's related policy into one section. TVA removes reference to CEQ NEPA regulations at 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508 and adds clarification of the purpose of the TVA NEPA procedures. The section addresses the procedural and interpretive nature of these provisions. TVA also adds provisions addressing when it will consult with CEQ.

§ 1318.20 Abbreviations. TVA removes abbreviations for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Record of Decision (ROD) from its procedures because the abbreviations are no longer used in its procedures.

§ 1318.30 Definitions. TVA removes its reference to the CEQ NEPA regulations in this section and cites new definitions in the statute (NEPA § 111). TVA adds definitions in this section for the following terms: authorization, effects, human environment, jurisdiction, mitigation, NEPA process, notice of intent, page, project sponsor, publish, reasonable alternatives, reasonably foreseeable, scope, and tiering. Several new definitions are based upon the CEQ guidance ( e.g., effects, mitigation, page, publish). The definitions of “controversial” and “important farmland” are removed because the terms are sufficiently defined in the text of the procedures. Four definitions addressing the management of floodplains and protection of wetlands (floodplain, practicable, natural and beneficial floodplain and wetland values, and wetland) are removed from part 1318 and, as discussed below, will be added to definitions section (§ 1319.20) of the floodplains and wetlands procedures.

This subpart is revised to address additional procedures relating to the initiation of the NEPA process. Sections of this subpart are renamed, revised and reorganized to improve structure, organization, and readability. Sections addressing scoping, interagency cooperation, and the supplementation of, and reliance on, environmental documents are moved to Subpart B from other subparts because these are considerations made at the beginning of the NEPA process and apply to both EAs and EISs. TVA adds a section addressing NEPA schedules to incorporate deadline requirements from the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023.

§ 1318.100 Determining when NEPA applies. This section is added to clarify which actions taken by TVA would be subject to review under NEPA, consistent with provisions from NEPA §§ 106(a)(4) and 111(10)(B)(vii) (42 U.S.C. 4336(a)(4) and § 4336e(10)(B)(vii), respectively).

§ 1318.101 Determining the appropriate level of NEPA Review. This section is retitled and revised extensively. Previous paragraphs addressing internal administration are removed and replaced with new procedures that describe how TVA determines whether NEPA applies to a proposed action and, if so, the appropriate level of environmental review. In paragraph (b), TVA includes criteria for determining whether potential effects are significant, thereby requiring an EIS.

§ 1318.102 Determination of NEPA Adequacy. TVA has revised the procedures relating to making and documenting a determination of NEPA adequacy and the determination of when to supplement an environmental document. These considerations are key to a determination by TVA that an existing document provides adequate analysis to address a proposed action. TVA also removes a reference to CEQ regulations from this section.

§ 1318.103 Supplements. This section, previously included under Subpart E, is added to Subpart B because the procedures apply to EAs as well as EISs. Like § 1318.102, the section addresses consideration of whether an existing document is adequate to address a proposed action. These provisions address instances in which the existing document does not adequately address a proposed action and additional, supplemental analysis is necessary to comply with NEPA.

§ 1318.104 Reliance on existing environmental documents. This section, previously included under Subpart E, is added to Subpart B because the procedures also apply to EAs and are considerations during the initiation of a NEPA process. The procedures are modified to improve clarity, and paragraphs addressing public notification are removed from Subpart B because the topic is addressed in Subpart F.

§ 1318.105 Lead and cooperating agency determinations. This section, previously included under Subpart E, is added to Subpart B because these procedures also apply to EAs and are considerations during the initiation of a NEPA process. Modifications address provisions of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, including those relating to the preparation of a single document when multiple agencies participate in the preparation of an environmental document. In addition, TVA clarifies that TVA will normally serve as the lead agency for TVA actions.

§ 1318.106 Schedule for the NEPA process. TVA adds this section to address the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 emphasis that environmental documents be prepared in a timely manner and the importance of working with project sponsors to achieve the required deadlines. In the section, TVA outlines the statutory deadlines identified in NEPA § 107(g) and adds a provision requiring a certification regarding TVA's adherence to statutory deadlines. TVA adds a paragraph addressing how deadline extensions may be considered. A paragraph is added to ensure that concurrent environmental processes or requirements are also incorporated into the schedule, as appropriate, because these concurrent processes may influence the critical path for the NEPA process.

§ 1318.107 Scoping process. This section, previously included under Subpart E, is added to Subpart B because it addresses considerations made at the initiation of a NEPA process and that may also apply to EAs. This section is modified to clarify the scoping process and the types of information and issues that will be developed and identified. TVA modifies the public notice and comment requirements associated with scoping and removes a paragraph that addressed the preparation of a scoping report because such reports are not required by statute.

§ 1318.200 Purpose and scope. TVA modifies this section for clarity and to address new methods in which categorical exclusions may be established, including the adoption of another agency's categorical exclusion consistent with the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (NEPA § 109). In paragraph (a), TVA defines categorical exclusions. In paragraph (b), TVA clarifies that more than one categorical exclusion may be applied to a proposed action if the exclusions collectively encompass the action. In paragraph (c), TVA defines a new process for establishing a new categorical exclusion that involves documenting in a sufficient record substantiation that additional categories of actions may be added to TVA's list of categorical exclusions (found in Appendix A of this subpart). The process includes consultation with CEQ and public notification. In paragraph (d), TVA addresses the procedures for adopting another agency's categorical exclusions. Paragraph (e) adds procedures that address TVA's reliance on a determination by another Federal agency that a categorical exclusion applies to a proposed action that is substantially the same as TVA's proposed action. TVA removes an unnecessary statement that TVA would comply with other laws or requirements when applying a categorical exclusion.

§ 1318.201 Extraordinary circumstances. This section is modified for clarity and to more accurately summarize the review for extraordinary circumstances that occurs prior to using a categorical exclusion. TVA includes examples of extraordinary circumstances in paragraph (b) and adds paragraph (d) to generally explain when it would prepare documentation for a review for extraordinary circumstances.

§ 1318.202 Public notification. TVA makes a grammatical revision to the section for clarity.

Appendix A—Categorical exclusions. In the introductory text of this appendix, TVA revised the second sentence referencing extraordinary circumstances and corrects the citation to text in the applicable text in Subpart C. There are no other changes to appendix A of Subpart C.

TVA modifies this subpart by moving and modifying sections addressing supplements and relying on existing environmental documents to Subpart B, as previously discussed, and by moving and modifying a section addressing public and stakeholder involvement in the preparation of EAs into Subpart F.

§ 1318.300 Purpose and scope. TVA revises this section to clarify when it is appropriate to prepare an EA.

§ 1318.301 Environmental assessment preparation. TVA modifies the section addressing the preparation of EAs, now numbered as section 1318.301 with the removal of procedures relating to public and stakeholder involvement. TVA removes a list of items that would be considered during the initiation of the NEPA process; those are adequately addressed under the revised Subpart B. In paragraph (a), TVA identifies core elements of an EA. In paragraph (b), TVA states that public comment on a draft EA is at its discretion and that substantive comments are addressed when such review periods are offered. TVA addresses the page limit established in the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (NEPA § 107(e)) in paragraph (d). Finally, TVA adds a provision in paragraph (e) addressing the use of appendices and a provision in paragraph (f) requiring a certification in an EA regarding TVA's adherence to statutory page limits.

§ 1318.302 Finding of No Significant Impact. In this section, TVA makes numerous revisions to clarify the contents of the finding of no significant impact document. TVA adds that a finding of no significant impact will identify any mitigation requirements and commitments that are necessary to address significant effects and the associated authority and/or applicable monitoring or enforcement provisions. TVA also adds that a finding of no significant impact may be published separately or as part of an EA. Procedures relating to public notification for findings are moved to Subpart F and modified.

Numerous modifications to this subpart ensure that TVA's procedures more accurately reflect the statutory requirements for EISs and that the process for completing documents is efficient and timely. As noted above, sections addressing interagency cooperation, scoping, supplements, and reliance on existing environmental documents are moved to Subpart B.

§ 1318.400 Purpose and scope. TVA removes the list of actions normally requiring an EIS. TVA moves the description of the standard contents for an EIS to § 1318.401. In paragraphs (b) and (c), TVA revises the previous procedures that address the scope of an EIS to emphasize the need for concise documents that focus on issues of significance and to address the consideration of indirect effects.

§ 1318.401 Environmental Impact Statement preparation. Two sections addressing the preparation of the draft and final EISs are combined into this section. TVA adds a list of contents that represent the standard format for an EIS, based on past CEQ NEPA regulations. TVA revises its procedures addressing the review of EISs in a manner consistent with NEPA § 102(C). Procedures addressing public reviews, minimum review periods, and responding to comments are addressed in Subpart F. Similar to the addition to § 1318.301, TVA addresses the page limit for EISs that is established in the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (NEPA § 107(e)) in paragraphs (d) and (e). TVA also adds a provision in paragraph (f) addressing the use of appendices and a provision in paragraph (e) requiring a certification in an EIS regarding TVA's adherence to statutory page limits.

§ 1318.402 Agency decision. This section addresses how TVA documents the completion of an EIS. NEPA mandates that TVA consider all relevant information relating to impacts on the quality of the human environment in making its decision but does not require any particular format for documenting an agency decision. TVA revised this section to remove specific requirements formerly applicable to a Record of Decision and provides a format that may be used to notify the public that the environmental review has been completed and considered.

TVA makes numerous revisions to this Subpart. TVA removes procedures addressing the review of EISs prepared by other agencies because those procedures addressed only internal administrative tasks and roles associated with providing comments to the agency and therefore are not necessary. TVA removes procedures stating that TVA may issue additional supplemental or explanatory guidance relating to its NEPA procedures and that TVA executives may modify the roles and responsibilities identified in the procedures; these procedures addressing administrative determinations are unnecessary. TVA revised a section addressing TVA's substantial compliance with TVA's NEPA procedures. TVA moves procedures relating to providing reports to the public on the status of ongoing NEPA reviews to § 1318.500 because they pertain to public involvement. As described below, three sections are added to this subpart.

§ 1318.500 Public and stakeholder involvement. In this section, TVA consolidates procedures relating to public involvement in the NEPA process. The section revises previous procedures to reflect that public involvement in the preparation of environmental documents is at TVA's discretion. Minor modifications reaffirm and clarify TVA's commitments to provide notification and information relevant to its NEPA program and proposed actions. Paragraph (d) addresses how TVA makes documents available for public review, relying primarily on its public website. The section includes new procedures addressing how public comments are treated to streamline the process and time required to review and consider the public's input. These changes allow TVA to focus on those comments that improve the environmental document and its analysis. In the section, TVA commits to disclosing public comments submitted on environmental documents and updating the public when it ceases environmental reviews.

§ 1318.501 Mitigation. TVA includes minor revisions to this section for clarification. TVA removes details relating to which staff will be responsible for ensuring mitigation measures are met.

§ 1318.502 Programmatic environmental documents and tiering. TVA combines two sections addressing programmatic NEPA documents and tiering into one section. TVA adds a paragraph citing to new statutory requirements addressing programmatic environmental documents from the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (NEPA § 108). TVA modifies the section by removing a definition for programmatic documents because the definition is now established in statute (NEPA § 111). Two citations to CEQ's NEPA regulations are deleted. In paragraph (b), TVA clarifies that contents of tiered documents need only be summarized and incorporated by reference and will only address the subsequent action. In paragraph (c), TVA incorporates three criteria to determine whether ongoing or previously approved actions may be implemented during a programmatic review.

§ 1318.503 Coordination with project sponsors and procedures for project sponsor-related environmental documents. This section incorporates new provisions addressing “private applicants.” Throughout this section, TVA now refers to such applicants as “project sponsors,” consistent with usage in the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 and the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025. The section is modified to acknowledge that project sponsors or their contractors may prepare environmental documents, while reaffirming that such documents must be independently evaluated and approved by TVA. TVA addresses support for project sponsors or their contractors in the preparation of environmental documents. TVA also adds a provision that requires project sponsors or sponsors preparing environmental documents to submit disclosure statements addressing their interest in the outcome of the action. In paragraph (h), TVA addresses section 112 of NEPA (a provision of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025) and the associated coordination with CEQ.

§ 1318.504 Reducing paperwork and delay. TVA modifies this section to emphasize practices that ensure efficient, concise environmental reviews are completed in accordance with new page and time limits. TVA incorporates and consolidates several procedures from other sections of its procedures into this modified section. Paragraph (b) addresses incorporating material by reference in environmental documents, based on long-standing CEQ NEPA regulations. Paragraph (c) addresses the need to write in plain language using a clear format.

§ 1318.505 Information requirements. TVA adds this section to ensure that long-standing standards for the information used in environmental reviews are addressed. Based on previous CEQ NEPA regulations, TVA adds procedures addressing methodology and scientific accuracy in paragraph (a) and incomplete and unavailable information in paragraph (b).

§ 1318.506 Causes of action. This section was added to clarify that minor deviations from TVA's procedures do not establish a cause of action for violation of NEPA.

§ 1318.507 Emergency actions. TVA makes no changes to this section.

§ 1318.508 Unique identification numbers. TVA adds this section to address the numbering system that it will apply to its environmental documents for tracking purposes. The numbering of TVA environmental documents will be consistent with CEQ guidance.

TVA is moving the regulations in Subpart G (Floodplains and Wetlands) from 18 CFR part 1318 to Part 1319 of title 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations. As noted above, those procedures implement the requirements of two Executive Orders. Moving the floodplains and wetlands procedures to a separate part clarifies that those procedures do not implement the statutory requirements of NEPA and therefore should not be considered part of TVA's NEPA procedures.

Four definitions relevant to the floodplains and wetlands procedures were removed from § 1318.10 and added to this part at § 1319.20. In several places, TVA revises text to remove references to specific TVA offices that would be involved in various tasks. Other minor revisions are made for clarification, but TVA has not proposed substantive changes to these floodplains and wetlands procedures.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will determine whether a regulatory action is significant as defined by E.O. 12866 and will review significant regulatory actions. 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. TVA has developed the interim final rule consistent with E.O. 13563. OIRA reviewed this interim final rule and determined that it is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563.

Notice and comment is not required because TVA has invoked the APA's “good cause” exemption under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and because it is a rule of agency procedure and practice and does not establish substantive requirements binding the public. However, TVA is voluntarily accepting comments for a period of 30 days.

This interim final rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

TVA has considered this interim final rule under the requirements of E.O. 13132, Federalism, and has determined that the interim final rule conforms with the federalism principles set out in this E.O.; will not impose any compliance costs on the States; and will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, TVA concludes that this interim final rule will not have federalism implications, and no further assessment of federalism implications is necessary.

Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-38), TVA has assessed the effects of the interim final rule on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. The interim final rule will not compel the expenditure of $100 million or more, adjusted annually for inflation, in any one year by State, local, and Tribal governments in the aggregate or by the private sector. Therefore, a statement under section 202 of the Act is not required. This action also does not impose any enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or otherwise have any effect subject to the requirements of 2 U.S.C. 1531-38.

TVA's NEPA procedures assist in the fulfillment of its responsibilities under NEPA and do not authorize any specific agency activity or commit resources that may affect the environment. The procedures also do not represent the agency's final determination of what level of NEPA analysis is required for a particular agency action. The determination that establishing agency NEPA procedures does not require NEPA analysis and documentation has been upheld in Heartwood, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service, 73 F. Supp. 2d 962, 972-73 (S.D. III. 1999), aff'd, 230 F.3d 947, 954-55 (7th Cir. 2000).

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

E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. This interim final rule does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Tribal governments and does not preempt Tribal law. TVA has reviewed this interim final rule in accordance with the requirements of E.O. 13175 and has determined that it will not have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Therefore, consultation and coordination with Indian Tribal governments is not required for this interim final rule.

TVA has determined that this interim final rule is consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O. 14154 “Unleashing American Energy” and E.O. 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation.” This rule is an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.

Pursuant to subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (known as the Congressional Review Act) (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), OIRA has designated this interim final rule as not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This procedural action, in any event, is not a rule at all under 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(C).

The Wagner-Peyser Act of 1933, 29 U.S.C. 49 et seq., established the ES program, which is a nationwide program of labor-exchange services. The ES program seeks to improve the functioning of the nation's labor markets by matching job seekers with employers that are seeking workers. Section 3(a) of the Wagner-Peyser Act directs the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) to assist States in coordinating the State public service employment offices throughout the country. The Department had historically relied on the Secretary's authority in section 3(a) and 5(b) to require States to provide labor exchange services with State “merit staff,” meaning government employees hired and managed under a merit-based personnel system described in 5 CFR 900, Subpart F.

Beginning in the early 1990s, the Department provided Colorado and Massachusetts with flexibility to set their own staffing requirements for the provision of ES services. In 1998, the Department permitted Michigan similar flexibility to deliver ES services, pursuant to a settlement agreement arising out of Michigan v. Herman, 81 F. Supp. 2d 840 (W.D. Mich. 1998).

In 2014, Congress passed the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), Public Law 113-128, which amended the Wagner-Peyser Act. WIOA did not include an ES merit-staffing requirement. Regulations implementing WIOA were published in the Federal Register on August 19, 2016 (81 FR 56072) and were effective on October 18, 2016. Among the provisions codified in the 2016 WIOA regulations was 20 CFR 652.215, which continued to require the use of State merit-staffing for the delivery of ES services, except for the three States that were previously granted exemptions: Colorado, Massachusetts, and Michigan.

Through rulemaking effective February 5, 2020, the Department removed the requirement that ES services be provided only by State merit staff (85 FR 592) (hereinafter referred to as the “2020 Final Rule”). In the preamble to the 2020 Final Rule, the Department explained that it sought to allow States maximum flexibility in staffing arrangements to allow them to better align WIOA and ES staffing. Following the 2020 Final Rule, several States were approved to use a variety of staffing models to provide their ES services, as described in their approved WIOA State plans.

On November 24, 2023, the Department issued the Wagner-Peyser Act Staffing Final Rule (88 FR 82658) (hereinafter referred to as “the 2023 Final Rule”) to reinstate a requirement for States to use State merit staff to provide labor exchange services in the ES, with limited exceptions, see 20 CFR 652.215 (2024). The 2023 Final Rule also made changes to the ES Monitor Advocate System regulations in 20 CFR parts 653 and 658. This rule became effective on January 23, 2024, and provided States until January 22, 2026, 24 months from the effective date, to comply with the State merit-staffing requirement. The Department is issuing this final rule amending § 652.215 to delay implementation of the State merit-staffing requirement for an additional year, until January 21, 2027. This final rule does not affect States' obligations to comply with other requirements in the 2023 Final Rule, such as the changes to 20 CFR parts 653 and 658.

On January 31, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation” (90 FR 9065) making it the policy of the executive branch to “alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens placed on the American people.” On July 1, 2025, the Department issued the proposed rule, Wagner-Peyser Act Employment Service Staffing (90 FR 28239), proposing to remove the State merit-staffing requirement, which would allow States to choose the staffing model that provides the required ES services in the most efficient way for their State. The comment period on that rulemaking closed on September 2, 2025. The Department continues to engage in that rulemaking process. The Department is issuing this final rule delaying the January 22, 2026, compliance date to reduce regulatory burden on States and to enable the Department to complete its rulemaking process.

The Department has considered any reliance interests that the compliance date for merit staffing in the 2023 Final Rule may have engendered. Because this rule merely extends the delay of enforcement of staffing requirements for State grantees and does not impose any new requirements, the rule does not implicate any serious reliance interests on the part of the States. Further, in addition to the two years in which States have not been required to be in compliance following the 2023 Final Rule, States were not subject to any program-wide staffing requirements as of February 5, 2020, the effective date of the 2020 Final Rule, which allowed States to choose their staffing model. This final rule therefore does not implicate serious reliance interests on the part of other stakeholders, and, in any event, any reliance interests are outweighed by the need to avoid regulatory confusion and the potential burden of implementing the 2023 Final Rule only to have the regulatory requirement potentially change soon after.

Because the delay would relieve the affected State governments of the regulatory staffing requirement at 20 CFR 652.215 for 1 year, this rulemaking is considered a deregulatory action under Executive Order 14192.

Paragraph (a) of 20 CFR 652.215 requires that, absent authorization prior to 2020 for a different staffing model, States must deliver ES services using State merit staff, i.e., staff employed by the State according to the merit-system principles in 5 CFR part 900, subpart F. Paragraph (d) of § 652.215 provides that States must comply with this requirement no later than January 22, 2026. In this final rule, the Department is revising the date in paragraph (d) to provide States until January 21, 2027, to comply with the requirements of this section. This change in paragraph (d) delays the compliance date by 1 year.

The Department is issuing this final rule without prior public notice and comment or a delayed effective date, pursuant to the applicable exemption in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), for grant-related matters. Section 553(a)(2) provides that the rulemaking requirements of the APA, including prior notice and the opportunity for public comment, do not apply to matters “relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts.” The plain meaning of the phrase “relating to” is “a broad one—to stand in some relation; to have bearing or concern; to pertain; refer; to bring into association with or connections with.”  1

Delaying compliance with § 652.215 in the Wagner-Peyser Act ES regulations relates to grants because it concerns a condition on States' receipt of grant funding from the Department. In order to receive statutorily allotted grant funds, see 29 U.S.C. 49e, States must first accept the provisions of the Wagner-Peyser Act, and they must designate a State agency with the ability to carry out program activities under the Act in cooperation with the Department, see 29 U.S.C. 49c. Each State must enter into a “grant agreement” with the Department, under which it agrees to comply with the provisions of the Act and “all applicable rules and regulations.” 20 CFR 652.4. The Wagner-Peyser Act ES regulations at 20 CFR parts 651, 652, 653, 654, and 658, promulgated pursuant to the Department's rulemaking authority under 29 U.S.C. 49k, thus operate as terms and conditions of the grant awards to States. Violations can result in a requirement for States to repay grant funds or other appropriate sanctions. 20 CFR 652.8(g)-(h).

As described above, the grant condition at § 652.215 requires almost all States to deliver program services using State staff employed according to prescribed merit principles and provides that States must comply by January 22, 2026. This condition on staffing models affects how States expend their grant funds, because States use these grant funds to pay their ES staff. It does not apply to State staff who are not funded through grants under the Wagner-Peyser Act. The condition also affects the manner in which States deliver all the services that they are required to provide under their grants. See 20 CFR 652.215(a) (cross-referencing the list of required labor exchange services in § 652.3, as well as the provisions of parts 653 and 658). Delaying compliance with this grant condition therefore relates to grants within the plain meaning of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2).

The Department's use of the exemption provided under sec. 553(a)(2) is consistent with recent uses of the exemption by other Federal agencies. See, e.g., Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice, 85 FR 47899 (Aug. 7, 2020) (invoking the exemption to repeal Department of Housing and Urban Development rule because it required certification and obligations of Federal grantees).

For the foregoing reasons, the Department issues this final rule without prior public notice and comment or a delayed effective date.

The Department has examined the impacts of this rule as required by Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review”; “Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”; Executive Order 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”; Executive Order 13132, “Federalism”; the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (Pub. L. 96 354); section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4); and the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select those regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts). Under Executive Order 12866, OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determines whether a regulatory action is significant and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive Order and review by OMB. OIRA has determined that this final rule is a significant regulatory action and has reviewed this final rule. This final rule is considered a deregulatory action under Executive Order 14192.

This final rule would result in rule familiarization costs and cost savings to States as estimated by the delayed transfers to states by one year estimated. Rule familiarization costs represent direct costs to States associated with reviewing this final rule. The Department anticipates that this final rule will be reviewed by Human Resources Managers (SOC code  2 11-3121) employed by State Workforce Agencies (SWAs). The Department anticipates that it will take one Human Resources Manager an average of 10 minutes to review this rule. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics data show that the mean hourly wage of State government Human Resources Managers is $51.90. 3 The Department assumes a 62% benefits rate  4 and a 17% overhead rate, 5 so the full loaded hourly wage is $92.90 [ = $51.90 + ($51.90 × 62%) + ($51.90 × 17%)]. Therefore, the one-time rule familiarization cost for all 54 jurisdictions (the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) is estimated to be $836 ( = $92.90 × 10 minutes × 54 jurisdictions).

The Department anticipates that the cost savings will outweigh the costs associated with rule familiarization. However, the Department is unable to quantify the specific cost savings that a limited number of States may realize due to the additional time granted for implementing the State merit-staffing provisions outlined in the 2023 final rule.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. chapter 6, requires agencies to evaluate the economic impact of certain rules on small entities. The RFA defines small entities to include small businesses, small organizations, including not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. No analysis under the RFA is required for this final rule because, for the reasons discussed above, the Department is not required to engage in notice and comment under the APA.

Title II of UMRA, Public Law 104-4, requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation with the base year 1995) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. This final rule does not impose any Federal mandates on any state, local, or tribal government, or on the private sector, within the meaning of UMRA. Additionally, as discussed above, this final rule is promulgated without notice and comment. Therefore, the requirements of title II of UMRA do not apply, and the Department has not prepared a statement under UMRA.

Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. Executive Order 13132 requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. Executive Order 13132 also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. This final rule does not have significant federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, we are required to provide notice in the Federal Register and solicit public comment before a “collection of information” requirement is submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Collection of information is defined under 5 CFR 1320.3(c) of the PRA's implementing regulations. This final rule will not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the PRA.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Department of Labor is amending 20 CFR part 652 as follows:

The Coast Guard was requested by the Department of War's Strategic Capabilities Office to provide a safety zone for a sUAS testing event. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Forces Micronesia/Sector Guam has determined that potential hazards associated with this military testing event are a safety concern for anyone on the waters in the vicinity of the operation. Therefore, the COTP is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034, which is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and comment under the authority in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This statutory provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The event requires the establishment of a safety zone by January 26, 2026, to ensure the safety of the public and marine environment. This short timeframe makes it impracticable to publish an NPRM and receive and respond to public comments.

For the same reasons, the Coast Guard finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate action is needed to provide for the safety of personnel and vessels near the DoW sUAS testing event.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from January 26, 2026, through January 30, 2026, during specific enforcement periods to include 1300 to 1700 ChST on January 26, 2026; from 0530 to 1530 ChST on January 27, 2026; from 1430 to 2200 ChST on January 28, 2026; from 1200 to 2200 ChST on January 29, 2026; and TBD as needed January 30, 2026. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Philippine Sea in a defined area north of Andersen Air Force Base within the boundaries from 13-37.50N x 144-53.50E to 13-38.50N x 144-51.00E to 13-41.00N x 144-51.00E to 13-41.00N x 144-53.50E and back. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or their designated representative.

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

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

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons.

Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this regulated area. The enforcement period is during a time when vessel traffic is normally low. In addition, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF FM marine channel 16, which will allow small entities to adjust their transit plans, and the rule is primarily within military property and is in the best interest of national defense.

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

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

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

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

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

As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.

This rule is a safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(d) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.

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

The Coast Guard received notification that M/V ZHEN HUA 24 will be transporting gantry cranes to Morgan's Point, TX. The Captain of the Port Houston-Galveston (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the transfer of gantry cranes starting as early as January 16, 2026, will be a safety concern for anyone within a 100-yard radius while the M/V ZHEN HUA 24 is in transit and for anyone within 25-yard radius while the M/V ZHEN HUA 24 is moored. This rule is needed to protect persons, property, and the marine environment within the navigable waters of the safety zones while the M/V ZHEN HUA 24 transits to, and unloads in Morgan's Point, Texas. Therefore, the COTP is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034, which is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters around the safety zones.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior notice and comment. As is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The Coast Guard received all relevant information for the transfer of the gantry cranes and the need for the safety zone on January 8, 2026, but we must establish this safety zone by January 16, 2026, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment. Therefore, we do not have enough time to solicit and respond to comments.

For the same reasons, the Coast Guard finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

This rule establishes two temporary safety zones from January 16, 2026 until January 31, 2026. The safety zones include a moving safety zone, covering all navigable waters within 100 yards of the M/V ZHEN HUA 24 general cargo ship, and a fixed safety zone, covering all navigable waters within 25 yards of M/V ZHEN HUA 24 once moored. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or their designated representative.

Moving Safety Zone: This area includes all waters within 100 yards of the M/V ZHEN HUA 24 as the vessel transits inbound and outbound through the Houston Ship Channel.

Fixed Safety Zone: This area includes all waters within 25 yards of the M/V ZHEN HUA 24 once the M/V ZHEN HUA 24 is moored at Barbours Cut Terminal in Morgan's Point, Texas, at approximate position 29°40′00″ N, 094°59′23″ W. The COTP may terminate enforcement of this safety zone prior to January 31, 2026, depending on the progress of the crane offloading operation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.

This rule is a safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.

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

This is a summary of the Commission's Order on Reconsideration, in WC Docket No. 21-31; FCC 25-62, adopted and released September 30. The full text of this document is available at the following internet address: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-62A1.pdf.

The Commission revisits the E-Rate Wi-Fi hotspot and services rules adopted in the July 2024 Hotspots Order (Final rule 89 FR 67303, August 20, 2024; Proposed rule 89 FR 67394, August 20, 2024). Specifically, the Commission grants the petition for reconsideration filed by Maurine and Matthew Molak (Molak Petition) to the extent provided herein and find that the best reading of section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (the Communications Act) is that it does not permit funding of off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and the associated wireless internet services with E-Rate program support. In so finding, the Commission rescinds the rules adopted in July 2024. The Commission also denies the two remaining petitions for reconsideration of the Commission's Hotspots Order. Finally, the Commission directs the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), the administrator of the Commission's universal service programs, to deny pending applications for E-Rate support related to the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services; and the Commission directs the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) to release a public notice with an amended funding year (FY) 2025 eligible services list that reflects the changes made in the Order on Reconsideration.

On reconsideration, the Commission restores the E-Rate program rules to those that existed before adoption of the July 2024 Hotspots Order. The Commission grants the Molak Petition to the extent provided herein and determines here that extending E-Rate to fund the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and associated wireless internet service is not consistent with the best reading of section 254 of the Communications Act. The Commission therefore rescinds the July 2024 rules.

Citing section 1.429( l )(1)-(2) of its rules, the Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition (SHLB) asserts that the Molak Petition should be dismissed because it does not raise new issues that were not already addressed by the Commission in the Hotspots Order, fails to address a material error, and its consideration is not in the public interest. However, the Commission finds that consideration of the arguments in the Molak Petition is in the public interest and permitted by section 405 of the Communications Act and section 1.429 of its rules. Reconsideration “is generally appropriate where the petitioner shows either a material error or omission in the original order or raises additional facts not known or not existing until after the petitioner's last opportunity to respond.” In this instance, the Commission is persuaded that the Commission's prior decision materially erred in adopting rules for the E-Rate program that are not consistent with the best reading of the Commission's statutory authority.

Section 254(h)(1)(B) of the Communications Act requires telecommunications carriers to provide “services that are within the definition of universal service under subsection (c)(3)” to “elementary schools, secondary schools, and libraries” for “educational purposes” at discounted rates. The Commission finds that the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and associated wireless internet services does not constitute an educational purpose under the Communications Act, given the multitude of non-educational ways such service could be used. The Commission also finds it is unlikely that a school or library official could certify with any actual knowledge or certainty that use of the Wi-Fi hotspots by its students and library patrons would be primarily for educational purposes as required by its rules. However, even if the Commission agreed that such use could serve an educational purpose, section 254(h)(1)(B) of the Communications Act also requires that the services be provided “ to elementary schools, secondary schools, and libraries. ” In the 2024 Hotspots Order, the Commission stated that “because schools and libraries are the customers and recipients of the services they purchase, [] the services are therefore provided to them within the meaning of section 254(h)(1)(B), even if used elsewhere.” The Commission now disagrees. While entities operating schools or libraries may be purchasing the Wi-Fi hotspots and associated service, the schools and libraries are not the recipients of the connectivity provided to student or library patron homes, and the Commission therefore finds this reading to be inconsistent with section 254(h)(1)(B) of the Communications Act. Under the best reading of section 254(h)(1)(B) of the Communications Act, the services themselves must be provided to eligible locations—namely elementary schools, secondary schools, and libraries—to be eligible for support through the E-Rate program. The Commission has limited statutory authority, and the rules permitting the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and associated wireless internet services are not consistent with the best reading of section 254(h)(1)(B) of the Communications Act.

The Commission's interpretation of the phrase “to elementary schools, secondary schools, and libraries” as referring to locations is strongly supported by the statutory context. For one, other provisions of section 254 reinforce that support for schools under section 254 is focused on support for services to schools as locations. Both section 254(b)(6) and (h)(2)(A) link together the references to schools and “classrooms.” That broader context supports the view that the focus of section 254 is on service to schools as locations. And interpreting the term “library” in context, insofar as schools refer to locations in the phrase “to elementary schools, secondary schools, and libraries,” the same should be true of libraries.

The Commission's interpretation also is supported by the difference in section 254's treatment of health care providers. The heading of section 254(h)(1)(A) refers to “Health care providers for rural areas” and section 254(h)(1)(B) refers to “Educational providers and libraries.” But only in section 254(h)(1)(A) did Congress carry through that reference to “providers” in addressing services “to any public or nonprofit health care provider.” By contrast, Congress chose not to flow through the “provider” terminology used in the heading of section 254(h)(1)(B), instead addressing services “to elementary schools, secondary schools, and libraries.” Although the services “to” school and library locations would be purchased by educational providers or libraries as organizational entities, the Commission concludes that its interpretation of the language of section 254(h)(1)(B) best accounts for Congress's different textual choice as compared to the language used for health care providers in section 254(h)(1)(A).

Section 254(h)(2)(A) of the Communications Act directs the Commission to promulgate rules “to enhance, to the extent technically feasible and economically reasonable, access to advanced telecommunications and information services for all public and nonprofit elementary and secondary school classrooms . . . and libraries.” The Hotspots Order found that providing support for Wi-Fi hotspots for students to do homework and access educational resources supports effective classroom instruction support, such that it satisfies the “for . . . classrooms” requirement. It did so by noting that the statute uses the word “ for, ” rather than “at” or “in,” which might more clearly indicate the physical classroom. However, the Commission disagrees that this language permits the Commission to authorize support for services that connect to educational resources at any location. The Commission has long supported E-Rate funding for the services and equipment necessary to transport information to individual classrooms, including for equipment in non-instructional buildings that is essential for the effective transport of information to classrooms ( e.g., a data center housing a network switch). This is the best reading of the language in section 254(h)(2)(A) of the Communications Act directing the Commission to enhance access “ for . . . classrooms.” Under this reading, the services and equipment must ultimately transport information to school classrooms. Congress could not have intended the term “ for . . . classrooms” to stretch to services transporting information to students' homes, particularly in light of the statutory limitation of support to uses that are “technically feasible and economically reasonable.” Similarly, the Commission finds that the statute limits its ability to fund services purchased by libraries to those that transport information to libraries, and not that transport information to library patrons at their homes or other non-library locations. Providing funding for the purchase of off-premises Wi-Fi hotspots and associated wireless internet service—particularly for libraries—could extend E-Rate support with virtually no limits. Instead, the Commission finds that the best reading of section 254(h)(2)(A) of the Communications Act does not permit the Commission to fund off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and associated wireless internet services.

The Commission's decision to rescind the July 2024 rules is reinforced by Congress's decisions regarding the Emergency Connectivity Fund (ECF) program. In creating the temporary ECF program, Congress expressly provided authorization for funding Wi-Fi hotspots for use by students, staff, and library patrons at locations other than a school or library. In particular, it directed the Commission to adopt rules “providing for the provision, . . . of support under paragraphs (1)(B) and (2) of section 254(h) of the Communications Act . . . to an eligible school or library” for the purchase of equipment or services “for use by—(1) in the case of a school, students and staff of the school at locations that include locations other than the school; and (2) in the case of a library, patrons of the library at locations that include locations other than the library.” This is relevant in two separate ways. First, it illustrates how Congress can and does address support off-premises from schools and libraries where it wants to do so. Unlike section 7402, section 254(h) authorizes funding to elementary schools, secondary schools, and libraries, and for classrooms. This contrast underscores that the Hotspots Order was not based on the best reading of the Communications Act. Second, in connection with a discussion of section 254(h)(1)(B) of the Communications Act, it used the terms “school” and “library” in a manner that clearly referred to locations and that equally clearly treated off-premises locations as distinct from “schools” and “libraries.” This reinforces its conclusion that the terms “schools” and “libraries” are best understood to refer to locations in the language “to elementary schools, secondary schools, and libraries” in section 254(h)(1)(B) and exclude off-premises locations. And while not necessary to its analysis of the implications of the ECF program, the Commission further concludes that the forgoing suggests that Congress saw section 7402 as a necessary expansion to section 254(h) in order to fund service for off-premises locations.

Moreover, the Commission does not agree, as a policy matter, with the decision the Commission previously reached. Unlike in the ECF program, there are no limiting principles to effectively limit the use of scarce E-Rate funding for the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and associated wireless internet service. Specifically, there is no data or analysis regarding the amount of federal funding that has already been used to fund federal and state Wi-Fi hotspot lending programs or the impact of the Commission's decision to use limited E-Rate funding for this purpose. When Congress established the ECF program it limited the size of the program by providing an appropriation in a definite amount available for a fixed time period limited to purchases during the emergency period, which is not the case for this potentially massive expansion of the E-Rate program. The prior Commission's decision also did not adequately justify the decision to expend funding for this purpose in light of other spending programs that also covered the same or similar purposes. Nor did the Commission put sufficient guardrails in place to ensure that the expansion would operate in the public interest. It also did not explain its decision with sufficient reasoning how expanding the program would advance any legitimate Commission purpose.

Nor does the Commission agree that the record in this proceeding supported the prior decision regarding off-premises use. Commenters explained the limits of section 254(h) and raised alarms about the E-Rate program reaching every location in the country. Additional commenters expressed concern that inclusion of the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots as an E-Rate-supported service contravened section 254 of the Communications Act. The Commission agrees with those commenters. To fund Wi-Fi hotspots in the face of such robust opposition, and with no clear statutory basis, is inappropriate.

In its opposition, T-Mobile provides a number of policy arguments in favor of students having access to broadband internet at home. T-Mobile highlights that there are many strong arguments in favor of connecting students that are on the wrong side of the digital divide to make sure they can complete homework assignments, review lessons, or collaborate with fellow students. But regardless of the potential policy benefits (or costs), Congress did not provide the Commission with the authority to use the E-Rate program to support programs that lend Wi-Fi hotspots to students and library patrons and provide wireless internet service to such hotspots, and the Commission is therefore unpersuaded by T-Mobile's arguments.

In conclusion, the Molak Petition urges the Commission to reconsider the rules adopted in the July 2024 Hotspots Order because the Commission lacks legal authority to take such an action. The Commission agrees that funding off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and associated wireless internet services through the E-Rate program is not consistent with the best reading of the statutory authority provided to the Commission in section 254 of the Communications Act and therefore grant the petition for reconsideration for the reasons and to the extent provided herein. The Commission is convinced that the Hotspots Order was not premised on the best reading of the statute.

Because the Commission finds that the Hotspots Order is not consistent with the best reading of section 254 of the Communications Act, the Commission also denies the petitions for reconsideration filed by Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) and SHLB, which sought to further expand the eligibility of off-premises broadband services to students, school staff, and library patrons. LAUSD and SHLB sought reconsideration of the Hotspots Order decision to not support wireless service to LTE-enabled devices, and SHLB separately sought reconsideration of the decision to not extend E-Rate eligibility to alternative wireless technologies, such as private citizens broadband radio service (CBRS) networks, or to standalone hotspots that could connect to private networks. Consistent with its findings, these additional off-premises requests to provide E-Rate support go beyond the best reading of section 254 of the Communications Act and are therefore denied.

The Commission now rescinds the 2024 rule amendments made in the Hotspots Order to the E-Rate rules. In addition, the Commission directs the Bureau to release a public notice with an amended FY 2025 eligible services list that reflects the changes made in the Order on Reconsideration. To effectuate the Order on Reconsideration, the Commission directs USAC to deny all pending FY 2025 E-Rate funding requests for off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and wireless internet services permitted pursuant to the July 2024 Hotspots Order. In addition, the Commission directs the Bureau, with the assistance of USAC, to modify the forms, procedures, and outreach materials to remove references to the eligibility of these services.

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” The RFA generally defines “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one that: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).

As required by the RFA, the Commission incorporated an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) in the Addressing the Homework Gap through the E-Rate Program Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”), released in November 2023. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comment on the IFRA. No comments were filed addressing the impact of the proposed rules on small entities. In July 2024, the Commission released the Addressing the Homework Gap through the E-Rate Program Report and Order, 89 FR 67303, August 20, 2024 and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 89 FR 67394, August 20, 2024 ( Hotspots Order ) and published a FRFA, as well as an IRFA for the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

On July 31, 2024, Maureen and Matthew Molak filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the Hotspots Order (Molak Petition), which included issues impacting small entities. On September 19, 2024, Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), and the Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition (SHLB), Open Technology Institute at New America (OTI), Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, Consortium for School Networking (CoSN), and Common Sense Media (collectively SHLB) filed timely petitions for reconsideration. On August 12, 2024, the Commission published a notice seeking comment on the Molak Petition. On September 30, 2024, the Commission published a notice seeking comment on both the LAUSD Petition and the SHLB Petition. No comments were filed addressing the impact of these petitions on small entities.

The two statutorily-mandated criteria to be applied in determining the need for RFA analysis are: (1) whether the proposed rules, if adopted, would have a significant economic impact, and (2) if so, whether the economic effect would directly affect a substantial number of small entities. For the reasons discussed, the Commission has determined that the rules and policy changes adopted in the Order on Reconsideration will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and has prepared this Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification (FRFC).

In the Order on Reconsideration, the Commission rescinds the rules adopted in the Hotspots Order. In so doing, the Commission removes any potential burdens associated with the rules adopted in the Hotspots Order that would have required reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance obligations for small E-Rate service providers, and does not create any new burdens in the process. In addition, the Commission has determined that the impact on the entities affected by the rule change will not be significant because the Order on Reconsideration is not adopting any new rules. Thus, the Commission's actions have not created any new obligations. Further, FY 2025 funding requests for the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and/or wireless internet service have not been processed by USAC, the administrator of the Commission's universal service programs, and funding for the services permitted in the Hotspots Order has not been approved for any E-Rate entities. As no services or equipment have been provided as a result of the Hotspots Order, the Order on Reconsideration does not create a significant economic impact on these potential small service providers. Small and other entities will simply be required to comply with the rules that were effective prior to the adoption of the Hotspots Order.

Accordingly, based on its application of the two statutorily-mandated criteria to the rules adopted in the Order on Reconsideration, the Commission concludes that the removal of the rules adopted in the Hotspots Order will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission therefore certifies that the rules adopted in the Order on Reconsideration, eliminating compliance requirements in the Hotspots Order, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Commission will send a copy of the Order on Reconsideration, including a copy of this Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Order on Reconsideration, and this final certification, will be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, and will be published in the Federal Register .

Paperwork Reduction Act. This document does not adopt or propose new or substantively modified information collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). On December 11, 2025, OMB approved non-substantive changes to an existing information collection pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3507. That submission sought to remove program certifications that are no longer applicable in the Schools and Libraries Universal Service Description of Services Requested and Certification Form 471 (E-Rate FCC Form 471). That submission also sought to remove certain fields that are no longer applicable to the Schools and Libraries Universal Service Description of Services Requested and Certification Form 470 (E-Rate FCC Form 470) and E-Rate FCC Form 471.

Congressional Review Act. The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, concurs that this rule is “non-major” under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will send a copy of the Order on Reconsideration to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained in section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 405, and § 1.429 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.429, the Order on Reconsideration is adopted.

It is further ordered that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Maurine and Matthew Molak on July 31, 2024 is granted to the extent provided herein.

It is further ordered that the Petitions for Reconsideration filed by Los Angeles Unified School District and the Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition, the Open Technology Institute at New America, the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, the Consortium for School Networking, and Common Sense Media on September 19, 2024, are denied.

It is further ordered that, pursuant to § 1.103 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.103, the amendments to the Commission's rules are adopted, effective.

It is further ordered that the Universal Service Administrative Company is directed to deny all pending funding year 2025 E-Rate funding requests for the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and wireless internet services requested pursuant to the Hotspots Order.

It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of the Secretary, shall send a copy of the Order on Reconsideration, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel of the Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy.

It is further ordered that the Office of the Managing Director, Performance Management, shall send a copy of the Order on Reconsideration in a report to be sent to Congress and the General Accounting Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

On August 20, 2024, the Commission published the 2024 Hotspots Order Final Rules in the Federal Register at 89 FR 67303, delaying the amendatory instructions 4 and 9 indefinitely until the Commission published a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date for the amendments to §§ 54.504 and 54.516. In accordance with that publication, the 2024 amendments to §§ 54.504 and 54.516 are not in the final rules. The Order on Reconsideration published herein rescinds all of the rules adopted in 2024, and in order to effectuate the direction to restore the rules to those prior to the 2024 Hotspots Order, the Commission also withdraws amendatory instructions 4 and 9 at 89 FR 67303.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 54 as follows:

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared and recommended by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The A season allowance of the 2026 Pacific cod TAC allocated to catcher vessels using trawl gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA is 3,508 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2025 and 2026 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (90 FR 12468, March 18, 2025) and inseason adjustment (90 FR 60022, December 23, 2025).

The Regional Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) has determined that there is not sufficient Pacific cod TAC to allow directed fishing during the A season by catcher vessels using trawl gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA and that 3,508 mt is necessary as incidental catch to support other fisheries. The Regional Administrator has further determined that the A season allowance of the 2026 Pacific cod TAC allocated to catcher vessels using trawl gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA will be reached during the A season. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 0 mt and is setting aside the remaining 3,508 mt as incidental catch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance will be or has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels using trawl gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA to prevent exceeding the sector's A season allowance of Pacific cod TAC.

While this closure is effective the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data on Pacific cod catch in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels using trawl gear in the A season in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA, which could result in this sector exceeding its A season allowance of Pacific cod TAC. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data on Pacific cod catch only became available as of January 15, 2026.

There is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to establish an effective date less than 30 days after date of publication. This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.