I. Executive Summary

To ensure that foreign aid is aligned with administration policy and promotes human flourishing, the President has directed the Secretary of State to reinstate the Mexico City Policy. In addition, the Secretary of State has directed that foreign assistance align with State Department policies opposing gender ideology, discriminatory equity ideology, and unlawful diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. Consistent with these directives, as a condition of receiving foreign assistance, recipients must generally agree to the award terms pursuant to the following policies: Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance (PLFA), Combating Gender Ideology in Foreign Assistance (CGIFA), and the Combating Discriminatory Equity Ideology in Foreign Assistance (CDEIFA). These policies are referred to collectively as the Promoting Human Flourishing in Foreign Assistance (PHFFA) Policy.

Implementation of the PHFFA Policy is consistent with administration policy as embodied in numerous Presidential actions, including:

• Presidential Memorandum of January 24, 2025, The Mexico City Policy;

• Executive Order 14182 of January 24, 2025, Enforcing the Hyde Amendment;

• Executive Order 14150 of January 20, 2025, America First Policy Directive to the Secretary of State;

• Presidential Memorandum of February 6, 2025, Advancing United States Interests When Funding Nongovernmental Organizations;

• Presidential Memorandum of February 4, 2025, Withdrawing the United States from and Ending Funding to Certain United Nations Organizations and Reviewing United States Support to all International Organizations;

• Executive Order 14190 of January 29, 2025, Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling;

• Executive Order 14151 of January 20, 2025, Ending Radical and Wasteful DEI Programs and Preferencing;

• Executive Order 14168 of January 20, 2025, Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government;

• Executive Order 14173 of January 21, 2025, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity;

For over forty years, since it was first established by President Reagan in 1984, the Mexico City Policy has stood as a pillar of American foreign policy, ensuring foreign assistance dollars do not support abortion providers overseas or any foreign non-governmental organizations that provide or promote abortion as a method of family planning overseas, and instead support organizations that care for both mother and child.

During his first term, in 2017 President Trump expanded the Mexico City Policy to apply to all global health assistance, including applying the policy to additional departments and agencies resulting in the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA) policy (82 FR 8495). On January 24, 2025, the President reinstated the 2017 Presidential Memorandum (90 FR 8753).

This final rule implements the 2025 Presidential Memorandum, while further expanding the Mexico City Policy by closing loopholes in previous iterations of the policy that allowed taxpayer funding to continue subsidizing the provision or promotion of abortion. First, this rule expands the scope of entities that are required to agree to relevant terms and conditions, beyond foreign NGOs, to include U.S. NGOs, international organizations, and foreign governments and parastatals. The requirements are more narrowly tailored for foreign governments and parastatals as well as for U.S. NGOs. U.S. NGOs, for example, are required to agree that they will not provide abortions as a method of family planning overseas and to ensure physical and financial separation of U.S. foreign assistance-funded programs from abortion-related activities. Second, the final rule expands the scope of funds subject to the policy beyond global health assistance to include all non-military foreign assistance as defined herein. Third, the final rule makes changes to terms and conditions used in previous iterations of the Mexico City Policy, to provide greater clarity in the definitions and the scope of prohibited activities. Fourth, the final rule provides for a waiver of the policy or its elements in specific cases if, in the Secretary of State's judgment, such a waiver is necessary for national security or foreign policy purposes. The Department of State will issue guidance on the waiver process. Consistent with past Mexico City Policy protocol, the provision will generally be incorporated as applicable into grants and cooperative agreements when new funds are added as well as into new awards.

Members of Congress have urged the Department of State to undertake the expansion of the Mexico City Policy implemented in this rule. See the letter from 59 members of Congress of January 23, 2020 to then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, led by Senator Mike Lee and Chris Smith (R-NJ) on applying the Mexico City Policy to U.S. NGOs. 1 See also, the letter from 60 members of Congress of August 13, 2020 to then-acting administrator of the United States Agency for International Development John Barsa, led by Senator James Lankford and Representative Cathy McMorris Rogers, on applying the Mexico City Policy to international organizations. 2 See also, S. 250/H.R. 1465 of the 119th Congress, Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance Act, sponsored by Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and Representative Virginia Foxx (R-NC-5). 3

This rule is necessary to secure the foreign policy goals of the United States enshrined in the Geneva Consensus Declaration on Promoting Women's Health and Strengthening the Family (the Declaration). The United States spearheaded the initial adoption of the Declaration in 2020, and rejoined as a signatory to the Declaration in 2025. The Declaration “[r]eaffirm[s] that there is no international right to abortion, nor any international obligation on the part of States to finance or facilitate abortion, consistent with the long-standing international consensus that each nation has the sovereign right to implement programs and activities consistent with their laws and policies.” It also “[e]mphasize[s] that `in no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning' and that `any measures or changes related to abortion within the health system can only be determined at the national or local level according to the national legislative process.'” The United States is concerned that, absent this rule, U.S. taxpayer funds may support abortion as a method of family planning overseas, and in addition, may do so in a manner that undermines the national laws and values of sovereign nations.

Under this rule, any foreign NGO or international organization (IO) that receives or implements a foreign assistance grant or cooperative agreement will be required to agree that, during the period of the award, it will not, outside the United States, provide or promote abortion as a method of family planning, or provide financial support to any other foreign NGO or IO that engages in such activities. Applying this policy to international organizations, such as UN entities, is also consistent with section 301(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2221(a)), which authorizes the President to provide voluntary contributions to international organizations on “such terms and conditions as he may determine.”

Under this rule, a U.S. NGO that receives or implements a grant or cooperative agreement for foreign assistance will not be subject to the policy requirements for a foreign NGO. However, it will be required to agree that, during the period of the award, it will not, outside the United States, provide abortion as a method of family planning; it will not, within the scope of any program, project, or activity funded by foreign assistance, provide or promote abortion as a method of family planning; and it will ensure the physical and financial separation of its foreign assistance-funded programs, projects, and activities from the provision or promotion of abortion as a method of family planning.

Members of Congress expressed concern that under the previous iteration of the Mexico City Policy, “U.S. NGOs, especially those that actively promote abortions overseas were integrating abortion-related activities into their taxpayer-funded global health programs and are restructuring in order to negate the impact of PLGHA [Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance] for their foreign NGO affiliates.” (Letter of Senator Mike Lee et al.). In response, the letter urges the Department “to create a wall of separation between abortion and health care in U.S. global health programs by ensuring that U.S. NGOs that work abroad meet abortion-related program integrity standards at least as strong as those in effect for the Title X family planning program at home.” The Department shares these concerns and accordingly, under this rule, U.S. NGOs that provide abortion as a method of family planning, or fail to maintain physical and financial separation from abortion-related activities within funded foreign assistance programs, may no longer receive U.S. foreign assistance.

Under this rule, U.S. NGOs that agree to the award terms agree not to provide abortions outside the United States. The U.S. Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, let alone a right to provide abortion outside the United States. See Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022). Accordingly, there is no constitutional barrier to restricting funding to organizations that provide abortions as provided for in this rule.

With respect to the promotion of abortion, this rule makes clear that with respect to United States non-governmental organizations, the award terms shall be construed consistent with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and shall not be construed to restrict the freedoms of speech or association of such organizations when using non-Federal funds outside the scope of a program, project, or activity for which foreign assistance is made available. This is consistent with the Supreme Court's holding in Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc., 570 U.S. 205 (2013).

Consistent with the Supreme Court's guidance in AID v. Alliance and its ruling in Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991), this rule imposes restrictions on the promotion of abortion as a method of family planning within the scope of programs, projects, and activities that receive Federal funds. In Rust, the Supreme Court upheld similar regulations in the Title X family planning program which prohibit Title X projects from engaging in counseling concerning, referrals for, and activities advocating abortion as a method of family planning, and require such projects to maintain an objective integrity and independence from the prohibited abortion activities by the use of separate facilities, personnel, and accounting records. Relevant here, in Rust, the Court held:

The imposition of physical and financial separation requirements from the provision and promotion of abortion in foreign assistance programs is constitutionally permissible, just as similar requirements were held to be constitutional under the Title X family planning program. In addition to the above, while U.S. NGOs must flow down the award terms under this rule to subrecipients, they are not subject to an additional requirement not to provide financial support using non-Federal funds to other organizations that provide or promote abortions outside the United States.

A foreign government or parastatal that receives or implements a grant or cooperative agreement for foreign assistance will not be subject to the same award terms as a foreign or U.S. NGO. The Department has elected this approach based on considerations relating to foreign policy. However, a foreign government or parastatal may be required to agree that, during the period of the award, it will not use foreign assistance funds under the award to provide or promote abortion as a method of family planning. Pursuant to a Department assessment that this award term should apply, in whole or in part, to an award to a foreign government or parastatal, that foreign government or parastatal will be required to place any foreign assistance funds under the award in a segregated account to ensure that such funds may not be used to support such activity to the extent the foreign government conducts or supports such activity.

Foreign and U.S. NGOs, IOs, foreign governments, and parastatals will be required to flow down the award terms under this rule, as applicable, to subrecipients of foreign assistance. Unlike in previous iterations of the Mexico City Policy, the flow down requirement applies to all recipients of foreign assistance who issue sub-awards of foreign assistance to other organizations.

The Department has determined that applying this rule to non-military foreign assistance broadly, rather than only to global health programs, is necessary to ensure that its foreign assistance programs do not support abortion as a method of family planning overseas, and to ensure the integrity of foreign assistance programs. This includes global health assistance, humanitarian assistance, civil society and democracy programs, and more. This rule will also allow for more foreign assistance funds to support organizations that promote the health and wellbeing of both pregnant mothers and their unborn children in their foreign assistance programs and help the Department to establish new partnerships.

Under this rule, “foreign assistance” subject to this policy is defined as federal funding administered by the Department under title III of, or under the “International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement,” “Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related Programs,” “Peacekeeping Operations,” and “International Organizations and Programs” headings of, the annual Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act.

Accordingly, this rule covers non-military foreign assistance including, but not limited to: Global Health Programs, humanitarian assistance, economic and development assistance, stabilization assistance, civil society and democracy programming, Migration and Refugee Assistance, voluntary contributions to International Organizations funded from foreign assistance.

This rule does not cover military assistance and other assistance that falls outside the definition above.

For foreign assistance awards, the PLFA award term will be included in (i) all new grants and cooperative agreements that provide foreign assistance; and (ii) all existing grants and cooperative agreements that provide foreign assistance when such agreements are amended to add new funding.

State Department is working with other agencies that administer foreign assistance to implement the PHFFA standard provision in their foreign assistance grants and agreements, to the maximum extent allowable by federal law, consistent with the statutes and regulations on which they are based and that such agencies administer, as well as applicable grant-specific regulations.

For contracts, the Administration is developing a corresponding clause for all U.S. government departments and agencies to include in certain types of contracts for foreign assistance. Until that rule-making process is complete, no clause will be included in foreign assistance contracts. However, this rule covers grants made under contracts at this time.

The definitions in this rule close loopholes in prior iterations of the Mexico City Policy, such as the allowance of so-called “passive referrals,” while bringing clarity to terms used. 4 The definition of “abortion” is consistent with definitions used in U.S. State laws currently in effect as well as proposed Federal legislation, and makes clear that treatment of an ectopic pregnancy or spontaneous loss of pregnancy (a miscarriage) is not an abortion, nor is treatment of injuries or illnesses caused by legal or illegal abortions restricted. The definition of “abortion as a method of family planning” continues to provide for limited exceptions as provided for in the Hyde Amendment, with appropriate deference to the sovereign nations to determine their own laws on abortion, consistent with the Siljander's Amendment prohibition on the use of certain funds to lobby for or against abortion.

For purposes of this rule, the following definitions apply:

Abortion means the use or prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or device (A) to kill intentionally the unborn child of a woman known to be pregnant; or, (B) to terminate intentionally the pregnancy of a woman known to be pregnant, with an intention other than—(I) after viability to produce a live birth and preserve the life and health of the child born alive; or, (II) to remove an ectopic pregnancy or a dead unborn child. Excluded from this definition is the treatment of injuries or illnesses caused by legal or illegal abortions.

Abortion as a method of family planning is any abortion, except, provided that the abortion is lawful under local law— (I) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest, or (II) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed. The exceptions in this definition only apply for purposes of this rule.

To provide abortions as a method of family planning means any of the following activities:

(A) any act of performing or inducing an abortion as a method of family planning;

(B) any act of prescribing, dispensing, utilizing, selling, manufacturing, or distributing drugs, devices, or equipment for the purpose of performing or inducing abortion as a method of family planning; or

(C) any act of paying for, assisting in carrying out, or operating a facility that carries out, any of the activities described above.

To promote abortion as a method of family planning includes any of the following activities:

(A) Committing resources, financial or otherwise, to increase the availability, or use, of abortion as a method of family planning;

(B) Operating a service-delivery site that provides counseling, including advice and information, regarding the benefits and/or availability of abortion as a method of family planning (unless, in the case of a United States nongovernmental organization, the physical and financial separation requirements under this paragraph with respect to foreign assistance are satisfied);

(C) Providing advice that abortion as a method of family planning is an available option, or referring for, or encouraging women to consider, abortion as a method of family planning

(D) Lobbying, pressuring, or encouraging a foreign government to legalize or make available abortion as a method of family planning, or lobbying, pressuring, or encouraging such a government to continue the legality of abortion as a method of family planning;

(E) Conducting a public-information campaign in a foreign country regarding the benefits and/or availability of abortion as a method of family planning; and,

(F) Using or teaching sex education materials (including books, curricula, media, etc.) that promote abortion as a method of family planning.

Action by an individual who is acting in his or her personal capacity shall not be attributed to an organization with which the individual is associated, provided that the individual is neither on duty nor acting on the organization's premises, and provided that the organization neither endorses, nor provides financial support for, the action and takes reasonable steps to ensure the individual does not improperly represent that he or she is acting on behalf of the organization.

Foreign assistance is federal funding appropriated under title III of, or under the “International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement,” “Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related Programs,” “Peacekeeping Operations,” and “International Organizations and Programs” headings of, the annual Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act.

To furnish foreign assistance means transferring foreign assistance funds provided under this award or goods financed with such funds to another entity. This does not include providing technical assistance or training (including costs directly related to such assistance or training for individuals), unless the entity receives a sub-award of foreign assistance funds under this award. Additionally, furnishing foreign assistance does not include purchasing goods or services from the entity.

To control an organization means to possess the power to direct, or cause the direction of, its management, personnel, and policies.

A foreign non-governmental organization is any non-governmental organization or entity, whether non-profit or profit-making (including any commercial firm and educational institution), not organized or existing under the laws of the United States, any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any other territory or possession of the United States.

A United States non-governmental organization is any non-governmental organization or entity, whether non-profit or profit-making (including any commercial firm and educational institution), organized or existing under the laws of the United States, any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any other territory or possession of the United States.

An international organization is—

(A) Any organization designated as being entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions, and immunities under the International Organizations Immunities Act;

(B) Any organization treated as a public international organization pursuant to the regulations or policies of the Department of State;

(C) Any organization established by international agreement and whose governing body is composed principally of representatives of national governments; or

(D) Any other multilateral entity in which sovereign nations participate.

To provide financial support means to provide funds from any source and for any purpose to a foreign NGO or IO through an award, sub-award, contract, sub-contract, grant under contract, or other written agreement or donation of funds.

A foreign government is any department, agency, independent establishment, or other entity of the government of a foreign country.

A parastatal is a foreign-government-owned organization operated as a commercial company or other organization, including non-profits, or enterprises in which foreign governments or foreign government agencies have a controlling interest.

This rule amends 2 CFR chapter VI to add an award term at part 602, entitled “Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance.” The term, applicable to all solicitations, Federal assistance awards, and subawards, including grants under contracts, awarded with Department of State foreign assistance funds, including funds transferred to the United States Department of State from the U.S. Agency for International Development, provides certain abortion-related requirements intended to prohibit any support of abortion as a method of family planning.

Under the statutory regime governing foreign assistance, and consistent with his responsibilities regarding the conduct of U.S. foreign affairs, the President has broad discretion to set the terms and conditions on which the United States provides such assistance. Many of the authorities provided under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and similar statutes, explicitly allow for the provision of assistance “on such terms and conditions as [the President] may determine.” See, e.g., section 104(c)(1) of the FAA (22 U.S.C. 2151b(c)(1)) (health assistance); section 301(a) of the FAA (22 U.S.C. 2221(a)) (voluntary contributions to international organizations); section 481(a)(4) of the FAA (22 U.S.C. 2291(a)(4)) (counternarcotics and anti-crime assistance); section 531 of the FAA (22 U.S.C. 2346) (assistance to promote economic or political stability); section 541(a) of the FAA (22 U.S.C. 2347) (International Military Education and Training assistance); section 551 of the FAA (22 U.S.C. 2348) (Peacekeeping Operations); section 571 of the FAA (22 U.S.C. 2349aa) (anti-terrorism assistance); see also section 2(c)(1) of the MRAA; section 201 of the SEED Act of 1989 (amending the FAA by inserting, inter alia, section 498b(i))).

Section 621(a) of the FAA provides that “[t]he President may exercise any functions conferred upon him by this Act through such agency or officer of the United States Government as he shall direct. The head of any such agency or such officer may from time to time promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out such functions. . . .” 22 U.S.C. 2381(a). The Secretary of State exercises authorities under the FAA as delegated by the President in Executive Order 12163, dated September 29, 1979, as amended. That includes the President's authority to “issue and enforce regulations determining the eligibility of any person to receive funds made available under” the FAA. 22 U.S.C. 2381(b).

This rule falls within the Department's authority, delegated to the Secretary of State by the President, to set conditions on the provision of foreign assistance, including on the implementers of such assistance. Courts have repeatedly recognized that the President has broad discretion in the conduct of foreign affairs to allocate foreign assistance funding for particular programs and to set the conditions on U.S. funding to implementers of those programs. See, e.g., DKT Memorial Fund v. USAID, 887 F.2d 275, 282 (D.C. Cir. 1989); Planned Parenthood Federation of America v. USAID, 915 F.2d 59 (2d Cir. 1990); Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, 304 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2002). These courts recognized the President's broad discretion to allocate assistance funding for particular programs and to set the conditions on U.S. funding to non-governmental implementers of those programs. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood v. USAID, 838 F.2d 649, 654 (2d Cir. 1988) (in carrying out the policies under the Foreign Assistance Act, “AID has `broad discretionary power' to decide which, among numerous competing projects, will be given family planning funds”); DKT, 887 F.2d at 282 (“President acted under a congressional grant of discretion as broadly worded as any we are likely to see . . . .”).

Moreover, the Secretary has the authority to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out his functions and the functions of the Department of State. See 22 U.S.C. 2651a(a)(4). This rule provides an award requirement for federal assistance award recipients to refrain from abortion-related activities to varying degrees. Under its grantmaking authority, the Department awards grants in the execution of foreign assistance programs. Prudent and responsible exercise of the Department's foreign assistance and grantmaking authority requires that award terms ensure that foreign assistance does not support the provision or promotion of abortion as a method of family planning. In addition to the Department's authority to promulgate regulations under the FAA, described above, 2 CFR 200.211(c), (d), and (e) also expressly authorize the agency to incorporate in an award general terms and conditions; Federal awarding agency, program, or Federal award specific terms and conditions; and Federal awarding agency requirements.

This rule implements President Trump's memorandum of January 24, 2025, reinstating the Mexico City Policy (90 FR 8753). Further expansions of the Mexico City Policy contained in this rule are issued pursuant to the Secretary's authorities described above.

The Department has additionally considered the potential reliance interests of funding recipients and others on this final rule. The Department understands that, as a result of this rule, some organizations may choose to no longer receive or seek foreign assistance funds rather than comply with the award term. We understand that compliance may require organizations to cease activities that they may have long carried out but are prohibited under the award term established under this rule. In the case of U.S. NGOs, we anticipate that some organizations will incur transition costs where certain other programs that shared facilities with foreign assistance programs must now establish separate physical facilities.

The Department believes that many organizations that are current recipients of foreign assistance will come into compliance as they obtain future grants or when funds are added to existing grants. However, the Department understands that certain organizations may decide to no longer accept foreign assistance in the future because of these award terms, which could in turn result in temporary disruptions in service delivery or impacts on program beneficiaries. In such cases, the Department will work to find new partners willing to agree to the award term, while minimizing any disruption of services. Moreover, the Department expects the quality and impact of foreign assistance programs to improve as programs are focused and prioritized, without being diverted for activities in violation of this rule.

The interests of organizations in maintaining continued taxpayer funding, while continuing activities that are inconsistent with this rule, do not outweigh the Department's foreign policy concerns and objectives outlined in this rule to ensure that foreign assistance funds do not support abortion as a method of family planning. Compliance with this rule is additionally necessary to remove confusion caused when U.S.-funded organizations act in a manner inconsistent with this rule, which can create confusion regarding the foreign policy priorities and objectives of the United States.

Finally, in the event that any portion of this final rule is declared invalid, the Department intends that the various aspects be severable; the Department intends the remaining features of the policy to stand. For example, if any terms adopted by the Secretary in the exercise of his discretionary authority are declared invalid, those terms adopted pursuant to the President's authority should remain in effect because they can function independently and would have been adopted even if any other aspect of this rule were not.

Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), this is final rule is published without prior notice and comment or a delayed effective date. Because this rule involves a matter relating to grants, it is not subject to 5 U.S.C. 553. See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2). In addition, this rule is exempt because it involves the foreign affairs functions of the United States. See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rulemaking is an economically significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (Sep. 30, 1993). Accordingly, this rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for review.

This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866 section 1(b), id. at 51735, and in accordance with Executive Order 13563 section 1(b) (Jan. 18, 2011), which supplements and reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 12866. These Executive Orders 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. 58 FR at 51735; 76 FR at 3821. Executive Order 13563 also recognizes that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify and provides that, where appropriate and permitted by law, agencies may consider and discuss qualitative values that are difficult or impossible to quantify. Id.

As explained in the preamble, the award terms under this rule are necessary to advance the United States' foreign policy objective not to support abortion as a method of family planning overseas.

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of the intended regulation. E.O. 13563 allows that in making this assessment, an agency “may consider (and discuss qualitatively) values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, including equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts.”

Including this award provision in grants and cooperative agreements funded by Department of State foreign assistance provides an explicit requirement that the Department's recipients and grantees not violate applicable undertakings relating to the provision or promotion of abortion as a method of family planning overseas. The benefits of the rule include protecting American taxpayers from supporting abortion as a method of family planning; advancing the foreign policy interests of the United States to protect human life at all stages of development; ensuring organizations funded by the United States foreign assistance do not provide abortion as a method of family planning overseas; and ensuring foreign assistance programs and foreign partners do not undermine the laws and values of foreign nations or pressure such nations to support abortion.

The Department recognizes there are costs associated with this rule. Potential one-time and recurring costs the Department identifies for recipients and grantees are for familiarization with the rule, development and delivery of organizational training and implementation guidance, routine compliance monitoring, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

The Department estimates that 2,500 recipients and grantees (including foreign NGOs, U.S. NGOs, international organizations, and foreign governments and parastatals) will be impacted by this rule. This estimate is derived from an analysis of the Department's current portfolio of funding recipients implementing activities with foreign assistance funds.

Based in part on the Department's previous experience, the agency estimates that recipients and grantees will first require 50 hours, on average, to familiarize themselves with the compliance requirements within this final rule, and revise internal policies and financial accounting systems to comply with said recordkeeping requirements. To quantify the total one-time familiarization costs, the Department used June 2025 data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) National Compensation Survey, 5 reporting a mean fringe benefit factor of 1.46 for civilian workers in general. The Department assumes that impacted entities will employ an attorney to analyze the rule. Multiplying the BLS mean hourly wage for Lawyers, Standard Occupation Classification 23-1011 of $87.86 by the mean fringe benefit factor of 1.46 yields an estimated total compensation (wages and benefits) for Lawyers of $128.28 per hour ([$87.86 per hour] × 1.46).

Thus, the agency calculates a one-time cost for familiarization of $16,035,000 [(2,500 entities) times (50 hours per entity) times ($128.28/hour)].

For the development and delivery of organization-specific training, the Department estimates a cost of $37,984,700. The Department estimates that recipients subject to the rule will spend twenty one (21) hours annually to train their workforces: eight (8) hours developing training materials and twelve (12) hours each month to train newly hired staff, and one hour to train existing staff. The Department estimates that a lawyer will develop and conduct this training at a cost of $128.28 per hour, and that all recipient staff will attend a one-hour training. The Department estimates an average workforce size of 250 staff with an average hourly salary of $50.

For routine compliance monitoring costs, the Department estimates $76,968,000 annually. The Department estimates a minimum of 240 annual hours (20 hours monthly) to monitor prime and sub-recipient activities. Such monitoring activities may include development of monitoring tools such as checklists, discussion guides, and reference materials, conducting desk review of documents, reports, work plans, and budgets, and conducting site visits to inspect implementation of activities for compliance with policy requirements. The Department estimates that these activities will be conducted by lawyers and senior program managers with an average hourly salary of $128.28.

Finally, the Department recognizes that this final rule is likely to impose costs on some U.S. NGOs whose programs currently share facilities with foreign assistance programs, and now must establish separate physical facilities. The Department also understands that certain organizations may decide to no longer accept foreign assistance in the future because of these award terms, which could in turn result in temporary disruptions in service delivery, imposing costs on program beneficiaries. However, the Department is not able to quantitatively assess these costs.

In summary, the Department estimates this rule will impose one-time familiarization costs of $16,035,000, and annual costs related to training and compliance monitoring of $114,052,700.

Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, to ensure that Government regulations do not unnecessarily or disproportionately burden small entities. It requires a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule is subject to the notice-and-comment provisions of the APA and would have a significant economic impact, either detrimental or beneficial, on a substantial number of small entities. This rule is exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the APA, as a matter related to grants and foreign affairs functions, and thus the Department does not provide a regulatory flexibility analysis. See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2).

The Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 requires agencies to prepare several analytical statements before proposing any rule that may result in annual expenditures of $100 million or more in State, local, or Indian Tribal governments. Since this final rule will not result in expenditures of this magnitude, the Department certifies that such statements are not necessary.

Executive Order 14192 requires an agency, unless prohibited by law, to identify at least 10 existing regulations to be repealed when the agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation. 90 FR 9065, 9065 (Jan. 31, 2025). In furtherance of this requirement, section 3(c) of the Order requires that “any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations.” Id. Executive Order 14192 exempts from these requirements “regulations issued with respect to a .. foreign affairs-related function of the United States.” This rule is issued with respect to foreign affairs-related functions and is thus exempt from Executive Order 14192 requirements.

Executive Order 14294 requires agencies promulgating regulations with criminal regulatory offenses potentially subject to criminal enforcement to “explicitly describe the conduct subject to criminal enforcement, the authorizing statutes, and the mens rea standard applicable to” each element of those offenses. 90 FR 20363, 20363 (May 9, 2025). This rule does not impose a criminal regulatory penalty and is thus exempt from Executive Order 14294 requirements.

This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this regulation.

The Department has determined that this rulemaking will not have Tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments, and will not preempt Tribal law. Accordingly, the requirements of E.O. 13175 do not apply to this rule.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) defines “collection of information” to mean “the obtaining, causing to be obtained, soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to third parties or the public, of facts or opinions by or for an agency, regardless of form or format.” 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). Under the PRA, a Federal agency cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless OMB approves it and the agency displays a currently valid OMB control number. 44 U.S.C. 3507. Also, notwithstanding any other provision of law, no individual or organization shall be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 44 U.S.C. 3512. The Department will not enforce any information collection requirements described in this rule until OMB's approval and will publish separate 60- and 30-day notices in the Federal Register soliciting public comment on the burden estimates provided below.

Title of Information Collection: Foreign Assistance Requirements.

OMB Control Number: 1405-XXXX.

Type of Request: New collection.

Originating Office: Department of State, Bureau of Global Acquisitions.

Form Number: No form.

Respondents: Offerors and awardees of Department of State foreign assistance.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,500.

Estimated Number of Responses: 2,500.

Average Time per Response: 261 hours.

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 652,500 hours.

Estimated burden hour costs): $114,052,700.

Frequency: On occasion.

Obligation to Respond: Mandatory.

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this final rule meets the criteria in the Congressional Review Act (CRA) at 5 U.S.C. 804(2) and will comply with the applicable requirements at 5 U.S.C. 801. However, the Department has also determined that there is good cause to exempt this rule from the 60-day delay of effect at 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(3)(A). Specifically, the requirement for a delayed effective date does not apply because notice and public procedure are not required for this rule by the APA and thus are unnecessary for the purposes of the CRA under 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As noted above, this rule involves a matter relating to grants. See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2). In addition, this rule involves the foreign affairs functions of the United States. See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).

For the reasons set forth above, the Department of State adds part 602 to title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows:

To ensure that foreign aid is aligned with administration policy and promotes human flourishing, the Secretary of State has directed that foreign assistance align with State Department policies opposing gender ideology, discriminatory equity ideology, unlawful diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, and abortion as a method of family planning overseas. Consistent with this directive, as a condition of receiving foreign assistance, recipients must agree to the award terms pursuant to the following policies: Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance (PLFA), Combating Gender Ideology in Foreign Assistance (CGIFA), and the Combating Discriminatory Equity Ideology in Foreign Assistance (CDEIFA). These policies are referred to collectively as the Promoting Human Flourishing in Foreign Assistance (PHFFA) Policy.

Implementation of the PHFFA Policy is consistent with administration policy as embodied in numerous Presidential actions, including:

• Presidential Memorandum of January 24, 2025, The Mexico City Policy;

• Executive Order 14182 of January 24, 2025, Enforcing the Hyde Amendment;

• Executive Order 14150 of January 20, 2025, America First Policy Directive to the Secretary of State;

• Presidential Memorandum of February 6, 2025, Advancing United States Interests When Funding Nongovernmental Organizations;

• Presidential Memorandum of February 4, 2025, Withdrawing the United States from and Ending Funding to Certain United Nations Organizations and Reviewing United States Support to all International Organizations.

• Executive Order 14190 of January 29, 2025, Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling

• Executive Order 14151 of January 20, 2025, Ending Radical and Wasteful DEI Programs and Preferencing

• Executive Order 14168 of January 20, 2025, Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government

• Executive Order 14173 of January 21, 2025, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity

Under previous administrations, U.S. foreign assistance was used to fund the denial of the biological reality of sex, promoting a radical ideology that permits men to self-identify as women, indoctrinate children with radical gender ideology, and allow men to gain access to intimate single-sex spaces and activities designed for women. Efforts to eradicate the biological reality of sex fundamentally attack women by depriving them of their dignity, safety, and well-being. It also threatens the wellbeing of children by encouraging them to undergo life-altering surgical and chemical interventions that carry serious risks of lifelong harms like infertility. The erasure of sex in language and policy has a corrosive impact not just on women and children but, as an attack on truth and human nature, it harms every nation. It is the purpose of this rule to prohibit the use of foreign assistance to support radical gender ideology, including by ending support for international organizations and multilateral organizations that pressure nations to embrace radical gender ideology, or otherwise promote gender ideology.

Similar to the Department's historical efforts to protect taxpayers from supporting abortion under the Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance Policy (often known as the Mexico City Policy), under this rule the Department seeks to protect taxpayers from funding gender ideology. Accordingly, under this rule the Department of State will defend the rights of women and children, and protect freedom of conscience and national sovereignty, by requiring recipients of foreign assistance to comply with certain restrictions relating to gender ideology.

The rule provides for a waiver of the policy or its elements in specific cases if, in the Secretary of State's judgment, such a waiver is necessary for national security or foreign policy purposes. The Department of State will issue guidance on the waiver process. Consistent with past Mexico City Policy protocol, the provision will generally be incorporated as applicable into grants and cooperative agreements when new funds are added as well as into new awards.

Members of Congress have sought in legislation for the Department of State to undertake restrictions on gender ideology as implemented in this rule. In the 118th Congress, the House of Representatives passed legislation that would implement the requirements of this rule, and has advanced similar legislation in the 119th Congress. See section 7067 of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2026 (H.R. 4779), which reads as follows:

However, it is not necessary for Congress to enact this legislation for the Department to act under its existing authorities under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and other laws, as delegated to the Secretary of State by the President, to ensure taxpayer funds overseas do not support gender ideology.

This rule is necessary to secure the foreign policy goals of the United States enshrined in the Geneva Consensus Declaration on Promoting Women's Health and Strengthening the Family (the Declaration). The United States spearheaded the initial adoption of the Declaration in 2020, and rejoined as a signatory to the Declaration in 2025. The Declaration affirms the importance of the family, of protecting women, and of the right of sovereign nations to implement programs and activities consistent with their laws and policies—all of these goals are directly threatened by gender ideology. The United States is concerned that, absent this rule, U.S. taxpayer funds may support radical gender ideology and organizations engaged in harm to women and children, and further, may do so in a manner that undermines the national laws and values of sovereign nations.

Under this rule, any foreign NGO or international organization (IO) that receives or implements a grant or cooperative agreement for foreign assistance will be required to agree that, during the period of the award, it will not, outside the United States, promote gender ideology, or provide financial support to any other foreign NGO or IO that promotes gender ideology.

Under this rule, a U.S. NGO that receives or implements a foreign assistance grant or cooperative agreement will not be subject to the policy requirements for a foreign NGO. However, a U.S. NGO will be required to agree that, during the period of the award, it will not, outside the United States, provide sex-rejecting procedures, that it will not, within the scope of any program, project, or activity funded by foreign assistance, promote gender ideology, and that it will ensure the physical and financial separation of its foreign assistance-funded programs, projects, and activities from the promotion of gender ideology.

With respect to the promotion of gender ideology, this rule makes clear that with respect to United States non-governmental organizations, the award terms shall be construed consistent with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and shall not be construed to restrict the freedoms of speech or association of such organizations when using non-Federal funds outside the scope of a program, project or activity for which foreign assistance is made available. This is consistent with the Supreme Court's holding in Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc., 570 U.S. 205 (2013). The limitations on the provision of sex-rejecting procedures apply to conduct, not protected speech, and thus do not implicate the First Amendment and so are not limited by this rule of construction.

Consistent with the Supreme Court's guidance in AID v. Alliance and its ruling in Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991), this rule imposes restrictions on the promotion of gender ideology within the scope of programs, projects, and activities that receive Federal funds. These program integrity restrictions ensure that there is a bright line of separation of U.S. foreign assistance programs from gender ideology. In Rust, the Supreme Court upheld similar regulations in the Title X family planning program which prohibited Title X projects from engaging in counseling concerning, referrals for, and activities advocating abortion as a method of family planning, and required such projects to maintain an objective integrity and independence from the prohibited abortion activities by the use of separate facilities, personnel, and accounting records. Relevant here, in Rust, the Court held:

Imposition of physical and financial separation requirements from the provision and promotion of gender ideology in foreign assistance programs is constitutionally permissible, just as similar requirements with respect to abortion were held to be constitutional under the Title X family planning program. In addition to the above, while U.S. NGOs must flow down the award terms under this rule to subrecipients, they are not subject to an additional requirement not to provide financial support using non-Federal funds to other organizations that promote gender ideology outside the United States.

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Skrmetti, 605 U.S. 495 (2025), upheld Tennessee's law restricting certain surgical and chemical interventions for minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria (and similar conditions). The Court found the law's prohibition of sex-rejecting procedures for minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria incorporates classifications based on age and medical use—not the minor's sex. Because the classifications turned on age and medical use rather than sex, the Court held that the law was not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and went on to find the law satisfied rational basis review. Like the law at issue in Skrmetti, this rule would not discriminate on the basis of sex and it is not based on an invidious discriminatory purpose. This rule is animated by concerns that when sex-rejecting procedures are used for certain medical uses-that is, to align an individual's physical appearance or body with an asserted identity that differs from the individual's sex.

Sex-rejecting procedures bear particularly acute risks for children. On May 1, 2025, the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a comprehensive review of the evidence and best practices for promoting the health of children and adolescents diagnosed with gender dysphoria. 1 On November 19, 2025, HHS published a final version of the review following conclusion of the peer review process (HHS Review). 2 The HHS Review, informed by an evidence-based medicine approach, indicated serious concerns about outcomes associated with certain medical interventions, such as puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries, that attempt to transition children and adolescents away from their sex. 3 The HHS Review highlights evidence pointing to significant risks associated with the use of these procedures, including irreversible harms such as infertility, and finds extremely weak evidence of benefit. Significantly, the HHS Review finds that the evidence base does not support conclusions about the effectiveness of medical and surgical interventions in improving mental health or reducing gender dysphoria symptoms, stating that “[a]nalysis of the biological plausibility of harms is necessary, and suggests that some short- and long-term harms are likely (in some cases expected) sequalae of treatment.”  4 Likewise, the data considered in the HHS Review indicate that the risk/benefit profile of medical and surgical interventions for children and adolescents diagnosed with gender dysphoria is unfavorable. While the HHS Review itself does not make clinical, policy, or legislative recommendations, it provides critical insights that should inform policymakers as they make decisions to promote health and safety, especially for vulnerable populations such as minors.

The Department does not believe taxpayer dollars should support sex-rejecting procedures, directly or indirectly for individuals of any age. A person's body (including its organs, organ systems, and processes natural to human development like puberty) are either healthy or unhealthy based on whether they are operating according to their biological functions. Organs or organ systems do not become unhealthy simply because the individual may experience psychological distress relating to his or her sexed body. For this reason, removing a patient's breasts as a treatment for breast cancer is fundamentally different from performing the same procedure solely to alleviate mental distress arising from gender dysphoria. The former procedure aims to restore bodily health and to remove cancerous tissue. In contrast, removing healthy breasts or interrupting normally occurring puberty to “affirm” one's “gender identity” involves the intentional destruction of healthy biological functions. There is also lack of clarity about what sex-rejecting procedures' fundamental aims are, unlike the broad consensus about the purpose of medical treatments for conditions like appendicitis, diabetes, or severe depression. These procedures lack strong evidentiary foundations, and our understanding of long-term health impacts is limited and needs to be better understood. Imposing restrictions, as this rule proposes, on sex-rejecting procedures for individuals of any age is necessary for the Department to protect taxpayer dollars from abuse in support of radical ideological aims.

A foreign government or parastatal that receives or implements a foreign assistance grant or cooperative agreement will not be subject to the same award terms as a foreign or U.S. NGO. The Department has elected this approach based on considerations relating to foreign policy. However, a foreign government or parastatal may be required to agree that, during the period of the award, it will not use foreign assistance funds under this award, to promote gender ideology. Pursuant to a Department assessment that this award term should apply, in whole or in part, to an award to a foreign government or parastatal, that foreign government or parastatal will be required to place any foreign assistance funds under this award in a segregated account to ensure that such funds may not be used to support such activity to the extent the foreign government conducts or supports such activity.

Foreign and U.S. NGOs, IOs, foreign governments, and parastatals will be required to flow down the award terms under this rule, as applicable, to subrecipients of foreign assistance.

The Department has determined that applying this rule to non-military foreign assistance broadly is necessary to ensure that its foreign assistance programs do not support foreign NGOs and IOs that promote gender ideology, and U.S. NGOs that provide sex-rejecting procedures, and to ensure the integrity of programs such as humanitarian assistance, gender-related programs, and more, do not promote gender ideology. It is also necessary to unwind efforts by prior administrations to integrate gender ideology throughout foreign assistance programs (See, for example, the National Strategy on Gender Equity and Equality launched by the Biden Administration in 2021). This rule will also allow for more foreign assistance funds to support organizations that promote biological truth in their foreign assistance programs and help the Department to establish new partnerships.

Under this rule, “foreign assistance” subject to this policy is defined as federal funding administered by the Department under title III of, or under the “International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement,” “Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related Programs,” “Peacekeeping Operations,” and “International Organizations and Programs” headings of, the annual Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act.

Accordingly, this rule covers non-military foreign assistance including, but not limited to: Global Health Programs, Humanitarian Assistance, economic and development assistance, stabilization assistance, civil society and democracy programming, Migration and Refugee Assistance, and voluntary contributions to international organizations, funded from foreign assistance. This rule does not cover military assistance and other assistance that falls outside the definition above.

For foreign assistance awards, the CGIFA award term will be included in (i) all new grants and cooperative agreements that provide foreign assistance; and (ii) all existing grants and cooperative agreements that provide foreign assistance when such agreements are amended to add new funding.

State Department is working with other agencies that administer foreign assistance to implement the CGIFA standard provision in their foreign assistance grants and agreements, to the maximum extent allowable by federal law, consistent with the statutes and regulations on which they are based and that such agencies administer, as well as applicable grant-specific regulations.

For contracts, the Administration is developing a corresponding clause for all U.S. government departments and agencies to include in certain types of contracts for foreign assistance. Until that rule-making process is complete, no clause will be included in foreign assistance contracts.

The definitions of female, male, and sex in this rule are appropriately rooted in biological reality. A landmark study of and model for anisogamy established that differences in gamete size, and the associated differences in gamete production time, lead to stable sexual dimorphism and the establishment of two biological sexes: ovum producers (females) and sperm producers (males). 5 Additionally, more recent literature acknowledges differences in sex roles but maintains that such differences can still be traced to the concept of anisogamy and the resultant sexual dimorphism that remain the root cause of sex specific selection, the sex roles, and the determination of biological sex. 6

For purposes of this rule, the following definitions apply:

Gender ideology is an ideology that replaces the biological category of sex with an ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity, permitting the false claim that males can identify as and thus become females and vice versa, and requiring all institutions of society to regard this false claim as true. Gender ideology includes the idea that there is a vast spectrum of genders that are disconnected from one's sex. Gender ideology is internally inconsistent, in that it diminishes sex as an identifiable or useful category but nevertheless maintains that it is possible for a person to be born in the wrong sexed body.

Gender identity is an individual's fully internal and subjective sense of self, disconnected from biological reality and sex and existing on an infinite continuum. Gender identity does not provide a meaningful basis for identification and cannot be recognized as a replacement for sex.

To promote gender ideology includes any activity to promote gender ideology. Such term includes:

(I) The provision or promotion of sex-rejecting procedures or sex-rejecting social transition;

(II) Committing resources, financial or other to increase the availability, or use of sex-rejecting procedures or sex-rejecting social transition;

(III) Operating a service-delivery site that provides counseling, including advice and information, regarding the benefits and/or availability of sex-rejecting procedures or sex-rejecting social transition (unless, in the case of a United States nongovernmental organization, the physical and financial separation requirements under this paragraph (a) with respect to foreign assistance are satisfied);

(IV) Providing advice that sex-rejecting procedures or sex-rejecting social transition is an available option for treatment of gender dysphoria, or referring for, or encouraging individuals to consider, such activities;

(V) Lobbying, pressuring, or encouraging a foreign government to provide special legal status or protections based on gender identity, to legalize or make available sex-rejecting procedures or sex-rejecting social transition, or otherwise to promote gender ideology, or lobbying, pressuring, or encouraging such a government to continue the legality of any such activities or otherwise to change policies to reflect gender ideology;

(VI) Conducting a public-information campaign in foreign countries regarding acceptance of gender ideology, or the benefits and/or availability of sex-rejecting procedures or sex-rejecting social transition;

(VII) Using or teaching sex education materials (including books, curricula, media, etc.) that include gender ideology, such as the idea that it is possible to change one's sex, to be born in the wrong body, or instructing on the use of pronouns that do not correspond to an individual's sex; and

(VIII) Conducting drag queen workshops, performances, or documentaries.

Action by an individual who is acting in his or her personal capacity shall not be attributed to an organization with which the individual is associated, provided that the individual is neither on duty nor acting on the organization's premises, and provided that the organization neither endorses, nor provides financial support for, the action and takes reasonable steps to ensure the individual does not improperly represent that he or she is acting on behalf of the organization.

Sex-rejecting procedure is any pharmaceutical or surgical intervention that is provided for the purpose of attempting to align an individual's physical appearance or body with an asserted identity that differs from the individual's sex either by:

(I) intentionally disrupting or suppressing the normal development of natural biological functions, including primary or secondary sex-based traits; or

(II) intentionally altering an individual's physical appearance or body, including amputating, minimizing or destroying primary or secondary sex-based traits such as the sexual and reproductive organs.

Such term does not include procedures undertaken (I) to treat a person with a medically verifiable disorder of sexual development, (II) for purposes other than attempting to align an individual's physical appearance or body with an asserted identity that differs from the individual's sex, or (III) to treat complications of, including any infection, injury, disease, or disorder that has been caused by or exacerbated by, the performance of, such a sex rejecting procedure.

To provide a sex-rejecting procedure means any act of performing any procedure, or prescribing, dispensing, or utilizing any drug or device, for a sex-rejecting procedure, and any act of paying for, assisting in carrying out, or operating a facility that carries out, any such activities.

Female is a person of the sex characterized by a reproductive system with the biological function of (at maturity, absent disruption or congenital anomaly) producing eggs (ova).

Male is a person of the sex characterized by a reproductive system with the biological function of (at maturity, absent disruption or congenital anomaly) producing sperm.

Sex is a person's immutable biological classification as either male or female.

Social transition is the process of adopting a “gender identity” or “gender marker” that differs from a person's sex. This process can include psychological or psychiatric counseling or treatment by a counselor or other provider; modifying a person's name ( e.g., “Jane” to “James”) or pronouns ( e.g., “him” to “her”); calling a person “nonbinary”; use of intimate facilities and accommodations such as bathrooms or locker rooms specifically designated for persons of the opposite sex; and participating in athletic competitions or other activities specifically designated for persons of the opposite sex; and the use of non-medical physical sex-rejecting interventions such as binders used to flatten female breasts. “Social transition” does not include the provision of sex-rejecting procedures.

Foreign assistance is federal funding appropriated under title III of, or under the “International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement,” “Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related Programs,” “Peacekeeping Operations,” and “International Organizations and Programs” headings of, the annual Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act.

To furnish foreign assistance means transferring foreign assistance funds provided under this award or goods financed with such funds to another entity. This does not include providing technical assistance or training (including costs directly related to such assistance or training for individuals), unless the entity receives a sub-award of foreign assistance funds under this award. Additionally, furnishing foreign assistance does not include purchasing goods or services from the entity.

To control an organization means to possess the power to direct, or cause the direction of, its management, personnel, and policies.

A foreign non-governmental organization is any non-governmental organization or entity, whether non-profit or profit-making (including any commercial firm and educational institution), not organized or existing under the laws of the United States, any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any other territory or possession of the United States.

A United States non-governmental organization is any non-governmental organization or entity, whether non-profit or profit-making (including any commercial firm and educational institution), organized or existing under the laws of the United States, any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any other territory or possession of the United States.

An international organization is—

(A) Any organization designated as being entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions, and immunities under the International Organizations Immunities Act;

(B) Any organization treated as a public international organization pursuant to the regulations or policies of the Department of State;

(C) Any organization established by international agreement and whose governing body is composed principally of representatives of national governments; or

(D) Any other multilateral entity in which sovereign nations participate.

To provide financial support means to provide funds from any source and for any purpose to a foreign NGO or IO through an award, sub-award, contract, sub-contract, grant under contract, or other written agreement or donation of funds.

A foreign government is any department, agency, independent establishment, or other entity of the government of a foreign country.

A parastatal is a foreign-government-owned organization operated as a commercial company or other organization, including non-profits, or enterprises in which foreign governments or foreign government agencies have a controlling interest.

This rule amends 2 CFR chapter VI to add an award term at part 603, entitled “Combating Gender Ideology in Foreign Assistance.” The term, applicable to all solicitations, Federal assistance awards, and subawards, including grants under contracts, awarded with Department of State foreign assistance funds, including funds transferred to the United States Department of State from the U.S. Agency for International Development, provides certain gender ideology-related requirements intended to prohibit any direct or indirect support of gender ideology.

Under the statutory regime governing foreign assistance, and consistent with his responsibilities regarding the conduct of U.S. foreign affairs, the President has broad discretion to set the terms and conditions on which the United States provides such assistance. Many of the authorities provided under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and similar statutes, explicitly allow for the provision of assistance “on such terms and conditions as [the President] may determine.” See, e.g., section 104(c)(1) of the FAA (22 U.S.C. 2151b(c)(1)) (health assistance); section 301(a) of the FAA (22 U.S.C. 2221(a)) (voluntary contributions to international organizations); section 481(a)(4) of the FAA (22 U.S.C. 2291(a)(4)) (counternarcotics and anti-crime assistance); section 531 of the FAA (22 U.S.C. 2346) (assistance to promote economic or political stability); section 541(a) of the FAA (22 U.S.C. 2347) (International Military Education and Training assistance); section 551 of the FAA (22 U.S.C. 2348) (Peacekeeping Operations); section 571 of the FAA (22 U.S.C. 2349aa) (anti-terrorism assistance); see also section 2(c)(1) of the MRAA; section 201 of the SEED Act of 1989 (amending the FAA by inserting, inter alia, section 498b(i))).

Section 621(a) of the FAA provides that “[t]he President may exercise any functions conferred upon him by this Act through such agency or officer of the United States Government as he shall direct. The head of any such agency or such officer may from time to time promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out such functions. . . .” 22 U.S.C. 2381(a). The Secretary of State exercises authorities under the FAA as delegated by the President in Executive Order 12163, dated September 29, 1979, as amended. That includes the President's authority to “issue and enforce regulations determining the eligibility of any person to receive funds made available under” the FAA. 22 U.S.C. 2381(b).

This rule falls within the Department's authority, delegated to the Secretary of State by the President, to set conditions on the provision of foreign assistance, including on the implementers of such assistance. Courts have repeatedly recognized that the President has broad discretion in the conduct of foreign affairs to allocate foreign assistance funding for particular programs and to set the conditions on U.S. funding to implementers of those programs. See, e.g., DKT Memorial Fund v. USAID, 887 F.2d 275, 282 (D.C. Cir. 1989); Planned Parenthood Federation of America v. USAID, 915 F.2d 59 (2d Cir. 1990); Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, 304 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2002). These courts recognized the President's broad discretion to allocate assistance funding for particular programs and to set the conditions on U.S. funding to non-governmental implementers of those programs. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood v. USAID, 838 F.2d 649, 654 (2d Cir. 1988) (in carrying out the policies under the Foreign Assistance Act, “AID has `broad discretionary power' to decide which, among numerous competing projects, will be given family planning funds”); DKT, 887 F.2d at 282 (“President acted under a congressional grant of discretion as broadly worded as any we are likely to see. . . .”).

Moreover, the Secretary has the authority to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out his functions and the functions of the Department of State. See 22 U.S.C. 2651a(a)(4). This rule provides an award requirement for federal assistance award recipients to refrain from gender ideology-related activities to varying degrees. Under its grantmaking authority, the Department awards grants in the execution of foreign assistance programs. Prudent and responsible exercise of the Department's foreign assistance and grantmaking authority requires that award terms ensure that foreign assistance does not support, directly or indirectly, the provision or promotion of gender ideology. In addition to the Department's authority to promulgate regulations under the FAA, described above, 2 CFR 200.211(c), (d), and (e) also expressly authorize the agency to incorporate in an award general terms and conditions; Federal awarding agency, program, or Federal award specific terms and conditions; and Federal awarding agency requirements.

This rule is issued pursuant to the Secretary's authorities described above.

The Department has additionally considered the potential reliance interests of funding recipients and others on this final rule. The Department understands that, as a result of this rule, some organizations may choose to no longer receive or seek foreign assistance funds rather than comply with the award term. We understand that compliance may require organizations to cease activities that they may have long carried out, but are prohibited under the award term established under this rule. In the case of U.S. NGOs, we anticipate that some organizations will incur transition costs where certain other programs that shared facilities with foreign assistance programs must now establish separate physical facilities.

The Department believes that many organizations that are current recipients of foreign assistance will come into compliance as they obtain future grants or when funds are added to existing grants. However, the Department understands that certain organizations may decide to no longer accept foreign assistance in the future because of these award terms, which could in turn result in temporary disruptions in service delivery or impacts on program beneficiaries. In such cases, the Department will work to find new partners willing to agree to the award term, while minimizing any disruption of services. Moreover, the Department expects the quality and impact of foreign assistance programs to improve as programs are focused and prioritized, without being diverted for activities in violation of this rule.

The interests of organizations in maintaining continued taxpayer funding, while continuing activities that are inconsistent with this rule, do not outweigh the Department's foreign policy concerns and objectives outlined in this rule to ensure that foreign assistance funds do not directly or indirectly support discriminatory equity ideology. Compliance with this rule is additionally necessary to remove confusion caused when U.S.-funded organizations act in a manner inconsistent with this rule, which can create confusion regarding the foreign policy priorities and objectives of the United States.

Finally, in the event that any portion of this final rule is declared invalid, the Department intends that the various aspects be severable; the Department intends the remaining features of the policy to stand.

Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), this is final rule is published without prior notice and comment or a delayed effective date. Because this rule involves a matter relating to grants, it is not subject to 5 U.S.C. 553. See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2). In addition, this rule is exempt because it involves the foreign affairs functions of the United States. See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rulemaking is an economically significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (Sep. 30, 1993). Accordingly, this rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for review.

This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866 section 1(b), id. at 51735, and in accordance with Executive Order 13563 section 1(b) (Jan. 18, 2011), which supplements and reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 12866. These Executive Orders 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. 58 FR at 51735; 76 FR at 3821. Executive Order 13563 also recognizes that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify and provides that, where appropriate and permitted by law, agencies may consider and discuss qualitatively values that are difficult or impossible to quantify. Id.

As explained in the preamble, the award terms under this rule are necessary to advance the United States' foreign policy objective not to support gender ideology directly or indirectly.

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of the intended regulation. E.O. 13563 allows that in making this assessment, an agency “may consider (and discuss qualitatively) values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, including equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts.”

Including this award provision in foreign assistance grants and cooperative agreements provides an explicit requirement that recipients and grantees not violate applicable undertakings relating to the provision or promotion of gender ideology. The benefits of the rule include protecting American taxpayers from supporting gender ideology and advancing the foreign policy interests of the United States to promote biological truth, and to ensure foreign assistance programs and foreign partners are not undermining the laws and values of foreign nations or pressuring such nations to support gender ideology.

The Department recognizes there are costs associated with this rule. Potential one-time and recurring costs the Department identifies for recipients and grantees are for familiarization with the rule, development and delivery of organizational training and implementation guidance, routine compliance monitoring, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

The Department estimates that 2,500 recipients and grantees (including foreign NGOs, U.S. NGOs, international organizations, and foreign governments and parastatals) will be impacted by this rule. This estimate is derived from an analysis of the Department's current portfolio of funding recipients implementing activities with foreign assistance funds.

Based in part on the Department's previous experience, the agency estimates that recipients and grantees will first require 50 hours, on average, to familiarize themselves with the recordkeeping requirements within this final rule, and revise internal policies and financial accounting systems to comply with said recordkeeping requirements. To quantify the total one-time familiarization costs, The Department used June 2025 data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) National Compensation Survey, 7 reporting a mean fringe benefit factor of 1.46 for civilian workers in general. The Department assumes that impacted entities will employ an attorney to analyze the rule. Multiplying the BLS mean hourly wage for Lawyers, Standard Occupation Classification 23-1011 of $87.86 by the mean fringe benefit factor of 1.46 yields an estimated total compensation (wages and benefits) for Lawyers of $128.28 per hour ([$87.86 per hour] × 1.46).

Thus, the agency calculates a one-time cost for familiarization of $16,035,000[(2,500 entities) times (50 hours per entity) times ($128.28/hour)].

For the development and delivery of organization-specific training, the Department estimates a cost of $37,984,700. The Department estimates that recipients subject to the rule will spend twenty one (21) hours annually to train their workforces: eight (8) hours developing training materials and twelve (12) hours each month to train newly hired staff, and one hour to train existing staff. The Department estimates that a lawyer will develop and conduct this training at a cost of $128.28 per hour, and that all recipient staff will attend a one-hour training. The Department estimates an average workforce size of 250 staff with an average hourly salary of $50.

For routine compliance monitoring costs, the Department estimates $76,968,000 annually. The Department estimates a minimum of 240 annual hours (20 hours monthly) to monitor prime and sub-recipient activities. Such monitoring activities may include development of monitoring tools such as checklists, discussion guides, and reference materials, conducting desk review of documents, reports, work plans, and budgets, and conducting site visits to inspect implementation of activities for compliance with policy requirements. The Department estimates that these activities will be conducted by lawyers and senior program managers with an average hourly salary of $128.28.

Finally, the Department recognizes that this final rule is likely to impose costs on some U.S. NGOs whose programs currently share facilities with foreign assistance programs, and now must establish separate physical facilities. The Department also understands that certain organizations may decide to no longer accept foreign assistance in the future because of these award terms, which could in turn result in temporary disruptions in service delivery, imposing costs on program beneficiaries. However, the Department is not able to quantitatively assess these costs.

In summary, the Department estimates this rule will impose one-time familiarization costs of $16,035,000, and annual costs related to training and compliance monitoring of $114,052,700.

Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, to ensure that Government regulations do not unnecessarily or disproportionately burden small entities. It requires a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule is subject to the notice-and-comment provisions of the APA and would have a significant economic impact, either detrimental or beneficial, on a substantial number of small entities. This rule is exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the APA, as a matter related to grants and foreign affairs functions, and thus the Department does not provide a regulatory flexibility analysis. See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2).

The Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 requires agencies to prepare several analytical statements before proposing any rule that may result in annual expenditures of $100 million or more in State, local, or Indian Tribal governments. Since this final rule will not result in expenditures of this magnitude, the Department certifies that such statements are not necessary.

Executive Order 14192 requires an agency, unless prohibited by law, to identify at least 10 existing regulations to be repealed when the agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation. In furtherance of this requirement, section 3(c) of the Order requires that “any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations.” Id. Executive Order 14192 exempts from these requirements “regulations issued with respect to a foreign affairs-related function of the United States.” This rule is issued with respect to foreign affairs-related functions and is thus exempt from Executive Order 14192 requirements.

Executive Order 14294 requires agencies promulgating regulations with criminal regulatory offenses potentially subject to criminal enforcement to “explicitly describe the conduct subject to criminal enforcement, the authorizing statutes, and the mens rea standard applicable to” each element of those offenses. This rule does not impose a criminal regulatory penalty and is thus exempt from Executive Order 14294 requirements.

This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this regulation.

The Department has determined that this rulemaking will not have Tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments, and will not preempt Tribal law. Accordingly, the requirements of E.O. 13175 do not apply to this rule.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) defines “collection of information” to mean “the obtaining, causing to be obtained, soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to third parties or the public, of facts or opinions by or for an agency, regardless of form or format.” 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). Under the PRA, a Federal agency cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless OMB approves it and the agency displays a currently valid OMB control number. 44 U.S.C. 3507. Also, notwithstanding any other provision of law, no individual or organization shall be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 44 U.S.C. 3512. The Department will not enforce any information collection requirements described in this rule until OMB's approval and will publish separate 60- and 30-day notices in the Federal Register soliciting public comment on the burden estimates provided below.

Title of Information Collection: Foreign Assistance Requirements.

OMB Control Number: 1405-XXXX.

Type of Request: New collection.

Originating Office: Department of State, Bureau of Global Acquisitions.

Form Number: No form.

Respondents: Offerors and awardees of Department of State foreign assistance.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,500.

Estimated Number of Responses: 2,500.

Average Time per Response: 261 hours.

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 652,500 hours.

Estimated burden hour costs: $114,052,700.

Frequency: On occasion.

Obligation to Respond: Mandatory.

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this final rule meets the criteria in the Congressional Review Act (CRA) at 5 U.S.C. 804(2) and will comply with the applicable requirements at 5 U.S.C. 801. However, the Department has also determined that there is good cause to exempt this rule from the 60-day delay of effect at 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(3)(A). Specifically, the requirement for a delayed effective date does not apply because notice and public procedure are not required for this rule by the APA and thus are unnecessary for the purposes of the CRA under 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As noted above, this rule involves a matter relating to grants. See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2). In addition, this rule involves the foreign affairs functions of the United States. See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).

I. Executive Summary

To ensure that foreign aid is aligned with administration policy and promotes human flourishing, the Secretary of State has directed that foreign assistance align with State Department policies opposing gender ideology, discriminatory equity ideology, unlawful diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, and abortion as a method of family planning overseas. Consistent with this directive, as a condition of receiving foreign assistance, recipients must agree to the award terms pursuant to the following policies: Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance (PLFA), Combating Gender Ideology in Foreign Assistance (CGIFA), and the Combating Discriminatory Equity Ideology in Foreign Assistance (CDEIFA). These policies are referred to collectively as the Promoting Human Flourishing in Foreign Assistance (PHFFA) Policy.

Implementation of the PHFFA Policy is consistent with administration policy as embodied in numerous Presidential actions, including:

• Presidential Memorandum of January 24, 2025, The Mexico City Policy;

• Executive Order 14182 of January 24, 2025, Enforcing the Hyde Amendment;

• Executive Order 14150 of January 20, 2025, America First Policy Directive to the Secretary of State;

• Presidential Memorandum of February 6, 2025, Advancing United States Interests When Funding Nongovernmental Organizations;

• Presidential Memorandum of February 4, 2025, Withdrawing the United States from and Ending Funding to Certain United Nations Organizations and Reviewing United States Support to all International Organizations;

• Executive Order 14190 of January 29, 2025, Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling;

• Presidential Memorandum of March 18, 2025, Removing Discrimination and Discriminatory Equity Ideology from the Foreign Service;

• Executive Order 14151 of January 20, 2025, Ending Radical and Wasteful DEI Programs and Preferencing;

• Executive Order 14168 of January 20, 2025, Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government;

• Executive Order 14173 of January 21, 2025, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity;

Under previous administrations, U.S. foreign assistance was abused to fund discriminatory diversity equity and inclusion (DEI)) policies and similar ideologies that promoted corrosive identity politics rather than alleviating poverty or promoting human flourishing and prosperity. This ideology, referred to in this rule as discriminatory equity ideology, treats individuals as members of preferred or disfavored groups, rather than as individuals, and minimizes agency, merit, and capability in favor of generalizations.

Under the previous administration, USAID issued DEI strategic action plans, 1 installed Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) advisers and DEI committees “in all of its bureaus, offices, and [overseas] missions,” and monitored compliance with “an agency-wide dashboard and DEI scorecard for all bureaus, offices, and missions”. 2 The prior administration's diplomats embraced the so-called “1619 Project” and denigrated the United States claiming “white supremacy and black inferiority” were “weaved” “into our founding document and principles.”  3 USAID's 2023 Updated Equity Action Plan pledged that it would “[a]nalyze up to 10 Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Key Issue Narratives and identify new opportunities for advancing racial and ethnic equity and support for underserved communities in programming” and “[e]stablish targets for increased budgetary attributions during the Operational Plan process against all of the following Key Issues: Racial and Ethnic Equity, Indigenous Peoples, LGBTQI+, and Disability.”  4

This rule also aligns with other Presidential directives to the Department of State, and other agencies, including the memorandum of March 18, 2025, “Removing Discrimination and Discriminatory Equity Ideology from the Foreign Service.” This memorandum directs the Secretary of State to remove the “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility” Core Precept from Foreign Service tenure and promotion criteria, and established the policy of the Federal Government that hiring in foreign policy positions, like hiring in all other parts of the Government, shall be based solely on merit. The memorandum also directs the Department of State and other agencies to direct all officers and employees not to “while acting in an official capacity, promote, advocate for, or otherwise inculcate support for discriminatory equity ideology” (See section 3(b)(ii)). The definition of “discriminatory equity ideology” in this rule aligns with that Presidential memorandum.

The promotion abroad of radical DEI activities and the ideology of discriminatory equity ideology that undergirds it, undermines the wellbeing and flourishing of foreign nations and promote radical ideologies. It is the purpose of this rule to end taxpayer support for radical discriminatory equity ideology, directly or indirectly, and to end all forms of unlawful DEI-related discrimination by recipients of foreign assistance, and thereby to unwind efforts of the prior administration, and of nongovernmental and international organizations, that have integrated and encouraged discrimination and discriminatory equity ideology in foreign assistance programs. This rule is consistent with similar efforts by the Department to protect taxpayers from supporting abortion under the Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance Policy (often known as the Mexico City Policy) and from supporting gender ideology under the Combating Gender Ideology in Foreign Assistance Policy. Accordingly, under this rule the Department of State will defend the rights of women and children, protect freedom of conscience and national sovereignty, and protect all individuals from unlawful DEI-related discrimination, by requiring recipients of foreign assistance to comply with certain restrictions relating to discriminatory equity ideology and unlawful DEI-related discrimination. The rule provides for a waiver of the policy or its elements in specific cases if, in the Secretary of State's judgment, such a waiver is necessary for national security or foreign policy purposes. The Department of State will issue guidance on the waiver process. Consistent with past Mexico City Policy protocol, the provision will generally be incorporated as applicable into grants and cooperative agreements when new funds are added as well as into new awards.

Under this rule, any foreign NGO or international organization (IO) that receives or implements a grant or cooperative agreement for foreign assistance will be required to agree that, during the period of the award, it will not, outside the United States, promote discriminatory equity ideology, engage in unlawful DEI-related discrimination, or provide financial support to any other foreign NGO or IO that conducts such activities.

Under this rule, a U.S. NGO that receives or implements a foreign assistance grant or cooperative agreement will not be subject to the policy requirements for a foreign NGO or IO. However, a U.S. NGO will be required to agree that, during the period of the award, it will not, outside the United States, engage in unlawful DEI-related discrimination, that it will not, within the scope of any program, project, or activity funded by foreign assistance, promote discriminatory equity ideology or engage in such discrimination, and that it will ensure the physical and financial separation of its foreign assistance-funded programs, projects, and activities from such activities.

With respect to the promotion of discriminatory equity ideology (other than engaging in unlawful DEI-related discrimination), this rule makes clear that with respect to United States non-governmental organizations, the award terms shall be construed consistent with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and shall not be construed to restrict the freedoms of speech or association of such organizations when using non-Federal funds outside the scope of a program, project or activity for which foreign assistance is made available. This is consistent with the Supreme Court's holding in Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc., 570 U.S. 205 (2013). The limitations on unlawful DEI-related discrimination do not abridge speech protected under the First Amendment and so are not limited by this rule of construction.

Consistent with the Supreme Court's guidance in AID v. Alliance and its ruling in Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991), this rule imposes restrictions on the promotion of discriminatory equity ideology within the scope of programs, projects, and activities that receive Federal funds. These program integrity restrictions ensure that there is a bright line of separation of U.S. foreign assistance programs from discriminatory equity ideology. In Rust, the Supreme Court upheld similar regulations in the Title X family planning program which prohibited Title X projects from engaging in counseling concerning, referrals for, and activities advocating abortion as a method of family planning, and required such projects to maintain an objective integrity and independence from the prohibited abortion activities by the use of separate facilities, personnel, and accounting records. Relevant here, in Rust, the Court held:

Imposition of physical and financial separation requirements from the provision and promotion of discriminatory equity ideology in foreign assistance programs is constitutionally permissible, just as similar requirements with respect to abortion were held to be constitutional under the Title X family planning program. In addition to the above, while U.S. NGOs must flow down the award terms under this rule to subrecipients, they are not subject to an additional requirement not to provide financial support using non-Federal funds to other organizations that promote discriminatory equity ideology outside the United States.

A foreign government or parastatal that receives or implements a grant or cooperative agreement for foreign assistance will not be subject to the same award terms as a foreign or U.S. NGO. The Department has elected this approach based on considerations relating to foreign policy. However, a foreign government or parastatal may be required to agree that, during the period of the award, it will not use foreign assistance funds under this award to promote discriminatory equity ideology or to engage in unlawful DEI-related discrimination. Pursuant to a Department assessment that this award term should apply, in whole or in part, to an award to a foreign government or parastatal, that foreign government or parastatal will be required to place any foreign assistance funds under the award in a segregated account to ensure that such funds may not be used to support such activity to the extent the foreign government conducts or supports such activity.

Foreign and U.S. NGOs, IOs, foreign governments, and parastatals will be required to flow down the award terms under this rule, as applicable, to subrecipients of foreign assistance.

The Department has determined that applying this rule to non-military foreign assistance broadly is necessary to ensure that foreign assistance programs do not support foreign NGOs and IOs that promote discriminatory equity ideology, and U.S. NGOs that engage in unlawful DEI-related discrimination, and to ensure the integrity of programs such as humanitarian assistance, gender-related programs, and more, do not promote discriminatory equity ideology. It is also necessary to unwind efforts by prior administrations, as described earlier in this rule, to integrate discriminatory equity ideology throughout foreign assistance programs. This rule will also allow for more foreign assistance funds to support organizations that support American values in their foreign assistance programs and help the Department to establish new partnerships.

Under this rule, “foreign assistance” subject to this policy is defined as federal funding administered by the Department under title III of, or under the “International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement,” “Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related Programs,” “Peacekeeping Operations,” and “International Organizations and Programs” headings of, the annual Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act.

Accordingly, this rule covers non-military foreign assistance including, but not limited to: Global Health Programs, humanitarian assistance, economic and development assistance, stabilization assistance, civil society and democracy programming, Migration and Refugee Assistance, and voluntary contributions to international organizations, funded from foreign assistance.

This rule does not cover military assistance and other assistance that falls outside the definition above.

For foreign assistance awards, the CDEIFA award term will be included in (i) all new grants and cooperative agreements that provide foreign assistance; and (ii) all existing grants and cooperative agreements that provide foreign assistance when such agreements are amended to add new funding.

State Department is working with other agencies that administer foreign assistance to implement the CDEIFA award term in their foreign assistance grants and agreements, to the maximum extent allowable by federal law, consistent with the statutes and regulations on which they are based and that such agencies administer, as well as applicable grant-specific regulations.

For contracts, the Administration is developing a corresponding clause for all U.S. government departments and agencies to include in certain types of contracts for foreign assistance. Until the rule-making process is complete, no clause will be included in foreign assistance contracts. However, this rule covers grants made under contracts at this time.

For purposes of this rule, the following definitions apply:

Discriminatory equity ideology is an ideology that treats individuals as members of preferred or disfavored groups, rather than as individuals, and minimizes agency, merit, and capability in favor of generalizations, including that:

(I) Members of one race, color, religion, sex, or national origin are morally or inherently superior to members of another race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;

(II) An individual, by virtue of the individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously;

(III) An individual's moral character or status as privileged, oppressing, or oppressed is primarily determined by the individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;

(IV) Members of one race, color, religion, sex, or national origin cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;

(V) An individual, by virtue of the individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, bears responsibility for, should feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress because of, should be discriminated against, blamed, or stereotyped for, or should receive adverse treatment because of actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, in which the individual played no part;

(VI) An individual, by virtue of the individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion;

(VII) Virtues such as merit, excellence, hard work, fairness, neutrality, objectivity, and racial colorblindness are racist or sexist or were created by members of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin to oppress members of another race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(VIII) the United States is fundamentally racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory.

To “promote discriminatory equity ideology” includes using or teaching education materials (including books, curricula, and media) that advance this ideology.

Action by an individual who is acting in his or her personal capacity shall not be attributed to an organization with which the individual is associated, provided that the individual is neither on duty nor acting on the organization's premises, and provided that the organization neither endorses, nor provides financial support for, the action and takes reasonable steps to ensure the individual does not improperly represent that he or she is acting on behalf of the organization.

Unlawful diversity, equity, and inclusion-related discrimination (or “Unlawful DEI-related discrimination”) means discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin if such discrimination violates U.S. federal antidiscrimination law or would violate U.S. federal antidiscrimination law if it occurred inside the United States, including the use of those characteristics as a selection criterion or preference for, or basis for exclusion from, employment, contracting, program participation, resource allocation, or similar activities, opportunities, or benefits. Such term includes all conduct that discriminates on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin that violates U.S. federal antidiscrimination law or would violate U.S. federal antidiscrimination laws if it occurred inside the United States, including any “unlawful practices” under the Attorney General's Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding Regarding Unlawful Discrimination (July 29, 2025) with respect to those characteristics. Such term does not apply to a religious corporation, association, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, or society of its religious activities. Such term shall also not apply to decisions by any religious corporation, association, or society regarding the employment of individuals who perform religious functions or other key roles for such entities. See Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, 591 U.S. 732 (2020); Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, 565 U.S. 171 (2012).

Foreign assistance is federal funding appropriated under title III of, or under the “International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement,” “Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related Programs,” “Peacekeeping Operations,” and “International Organizations and Programs” headings of, the annual Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act.

To furnish foreign assistance means transferring foreign assistance funds provided under this award or goods financed with such funds to another entity. This does not include providing technical assistance or training (including costs directly related to such assistance or training for individuals), unless the entity receives a sub-award of foreign assistance funds under this award. Additionally, furnishing foreign assistance does not include purchasing goods or services from the entity.

To control an organization means to possess the power to direct, or cause the direction of, its management, personnel, and policies.

A foreign non-governmental organization is any non-governmental organization or entity, whether non-profit or profit-making (including any commercial firm and educational institution), not organized or existing under the laws of the United States, any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any other territory or possession of the United States.

A United States non-governmental organization is any non-governmental organization or entity, whether non-profit or profit-making (including any commercial firm and educational institution), organized or existing under the laws of the United States, any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any other territory or possession of the United States.

An international organization is—

(A) Any organization designated as being entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions, and immunities under the International Organizations Immunities Act;

(B) Any organization treated as a public international organization pursuant to the regulations or policies of the Department of State;

(C) Any organization established by international agreement and whose governing body is composed principally of representatives of national governments; or

(D) Any other multilateral entity in which sovereign nations participate.

To provide financial support means to provide funds from any source and for any purpose to a foreign NGO or IO through an award, sub-award, contract, sub-contract, grant under contract, or other written agreement or donation of funds.

A foreign government is any department, agency, independent establishment, or other entity of the government of a foreign country.

A parastatal is a foreign-government-owned organization operated as a commercial company or other organization, including non-profits, or enterprises in which foreign governments or foreign government agencies have a controlling interest.

For purposes of this rule, unlawful DEI-related discrimination means discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin if such discrimination violates U.S. federal antidiscrimination law or would violate U.S. federal antidiscrimination law if it occurred inside the United States, including the use of those characteristics as a selection criterion or preference for, or basis for exclusion from, employment, contracting, program participation, resource allocation, training, or similar activities, opportunities, or benefits. This includes all conduct that discriminates on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin that violates U.S. federal antidiscrimination law or would violate U.S. federal antidiscrimination laws if it occurred inside the United States, including any “unlawful practices” under the Attorney General's Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding Regarding Unlawful Discrimination (July 29, 2025) with respect to those characteristics. This rule does not address discrimination on the basis of disability or other protected classes, nor does it address the application of this guidance on grounds other than race, color, religion, or national origin.

The Attorney General's guidance provides examples of unlawful practices such as race-based training sessions, race-based segregation in facilities or resources, implicit segregation through program eligibility, race-based “diverse slate” policies in hiring, race-based program participation (including when framed as addressing underrepresentation), DEI training programs that promote discrimination based on protected characteristics, such as by stereotyping, excluding or disadvantaging individuals based on their race, color, religion, or national origin, or creating a hostile environment.

Recipients of foreign assistance are urged to review all programs, policies and partnerships to ensure compliance with this rule and discontinue any practices that unlawfully discriminate. The Department also encourages recipients of foreign assistance to review and implement the best practices outlined in the Attorney General's guidance.

This rule amends 2 CFR chapter VI to add an award term at part 604, entitled “Combating Discriminatory Equity Ideology in Foreign Assistance.” The term, applicable to all solicitations, Federal assistance awards, and subawards, including grants under contracts, awarded with Department of State foreign assistance funds, including funds transferred to the United States Department of State from the U.S. Agency for International Development, provides certain discriminatory equity ideology-related requirements intended to prohibit any direct or indirect support of discriminatory equity ideology and unlawful DEI-related discrimination.

Under the statutory regime governing foreign assistance, and consistent with his responsibilities regarding the conduct of U.S. foreign affairs, the President has broad discretion to set the terms and conditions on which the United States provides such assistance. Many of the authorities provided under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and similar statutes, explicitly allow for the provision of assistance “on such terms and conditions as [the President] may determine.” See, e.g., section 104(c)(1) of the FAA (22 U.S.C. 2151b(c)(1)) (health assistance); section 301(a) of the FAA (22 U.S.C. 2221(a)) (voluntary contributions to international organizations); section 481(a)(4) of the FAA (22 U.S.C. 2291(a)(4)) (counternarcotics and anti-crime assistance); section 531 of the FAA (22 U.S.C. 2346) (assistance to promote economic or political stability); section 541(a) of the FAA (22 U.S.C. 2347) (International Military Education and Training assistance); section 551 of the FAA (22 U.S.C. 2348) (Peacekeeping Operations); section 571 of the FAA (22 U.S.C. 2349aa) (anti-terrorism assistance); see also section 2(c)(1) of the MRAA; section 201 of the SEED Act of 1989 (amending the FAA by inserting, inter alia, section 498b(i))).

Section 621(a) of the FAA provides that “[t]he President may exercise any functions conferred upon him by this Act through such agency or officer of the United States Government as he shall direct. The head of any such agency or such officer may from time to time promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out such functions. . . .” 22 U.S.C. 2381(a). The Secretary of State exercises authorities under the FAA as delegated by the President in Executive Order 12163, dated September 29, 1979, as amended. That includes the President's authority to “issue and enforce regulations determining the eligibility of any person to receive funds made available under” the FAA. 22 U.S.C. 2381(b).

This rule falls within the Department's authority, delegated to the Secretary of State by the President, to set conditions on the provision of foreign assistance, including on the implementers of such assistance. Courts have repeatedly recognized that the President has broad discretion in the conduct of foreign affairs to allocate foreign assistance funding for particular programs and to set the conditions on U.S. funding to implementers of those programs. See, e.g., DKT Memorial Fund v. USAID, 887 F.2d 275, 282 (D.C. Cir. 1989); Planned Parenthood Federation of America v. USAID, 915 F.2d 59 (2d Cir. 1990); Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, 304 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2002). These courts recognized the President's broad discretion to allocate assistance funding for particular programs and to set the conditions on U.S. funding to non-governmental implementers of those programs. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood v. USAID, 838 F.2d 649, 654 (2d Cir. 1988) (in carrying out the policies under the Foreign Assistance Act, “AID has `broad discretionary power' to decide which, among numerous competing projects, will be given family planning funds”); DKT, 887 F.2d at 282 (“President acted under a congressional grant of discretion as broadly worded as any we are likely to see. . . .”).

Moreover, the Secretary has the authority to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out his functions and the functions of the Department of State. See 22 U.S.C. 2651a(a)(4). This rule provides an award requirement for federal assistance award recipients to refrain from discriminatory equity ideology-related activities to varying degrees. Under its grantmaking authority, the Department awards grants in the execution of foreign assistance programs. Prudent and responsible exercise of the Department's foreign assistance and grantmaking authority requires that award terms ensure that foreign assistance does not support, directly or indirectly, the provision or promotion of discriminatory equity ideology. In addition to the Department's authority to promulgate regulations under the FAA, described above, 2 CFR 200.211(c), (d), and (e) also expressly authorize the agency to incorporate in an award general terms and conditions; Federal awarding agency, program, or Federal award specific terms and conditions; and Federal awarding agency requirements.

This rule is issued pursuant to the Secretary's authorities described above.

The Department has additionally considered the potential reliance interests of funding recipients and others on this final rule. The Department understands that, as a result of this rule, some organizations may choose to no longer receive or seek foreign assistance funds rather than comply with the award term. We understand that compliance may require organizations to cease activities that they may have long carried out, but are prohibited under the award term established under this rule. In the case of U.S. NGOs, we anticipate that some organizations will incur transition costs where certain other programs that shared facilities with foreign assistance programs must now establish separate physical facilities.

The Department believes that many organizations that are current recipients of foreign assistance will come into compliance as they obtain future grants or when funds are added to existing grants. However, the Department understands that certain organizations may decide to no longer accept foreign assistance in the future because of these award terms, which could in turn result in temporary disruptions in service delivery or impacts on program beneficiaries. In such cases, the Department will work to find new partners willing to agree to the award term, while minimizing any disruption of services. Moreover, the Department expects the quality and impact of foreign assistance programs to improve as programs are focused and prioritized, without being diverted for activities in violation of this rule.

The interests of organizations in maintaining continued taxpayer funding, while continuing activities that are inconsistent with this rule, do not outweigh the Department's foreign policy concerns and objectives outlined in this rule to ensure that foreign assistance funds do not directly or indirectly support discriminatory equity ideology. Compliance with this rule is additionally necessary to remove confusion caused when U.S.-funded organizations act in a manner inconsistent with this rule, which can create confusion regarding the foreign policy priorities and objectives of the United States.

Finally, in the event that any portion of this final rule is declared invalid, the Department intends that the various aspects be severable; the Department would intend the remaining features of the policy to stand.

Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), this is final rule is published without prior notice and comment or a delayed effective date. Because this rule involves a matter relating to grants, it is not subject to 5 U.S.C. 553. See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2). In addition, this rule is exempt because it involves the foreign affairs functions of the United States. See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rulemaking is an economically significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (Sep. 30, 1993). Accordingly, this rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for review.

This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866 section 1(b), id. at 51735, and in accordance with Executive Order 13563 section 1(b) (Jan. 18, 2011), which supplements and reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 12866. These Executive Orders 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. Executive Order 13563 also recognizes that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify and provides that, where appropriate and permitted by law, agencies may consider and discuss qualitatively values that are difficult or impossible to quantify. Id.

As explained in the preamble, the award terms under this rule are necessary to advance the United States' foreign policy objective not to support discriminatory equity ideology .

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of the intended regulation. E.O. 13563 allows that in making this assessment, an agency “may consider (and discuss qualitatively) values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, including equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts.”

Including this award provision in grants and cooperative agreements funded by Department of State foreign assistance provides an explicit requirement that the Department's recipients and grantees not violate applicable undertakings relating to the provision or promotion of discriminatory equity ideology. The benefits of the rule include protecting American taxpayers from supporting discriminatory equity ideology, directly or indirectly, advancing the foreign policy interests of the United States not to support discriminatory practices or anti-American ideologies, and to ensure foreign assistance programs and foreign partners are not undermining the laws and values of foreign nations or pressuring such nations to support discriminatory equity ideology. In addition, the restrictions on unlawful DEI-related discrimination ensure broader access to foreign assistance programs by program recipients and secure merit-based opportunity for employees of recipients of foreign assistance.

The Department recognizes there are costs associated with this rule. Potential one-time and recurring costs the Department identifies for recipients and grantees are for familiarization with the rule, development and delivery of organizational training and implementation guidance, routine compliance monitoring, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

The Department estimates that 2,500 recipients and grantees (including foreign NGOs, U.S. NGOs, international organizations, and foreign governments and parastatals) will be impacted by this rule. This estimate is derived from an analysis of the Department's current portfolio of funding recipients implementing activities with foreign assistance funds.

Based in part on the Department's previous experience, the agency estimates that recipients and grantees will first require 50 hours, on average, to familiarize themselves with the recordkeeping requirements within this final rule, and revise internal policies and financial accounting systems to comply with said recordkeeping requirements. To quantify the total one-time familiarization costs, The Department used June 2025 data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) National Compensation Survey, 5 reporting a mean fringe benefit factor of 1.46 for civilian workers in general. The Department assumes that impacted entities will employ an attorney to analyze the rule. Multiplying the BLS mean hourly wage for Lawyers, Standard Occupation Classification 23-1011 of $87.86 by the mean fringe benefit factor of 1.46 yields an estimated total compensation (wages and benefits) for Lawyers of $128.28 per hour ([$87.86 per hour] × 1.46).

Thus, the agency calculates a one-time cost for familiarization of $16,035,000 [(2,500 entities) times (50 hours per entity) times ($128.28/hour)].

For the development and delivery of organization-specific training, the Department estimates a cost of $37,984,700. The Department estimates that recipients subject to the rule will spend twenty one (21) hours annually to train their workforces: eight (8) hours developing training materials and twelve (12) hours each month to train newly hired staff, and one hour to train existing staff. The Department estimates that a lawyer will develop and conduct this training at a cost of $128.28 per hour, and that all recipient staff will attend a one-hour training. The Department estimates an average workforce size of 250 staff with an average hourly salary of $50. For routine compliance monitoring costs, the Department estimates $76,968,000 annually. The Department estimates a minimum of 240 annual hours (20 hours monthly) to monitor prime and sub-recipient activities. Such monitoring activities may include development of monitoring tools such as checklists, discussion guides, and reference materials, conducting desk review of documents, reports, work plans, and budgets, and conducting site visits to inspect implementation of activities for compliance with policy requirements. The Department estimates that these activities will be conducted by lawyers and senior program managers with an average hourly salary of $128.28.

Finally, the Department recognizes that this final rule is likely to impose costs on some U.S. NGOs whose programs currently share facilities with foreign assistance programs, and now must establish separate physical facilities. The Department also understands that certain organizations may decide to no longer accept-foreign assistance in the future because of these award terms, which could in turn result in temporary disruptions in service delivery, imposing costs on program beneficiaries. However, the Department is not able to quantitatively assess these costs.

In summary, the Department estimates this rule will impose one-time familiarization costs of $16,035,000, and annual costs related to training and compliance monitoring of $114,052,700.

Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, to ensure that Government regulations do not unnecessarily or disproportionately burden small entities. It requires a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule is subject to the notice-and-comment provisions of the APA and would have a significant economic impact, either detrimental or beneficial, on a substantial number of small entities. This rule is exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the APA, as a matter related to grants and foreign affairs functions, and thus the Department does not provide a regulatory flexibility analysis. See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2).

The Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 requires agencies to prepare several analytical statements before proposing any rule that may result in annual expenditures of $100 million or more in State, local, or Indian Tribal governments. Since this final rule will not result in expenditures of this magnitude, the Department certifies that such statements are not necessary.

Executive Order 14192 requires an agency, unless prohibited by law, to identify at least 10 existing regulations to be repealed when the agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation. In furtherance of this requirement, section 3(c) of the Order requires that “any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations.” Id. Executive Order 14192 exempts from these requirements “regulations issued with respect to a foreign affairs-related function of the United States.” This rule is issued with respect to foreign affairs-related functions and is thus exempt from Executive Order 14192 requirements.

Executive Order 14294 requires agencies promulgating regulations with criminal regulatory offenses potentially subject to criminal enforcement to “explicitly describe the conduct subject to criminal enforcement, the authorizing statutes, and the mens rea standard applicable to” each element of those offenses. This rule does not impose a criminal regulatory penalty and is thus exempt from Executive Order 14294 requirements.

This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this regulation.

The Department has determined that this rulemaking will not have Tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments, and will not preempt Tribal law. Accordingly, the requirements of E.O. 13175 do not apply to this rule.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) defines “collection of information” to mean “the obtaining, causing to be obtained, soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to third parties or the public, of facts or opinions by or for an agency, regardless of form or format.” 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). Under the PRA, a Federal agency cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless OMB approves it and the agency displays a currently valid OMB control number. 44 U.S.C. 3507. Also, notwithstanding any other provision of law, no individual or organization shall be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 44 U.S.C. 3512. The Department will not enforce any information collection requirements described in this rule until OMB's approval and will publish separate 60- and 30-day notices in the Federal Register soliciting public comment on the burden estimates provided below.

Title of Information Collection: Foreign Assistance Requirements.

OMB Control Number: 1405-XXXX.

Type of Request: New collection.

Originating Office: Department of State, Bureau of Global Acquisitions.

Form Number: No form.

Respondents: Offerors and awardees of Department of State foreign assistance.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,500.

Estimated Number of Responses: 2,500.

Average Time per Response: 261 hours.

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 652,500 hours.

Estimated Burden Hour Costs: $114,052,700.

Frequency: On occasion.

Obligation to Respond: Mandatory.

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this final rule meets the criteria in the Congressional Review Act (CRA) at 5 U.S.C. 804(2) and will comply with the applicable requirements at 5 U.S.C. 801. However, the Department has also determined that there is good cause to exempt this rule from the 60-day delay of effect at 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(3)(A). Specifically, the requirement for a delayed effective date does not apply because notice and public procedure are not required for this rule by the APA and thus are unnecessary for the purposes of the CRA under 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As noted above, this rule involves a matter relating to grants. See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2). In addition, this rule involves the foreign affairs functions of the United States. See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).

On September 26, 2025 (90 FR 46319), the NRC published a direct final rule (DFR) amending its regulations in part 50 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations to incorporate by reference a new regulatory guide 1.262 that approved certain code cases published by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. In the DFR, the NRC stated that if no significant adverse comments were received, the DFR would become effective on January 26, 2026.

The NRC received and docketed four comment submissions on the companion proposed rule (90 FR 46360; September 26, 2025). Electronic copies of the comments can be obtained from the Federal rulemaking website https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2024-0163 and also are available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML25322A218, ML25322A219, ML25330A149, and ML25336A260. As explained in the September 26, 2025, DFR, the NRC would withdraw the DFR only if it received a significant adverse comment. A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, challenges its underlying premise or approach, or shows why it would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:

(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:

(a) The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;

(b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or

(c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC staff.

(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition; or

(3) The comment causes the NRC staff to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule.

The NRC evaluated the comments against these criteria and determined that none of the comments submitted on the companion proposed rule are significant adverse comments. The public comments received on this action did not warrant any additions or changes to the DFR. The NRC is not making any changes to the rule; it is apparent that the rule is effective and acceptable as proposed, without the need for a change or addition. The comments did not raise a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC, and the comments did not cause the NRC to either (1) reevaluate or reconsider its position or (2) conduct additional analyses. Therefore, the NRC did not receive any significant adverse comments, and this DFR will become effective as scheduled. However, the NRC is providing the following clarifications regarding its processes for approving code cases and overseeing their use.

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 instructs Federal agencies to consider using technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies, like the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). Further, under the NTTAA, Federal agencies participate with such bodies in the development of relevant technical standards. The NRC follows the NTTAA by assigning staff to participate in the ASME Code review and approval process for ASME code cases that could be incorporated by reference by rule. Through this process, the NRC staff reviews each code case for technical adequacy, inspection impact, applicability to plants, and other issues. The ASME Code process is performed to ensure each code case will provide rules of safety relating to pressure integrity, structural integrity of nuclear components, and the inservice inspection of nuclear components; accordingly, this process addresses the same issues that would be considered in an NRC safety evaluation. As members of specific ASME Code committees, the NRC staff participate in technical reviews and vote to accept or reject each code case during the ASME Code process. As part of the development of a rule to approve the use of code cases, the NRC independently determines whether ASME code cases can be accepted with or without conditions.

Once code cases are approved for use with or without conditions, the NRC provides ongoing oversight of licensees' voluntary use of code cases. Although the flexibility provided to licensees to either adopt or to not adopt these optional code cases can lead to differences in implementation between reactor licensees, each reactor licensee is responsible for maintaining the records for its facility in accordance with 10 CFR 50.71, “Maintenance of records, making of reports.” The reactor oversight process (ROP) ( https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/oversight/rop-description ) includes baseline NRC inspections for each reactor licensee and is designed to accommodate the different licensing bases of each reactor licensee. The reactor baseline inspection program is designed to focus on activities and systems that are risk significant, which could include licensee implementation of code cases.

The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.

Background

On November 27, 2020, Safran applied for FAA validation of their pending EASA type certificate application for the Model ENGINe US100A1 electric engine. The FAA published a Notice of Proposed Special Conditions for public comment in the Federal Register on March 20, 2024 (89 FR 19763). On December 27, 2024, the FAA issued Final Special Conditions No. 33-23-01-SC (89 FR 105432) for the US100A1 electric engine.

Safran subsequently amended its EASA application to include the models US100B1 and US100B2. Similarly, on January 15, 2025, Safran amended their FAA application to include the B1 and B2 on the requested type certificate for the ENGINe US100 electric engines. This amendment to the special conditions updates the applicability of Special Conditions No. 33-23-01-SC from Safran Electric & Power S.A. “Model ENGINe US100A1 Electric Engines” to “ENGINe US100 Series Electric Engines”. The novel or unusual design of these additional models is adequately addressed by the requirements of Special Conditions No. 33-23-01-SC, and the requirements of these special conditions are substantively unchanged. However, the FAA is amending the Special Conditions number for these final special conditions from Special Conditions No. 33-23-01-SC to Special Conditions No. 33-030A-SC.

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17(a)(1) Safran must show that ENGINe US100 series electric engines meet the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 33 in effect on the date of application for a type certificate.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations ( e.g., part 33) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Safran ENGINe US100 series electric engines because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions may be prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other engine model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other engine model under § 21.101.

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in § 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Safran ENGINe US100 series electric engines must comply with the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

The Safran ENGINe US100 series electric engines will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:

An electric motor, motor controller, and high-voltage electrical systems that are used as the primary source of propulsion for an aircraft.

Electric propulsion technology is substantially different from the technology used in previously certificated turbine and reciprocating engines. Therefore, these engines introduce new safety concerns that need to be addressed in the certification basis.

Safran's proposed aircraft engines will operate using electrical power instead of air and fuel combustion to propel the aircraft. They will be built with an electric motor, motor controller, and high voltage electrical systems that draw energy from electrical storage or electrical energy generating systems.

Although the electric aircraft engines Safran proposes use novel or unusual design features that the FAA did not envisage during the development of its existing part 33 airworthiness standards, these engines share some basic similarities, in configuration and function, to engines that use the combustion of air and fuel, and therefore require similar provisions to prevent common hazards ( e.g., fire, uncontained high energy debris, and loss of thrust control). However, the primary failure concerns and the probability of exposure to these common hazards are different for the proposed Safran ENGINe TM US100 series electric engines. This creates a need to develop special conditions to ensure the engine's safety and reliability.

The requirements in part 33 ensure that the design and construction of aircraft engines, including the engine control systems, are proper for the type of aircraft engines considered for certification. However, part 33 does not fully address aircraft engines like the Safran Model ENGINe US100A1, which operates using electrical technology as the primary means of propelling the aircraft. This necessitates the development of special conditions that provide adequate airworthiness standards for these aircraft engines.

The requirements in part 33, subpart B, are applicable to reciprocating and turbine aircraft engines. Subparts C and D are applicable to reciprocating aircraft engines. Subparts E through G are applicable to turbine aircraft engines. As such, subparts B through G do not adequately address the use of aircraft engines that operate using electrical technology. Special conditions are needed to ensure a level of safety for electric engines that is commensurate with these subparts, as those regulatory requirements do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for electric aircraft engines that are used to propel aircraft.

Applicability: Special condition no. 1 requires Safran to comply with part 33, except for those airworthiness standards specifically and explicitly applicable only to reciprocating and turbine aircraft engines.

Engine Ratings and Operating Limitations: Special condition no. 2 in addition to compliance with § 33.7(a), requires Safran to establish engine operating limits related to the power, torque, speed, and duty cycles specific to Safran ENGINe US100 series electric engines. The duty or duty cycle is a statement of the load(s) to which the engine is subjected, including, if applicable, starting, no-load and rest, and de-energized periods, including their durations or cycles and sequence in time. This special condition also requires Safran to declare cooling fluid grade or specification, power supply requirements, and to establish any additional ratings that are necessary to define the Safran ENGINe US100 series electric engine capabilities required for safe operation of the engine.

Materials: Special condition no. 3 requires Safran to comply with § 33.15, which sets requirements for the suitability and durability of materials used in the engine, and which would otherwise be applicable only to reciprocating and turbine aircraft engines.

Fire Protection: Special condition no. 4 requires Safran to comply with § 33.17, which sets requirements to protect the engine and certain parts and components of the airplane against fire, and which would otherwise be applicable only to reciprocating and turbine aircraft engines. Additionally, this special condition requires Safran to ensure that the high-voltage electrical wiring interconnect systems that connect the controller to the motor are protected against arc faults. An arc fault is a high power discharge of electricity between two or more conductors. This discharge generates heat, which can break down the wire's insulation and trigger an electrical fire. Arc faults can range in power from a few amps up to thousands of amps and are highly variable in strength and duration.

Durability: Special condition no. 5 requires Safran to design and construct the engines to minimize the development of an unsafe condition between maintenance intervals, overhaul periods, and mandatory actions described in the ICA to comply with § 33.19. This condition also requires Safran to develop maintenance instructions and scheduling information.

Engine Cooling: Special condition no. 6 requires Safran to comply with

§ 33.21, which requires the engine design and construction to provide necessary cooling, and which would otherwise be applicable only to reciprocating and turbine aircraft engines. Additionally, this special condition requires Safran to document the cooling system monitoring features and usage in the engine installation manual, in accordance with § 33.5, if cooling is required to satisfy the safety analysis described in proposed special condition no. 17. Loss of cooling to an aircraft engine that operates using electrical technology can result in rapid overheating and abrupt engine failure, with critical consequences to safety.

Engine Mounting Attachments and Structure: Special condition no. 7 requires Safran and the proposed design to comply with § 33.23, which requires the applicant to define, and the proposed design to withstand, certain load limits for the engine mounting attachments and related engine structure. These requirements would otherwise be applicable only to reciprocating and turbine aircraft engines.

Accessory Attachments: Special condition no. 8 requires the proposed design to comply with § 33.25, which sets certain design, operational, and maintenance requirements for the engine's accessory drive and mounting attachments, and which would otherwise be applicable only to reciprocating and turbine aircraft engines.

Rotor Overspeed: Special condition no. 9 requires Safran to comply with § 33.27 to establish by test, validated analysis, or a combination of both, that—

(a) the rotor overspeed must not result in a burst, rotor growth, or damage that results in a hazardous engine effect;

(b) rotors must possess sufficient strength margin to prevent burst; and

(c) operating limits must not be exceeded in service.

The special condition associated with rotor overspeed is necessary because of the differences between turbine engine technology and the technology of these electric engines. Turbine rotor speed is driven by expanding gas and aerodynamic loads on rotor blades. Therefore, the rotor speed or overspeed results from interactions between thermodynamic and aerodynamic engine properties. The speed of an electric engine is directly controlled by electric current and an electromagnetic field created by the controller. Consequently, electric engine rotor response to power demand and overspeed protection systems is quicker and more precise. Also, the failure modes that can lead to overspeed between turbine engines and electric engines are vastly different, and therefore this special condition is necessary.

Engine Control Systems: Special condition no. 10(b) requires Safran to comply with § 33.28 to ensure that these engines do not experience any unacceptable operating characteristics, such as unstable speed or torque control, or exceed any of their operating limitations.

The FAA originally issued § 33.28 at amendment 33-15 to address the evolution of the means of controlling the fuel supplied to the engine, from carburetors and hydro-mechanical controls to electronic control systems. These electronic control systems grew in complexity over the years, and as a result, the FAA amended § 33.28 at amendment 33-26 to address these increasing complexities. The controller that forms the controlling system for these electric engines is significantly simpler than the complex control systems used in modern turbine engines. The current regulations for engine control are inappropriate for electric engine control systems; therefore, the special condition no. 10(b) associated with controlling these engines is necessary.

Special condition no. 10(c) requires Safran to develop and verify the software and complex electronic hardware used in programmable logic devices, using proven methods that ensure that the devices can provide the accuracy, precision, functionality, and reliability commensurate with the hazard that is being mitigated by the logic. RTCA DO-254, “Design Assurance Guidance for Airborne Electronic Hardware” dated April 19, 2000, distinguishes between complex and simple electronic hardware. 1

Special condition no. 10(d) requires data from assessments of all functional aspects of the control system to prevent errors that could exist in software programs that are not readily observable by inspection of the code. Also, Safran must use methods that will result in the expected quality that ensures the engine control system performs the intended functions throughout the declared operational envelope.

The environmental limits referred to in special condition no. 10(e) include temperature, vibration, high-intensity radiated fields (HIRF), and others addressed in RTCA DO-160G, “Environmental Conditions and Test Procedures for Airborne Electronic/Electrical Equipment and Instruments”, dated December 8, 2010, which includes RTCA DO-160G, Change 1—“Environmental Conditions and Test Procedures for Airborne Equipment,” dated December 16, 2014 and DO-357, “User Guide: Supplement to DO-160G,” dated December 16, 2014. 2 Special condition 10(e) requires Safran to demonstrate by system or component tests in accordance with special condition no. 27 any environmental limits that cannot be adequately substantiated by the endurance demonstration, validated analysis, or combination thereof.

Special condition no. 10(f) requires Safran to evaluate various control system failures to ensure that such failures will not lead to unsafe engine conditions. The FAA issued advisory circular (AC), AC 33.28-3, “Guidance Material for 14 CFR 33.28, Engine Control Systems”, on May 23, 2014 (AC 33.28-3), for reciprocating and turbine engines. 3 This AC provides guidance for defining an engine control system failure when showing compliance with the requirements of § 33.28. AC 33.28-3 also includes objectives for control system integrity requirements, criteria for a loss of thrust control (LOTC) and loss of power control (LOPC) event, and an acceptable LOTC/LOPC rate. The electrical and electronic failures and failure rates did not account for electric engines when the FAA issued this AC, and therefore performance-based special conditions are established to allow fault accommodation criteria to be developed for electric engines.

The phrase “in the full-up configuration” used in special condition no. 10(f)(2) refers to a system without any fault conditions present. The electronic control system must, when in the full-up configuration, be single fault-tolerant, as determined by the Administrator, for electrical, electrically detectable, and electronic failures involving LOPC events.

The term “local”, in the context of “local events”, used in special condition no. 10(f)(4) means failures or malfunctions, leading to events in the intended aircraft installation such as fire, overheat, or failures leading to damage to engine control system components. These “local events” must not result in a hazardous engine effect due to engine control system failures or malfunctions.

Special condition no. 10(g) requires Safran to conduct a safety assessment of the control system to support the safety analysis in special condition no. 17. This control system safety assessment provides engine response to failures, and rates of these failures that can be used at the aircraft-level safety assessment.

Special condition no. 10(h) requires Safran to provide appropriate protection devices or systems to ensure that engine operating limits will not be exceeded in service.

Special condition no. 10(i) is necessary to ensure that the controllers are self-sufficient and isolated from other aircraft systems. The aircraft-supplied data supports the analysis at the aircraft level to protect the aircraft from common mode failures that could lead to major propulsion power loss. The exception, “other than power command signals from the aircraft,” noted in proposed special condition no. 10(i), is based on the FAA's determination that the engine controller has no reasonable means to determine the validity of any in-range signals from the electrical power system. In many cases, the engine control system can detect a faulty signal from the aircraft, but the engine control system typically accepts the power command signal as a valid value.

The term “independent” in the context of “fully independent engine systems” referenced in special condition no. 10(i) means the controllers should be self-sufficient and isolated from other aircraft systems or provide redundancy that enables the engine control system to accommodate aircraft data system failures. In the case of loss, interruption, or corruption of aircraft-supplied data, the engine must continue to function in a safe and acceptable manner without hazardous engine effects.

The term “accommodated”, in the context of “detected and accommodated,” referenced in special condition 10(i)(2) is to assure that, upon detecting a fault, the system continues to function safely.

Special condition no. 10(j) requires Safran to show that the loss of electric power from the aircraft will not cause the electric engine to malfunction in a manner hazardous to the aircraft. The total loss of electric power to the electric engine may result in an engine shutdown.

Instrument Connection: Special condition no. 11 requires Safran to comply with § 33.29(a), (e), and (g), which set certain requirements for the connection and installation of instruments to monitor engine performance. The remaining requirements in § 33.29 apply only to technologies used in reciprocating and turbine aircraft engines.

Instrument connections (wires, wire insulation, potting, grounding, connector designs, etc.) must not introduce unsafe features or characteristics to the aircraft. Special condition no. 11 requires the safety analysis to include potential hazardous effects from failures of instrument connections to function properly. The outcome of this analysis might identify the need for design enhancements or additional ICA to ensure safety.

Stress Analysis: Section 33.62 requires applicants to perform a stress analysis on each turbine engine. This regulation is explicitly applicable only to turbine engines and turbine engine components, and it is not appropriate for the Safran ENGINe TM US100 series electric engines. However, a stress analysis particular to these electric engines is necessary to account for stresses resulting from electric technology used in the electric engine series.

Special condition no. 12 requires a mechanical, thermal, and electrical stress analysis to show that the engine has a sufficient design margin to prevent unacceptable operating characteristics. Also, the applicant must determine the maximum stresses in the engine by tests, validated analysis, or a combination thereof, and show that they do not exceed minimum material properties.

Critical and Life-Limited Parts: Special condition no. 13 requires Safran to show whether rotating or moving components, bearings, shafts, static parts, and non-redundant mount components should be classified, designed, manufactured, and managed throughout their service life as critical or life-limited parts.

The term “low-cycle fatigue,” referenced in special condition no. 13(a)(2), is a decline in material strength from exposure to cyclic stress at levels beyond the stress threshold that the material can sustain indefinitely. This threshold is known as the “material endurance limit.” Low-cycle fatigue typically causes a part to sustain plastic or permanent deformation during the cyclic loading and can lead to cracks, crack growth, and fracture. Engine parts that operate at high temperatures and high mechanical stresses simultaneously can experience low-cycle fatigue coupled with creep. Creep is the tendency of a metallic material to permanently move or deform when it is exposed to the extreme thermal conditions created by hot combustion gasses, and substantial physical loads such as high rotational speeds and maximum thrust. Conversely, high-cycle fatigue is caused by elastic deformation, small strains caused by alternating stress, and a much higher number of load cycles compared to the number of cycles that cause low-cycle fatigue.

The engineering plan referenced in special condition no. 13(b)(1) informs the manufacturing and service management processes of essential information that ensures the life limit of a part is valid. The engineering plan provides methods for verifying the characteristics and qualities assumed in the design data using methods that are suitable for the part criticality. The engineering plan informs the manufacturing process of the attributes that affect the life of the part. The engineering plan, manufacturing plan, and service management plan are related in that assumptions made in the engineering plan are linked to how a part is manufactured and how that part is maintained in service. For example, environmental effects on life limited electric engine parts, such as humidity, might not be consistent with the assumptions used to design the part. Safran must ensure that the engineering plan is complete, available, and acceptable to the Administrator.

The term “manufacturing plan,” referenced in special condition no. 13(b)(2), is the collection of data required to translate documented engineering design criteria into physical parts, and to verify that the parts comply with the properties established by the design data. Because engines are not intentionally tested to failure during a certification program, documents and processes used to execute production and quality systems required by § 21.137 guarantee inherent expectations for performance and durability. These systems limit the potential manufacturing outcomes to parts that are consistently produced within design constraints.

The manufacturing plan and service management plan ensure that essential information from the engineering plan, such as the design characteristics that safeguard the integrity of critical and life-limited parts, is consistently produced and preserved over the lifetime of those parts. The manufacturing plan includes special processes and production controls to prevent inclusion of manufacturing-induced anomalies, which can degrade the part's structural integrity. Examples of manufacturing-induced anomalies are material contamination, unacceptable grain growth, heat-affected areas, and residual stresses.

The service-management plan ensures the method and assumptions used in the engineering plan to determine the part's life remain valid by enabling corrections identified from in-service experience, such as service-induced anomalies and unforeseen environmental effects, to be incorporated into the design process. The service-management plan also becomes the ICA for maintenance, overhaul, and repairs of the part.

Lubrication System: Special condition no. 14 requires Safran to ensure that the lubrication system is designed to function properly between scheduled maintenance intervals and to prevent contamination of the engine bearings. This condition also requires Safran to demonstrate the unique lubrication attributes and functional capability of the Safran ENGINe TM US100 series electric engine design.

The corresponding part 33 regulations include provisions for lubrication systems used in reciprocating and turbine engines. The part 33 requirements account for safety issues associated with specific reciprocating and turbine engine system configurations. These regulations are not appropriate for the Safran ENGINe TM US100 series electric engines. For example, electric engines do not have a crankcase or lubrication oil sump. Electric engine bearings are sealed, so they do not require an oil circulation system. The lubrication system in these engines is also independent of the propeller pitch control system. Therefore, special condition no. 14 incorporates only certain requirements from the part 33 regulations.

Power Response: Special condition no. 15 requires the design and construction of the Safran ENGINe TM US100 series electric engines to enable an increase from the minimum—

(1) power setting to the highest rated power without detrimental engine effects, and

(2) within a time interval appropriate for the intended aircraft application.

The engine control system governs the increase or decrease in power in combustion engines to prevent too much (or too little) fuel from being mixed with air before combustion. Due to the lag in rotor response time, improper fuel/air mixtures can result in engine surges, stalls, and exceedances above rated limits and durations. Failure of the combustion engine to provide thrust, maintain rotor speeds below rotor burst thresholds, and keep temperatures below limits can have engine effects detrimental to the aircraft. Similar detrimental effects are possible in the Safran ENGINe TM US100 series electric engines, but the causes are different. Electric engines with reduced power response time can experience insufficient thrust to the aircraft, shaft over-torque, and over-stressed rotating components, propellers, and critical propeller parts. Therefore, this special condition is necessary.

Continued Rotation: Special condition no. 16 requires Safran to design the ENGINe TM US100 series electric engines such that, if the main rotating systems continue to rotate after the engine is shut down while in-flight, this continued rotation will not result in any hazardous engine effects.

The main rotating system of the Safran ENGINe TM US100 series electric engines consists of the rotors, shafts, magnets, bearings, and wire windings that convert electrical energy to shaft torque. For the initial aircraft application, this rotating system must continue to rotate after the power source to the engine is shut down. The safety concerns associated with this special condition are substantial asymmetric aerodynamic drag that can cause aircraft instability, loss of control, and reduced efficiency; and may result in a forced landing or inability to continue safe flight.

Safety Analysis: Special condition no. 17 requires Safran to comply with § 33.75(a)(1) and (a)(2), which require the applicant to conduct a safety analysis of the engine, and which would otherwise be applicable only to turbine aircraft engines. Additionally, this special condition requires Safran to assess its engine design to determine the likely consequences of failures that can reasonably be expected to occur. The failure of such elements, and associated prescribed integrity requirements, must be stated in the safety analysis.

A primary failure mode is the manner in which a part is most likely going to fail. Engine parts that have a primary failure mode, a predictable life to the failure, and a failure consequence that results in a hazardous effect, are life-limited or critical parts. Some life-limited or critical engine parts can fail suddenly in their primary failure mode, from prolonged exposure to normal engine environments such as temperature, vibration, and stress, if those engine parts are not removed from service before the damage mechanisms progress to a failure. Due to the consequence of failure, these parts are not allowed to be managed by on-condition or probabilistic means because the probability of failure cannot be sensibly estimated in numerical terms. Therefore, the parts are managed by compliance with integrity requirements, such as mandatory maintenance (life limits, inspections, inspection techniques), to ensure the qualities, features, and other attributes that prevent the part from failing in its primary failure mode are preserved throughout its service life. For example, if the number of engine cycles to failure are predictable and can be associated with specific design characteristics, such as material properties, then the applicant can manage the engine part with life limits.

Complete or total power loss is not assumed to be a minor engine event, as it is in the turbine engine regulation § 33.75, to account for experience data showing a potential for higher hazard levels from power loss events in single-engine general aviation aircraft. The criteria in these special conditions apply to an engine that continues to operate at partial power after a single electrical or electronic fault or failure. Total loss of power is classified at the aircraft level using special condition nos. 10(g) and 33(h).

Ingestion: Special condition no. 18 requires Safran to ensure that these engines will not experience unacceptable power loss or hazardous engine effects from ingestion. The associated regulations for turbine engines, §§ 33.76, 33.77, and 33.78, are based on potential performance impacts and damage from birds, ice, rain, and hail being ingested into a turbine engine that has an inlet duct, which directs air into the engine for combustion, cooling, and thrust. By contrast, the Safran ENGINe TM US100 series electric engines are not configured with inlet ducts.

An “unacceptable” power loss, as used in special condition no. 18(b), is such that the power or thrust required for safe flight of the aircraft becomes unavailable to the pilot. The specific amount of power loss that is required for safe flight depends on the aircraft configuration, speed, altitude, attitude, atmospheric conditions, phase of flight, and other circumstances where the demand for thrust is critical to safe operation of the aircraft.

Liquid and Gas Systems: Special condition no. 19 requires Safran to ensure that systems used for lubrication or cooling of engine components are designed and constructed to function properly. Also, if a system is not self-contained, the interfaces to that system would be required to be defined in the engine installation manual. Systems for the lubrication or cooling of engine components can include heat exchangers, pumps, fluids, tubing, connectors, electronic devices, temperature sensors and pressure switches, fasteners and brackets, bypass valves, and metallic chip detectors. These systems allow the electric engine to perform at extreme speeds and temperatures for durations up to the maintenance intervals without exceeding temperature limits or predicted deterioration rates.

Vibration Demonstration: Special condition no. 20 requires Safran to ensure the engine—

(1) is designed and constructed to function throughout its normal operating range of rotor speeds and engine output power without inducing excessive stress caused by engine vibration, and

(2) design undergoes a vibration survey.

The vibration demonstration is a survey that characterizes the vibratory attributes of the engine. It verifies that the stresses from vibration do not impose excessive force or result in natural frequency responses on the aircraft structure. The vibration demonstration also ensures internal vibrations will not cause engine components to fail. Excessive vibration force occurs at magnitudes and forcing functions or frequencies, which may result in damage to the aircraft. Stress margins to failure add conservatism to the highest values predicted by analysis for additional protection from failure caused by influences beyond those quantified in the analysis. The result of the additional design margin is improved engine reliability that meets prescribed thresholds based on the failure classification. The amount of margin needed to achieve the prescribed reliability rates depends on an applicant's experience with a product. The FAA considers the reliability rates when deciding how much vibration is “excessive.”

Overtorque: Special condition no. 21 requires Safran to demonstrate that the engine is capable of continued operation without the need for maintenance if it experiences a certain amount of overtorque.

Safran's electric engine converts electrical energy to shaft torque, which is used for propulsion. The electric motor, controller, and high-voltage systems control the engine torque. When the pilot commands power or thrust, the engine responds to the command and adjusts the shaft torque to meet the demand. During the transition from one power or thrust setting to another, a small delay, or latency, occurs in the engine response time. While the engine dwells in this time interval, it can continue to apply torque until the command to change the torque is applied by the engine control. The allowable amount of overtorque during operation depends on the engine's response to changes in the torque command throughout its operating range.

Calibration Assurance: Special condition no. 22 requires Safran to subject the engine to calibration tests, to establish its power characteristics and the conditions both before and after the endurance and durability demonstrations specified in proposed special condition nos. 23 and 26. The calibration test requirements specified in § 33.85 only apply to the endurance test specified in § 33.87, which is applicable only to turbine engines. The FAA determined that the methods used for accomplishing those tests for turbine engines are not appropriate for electric engines. The calibration tests in § 33.85 have provisions applicable to ratings that are not relevant to the Safran ENGINe TM US100 series electric engines. Special condition no. 22 allows Safran to demonstrate the endurance and durability of the electric engine either together or independently, whichever is most appropriate for the engine qualities being assessed. Consequently, the special condition applies the calibration requirement to both the endurance and durability tests.

Endurance Demonstration: Special condition no. 23 requires Safran to perform an endurance demonstration test that is acceptable to the Administrator. The Administrator will evaluate the extent to which the test exposes the engine to failures that could occur when the engine is operated at up to its rated values, and to determine if the test is sufficient to show that the engine design will not exhibit unacceptable effects in service, such as significant performance deterioration, operability restrictions, and engine power loss or instability, when it is run repetitively at rated limits and durations in conditions that represent extreme operating environments.

Temperature Limit: Special condition no. 24 requires Safran to ensure the engine can endure operation at its temperature limits plus an acceptable margin. An “acceptable margin,” as used in the special condition, is the amount of temperature above that required to prevent the least capable engine allowed by the type design, as determined by § 33.8, from failing due to temperature-related causes when operating at the most extreme engine and environmental thermal conditions.

Operation Demonstration: Special condition no. 25 requires the engine to demonstrate safe operating characteristics throughout its declared flight envelope and operating range. Engine operating characteristics define the range of functional and performance values the Safran ENGINe US100 series electric engines can achieve without incurring hazardous effects. The characteristics are requisite capabilities of the type design that qualify the engine for installation into aircraft and that determine aircraft installation requirements. The primary engine operating characteristics are assessed by the tests and demonstrations that would be required by these special conditions. Some of these characteristics are shaft output torque, rotor speed, power consumption, and engine thrust response. The engine performance data Safran will use to certify the engine must account for installation loads and effects. These are aircraft-level effects that could affect the engine characteristics that are measured when the engine is tested on a stand or in a test cell. These effects could result from elevated inlet cowl temperatures, aircraft maneuvers, flowstream distortion, and hard landings. For example, an engine that is run in a sea-level, static test facility could demonstrate more capability for some operating characteristics than it will have when operating on an aircraft in certain flight conditions. Discoveries like this during certification could affect proposed engine ratings and operating limits. Therefore, the installed performance defines the engine performance capabilities.

Durability Demonstration: Special condition no. 26 requires Safran to subject the engine to a durability demonstration. The durability demonstration must show that the engine is designed and constructed to minimize the development of any unsafe condition between maintenance intervals or between engine replacement intervals if maintenance or overhaul is not defined. The durability demonstration also verifies that the ICA is adequate to ensure the engine, in its fully deteriorated state, continues to generate rated power or thrust, while retaining operating margins and sufficient efficiency, to support the aircraft safety objectives. The amount of deterioration an engine can experience is restricted by operating limitations and managed by the engine ICA. Section 33.90 specifies how maintenance intervals are established; it does not include provisions for an engine replacement. Electric engines and turbine engines deteriorate differently; therefore, Safran will use different test effects to develop maintenance, overhaul, or engine replacement information for their electric engine.

System and Component Tests: Special condition no. 27 requires Safran to show that the systems and components of the engine perform their intended functions in all declared engine environments and operating conditions.

Sections 33.87 and 33.91, which are specifically applicable to turbine engines, have conditional criteria to decide if additional tests will be required after the engine tests. The criteria are not suitable for electric engines. Part 33 associates the need for additional testing with the outcome of the § 33.87 endurance test because it is designed to address safety concerns in combustion engines. For example, § 33.91(b) requires the establishment of temperature limits for components that require temperature-controlling provisions, and § 33.91(a) requires additional testing of engine systems and components where the endurance test does not fully expose internal systems and components to thermal conditions that verify the desired operating limits. Exceeding temperature limits is a safety concern for electric engines. The FAA determined that the § 33.87 endurance test is not appropriate for testing the electronic components of electric engines because mechanical energy is generated differently by electronic systems than it is by the thermal conditions in turbine engines. Additional safety considerations also need to be addressed in the test. Therefore, special condition no. 27 is a performance-based requirement that allows Safran to determine when engine systems and component tests are necessary and to determine the appropriate limitations of those systems and components used in the Safran ENGINe US100 series electric engines.

Rotor Locking Demonstration: Special condition no. 28 requires the engine to demonstrate reliable rotor locking performance and that no hazardous effects will occur if the engine uses a rotor locking device to prevent shaft rotation.

Some engine designs enable the pilot to prevent a propeller shaft or main rotor shaft from turning while the engine is running, or the aircraft is in-flight. This capability is needed for some installations that require the pilot to confirm functionality of certain flight systems before takeoff. The Safran engine installations are not limited to aircraft that will not require rotor locking. Section 33.92 prescribes a test that may not include the appropriate criteria to demonstrate sufficient rotor locking capability for these engines. Therefore, this special condition is necessary.

The special condition does not define “reliable” rotor locking but allows Safran to classify the hazard as major or minor and assign the appropriate quantitative criteria that meet the safety objectives required by special condition no. 17 and the applicable portions of § 33.75.

Teardown Inspection: Special condition no. 29 requires Safran to perform a teardown or non-teardown evaluation after the endurance, durability, and overtorque demonstrations, based on the criteria in special condition no. 29(a) or (b).

Special condition no. 29(b) includes restrictive criteria for “non-teardown evaluations” to account for electric engines, sub-assemblies, and components that cannot be disassembled without destroying them. Some electrical and electronic components like Safran's are constructed in an integrated fashion that precludes the possibility of tearing them down without destroying them. The special condition indicates that, if a teardown cannot be performed in a non-destructive manner, then the inspection or replacement intervals must be established based on the endurance and durability demonstrations. The procedure for establishing maintenance should be agreed upon between the applicant and the FAA prior to running the relevant tests. Data from the endurance and durability tests may provide information that can be used to determine maintenance intervals and life limits for parts. However, if life limits are required, the lifing procedure is established by special condition no. 13, Critical and Life-Limited Parts, which corresponds to § 33.70. Therefore, the procedure used to determine which parts are life-limited, and how the life limits are established, requires FAA approval, as it does for § 33.70. Sections 33.55 and 33.93 do not contain similar requirements because reciprocating and turbine engines can be completely disassembled for inspection.

Containment: Special condition no. 30 requires the engine to have containment features that protect against likely hazards from rotating components unless Safran can show the margin to rotor burst does not justify the need for containment features. Rotating components in electric engines are typically disks, shafts, bearings, seals, orbiting magnetic components, and the assembled rotor core. However, if the margin to rotor burst does not unconditionally rule out the possibility of a rotor burst, then the special condition requires Safran to assume a rotor burst could occur and design the stator case to contain the failed rotors, and any components attached to the rotor that are released during the failure. In addition, Safran must also determine the effects of subsequent damage precipitated by a main rotor failure and characterize any fragments that are released forward or aft of the containment features. Further, decisions about whether the Safran engine requires containment features, and the effects of any subsequent damage following rotor burst, should be based on test or validated analysis. The fragment energy levels, trajectories, and size are typically documented in the installation manual because the aircraft will need to account for the effects of a rotor failure in the aircraft design. The intent of this special condition is to prevent hazardous engine effects from structural failure of rotating components and parts that are built into the rotor assembly.

General Conduct of Tests: Special condition no. 32 requires Safran to include scheduled maintenance in the engine ICA, include any maintenance, in addition to the scheduled maintenance that was needed during the test to satisfy the applicable test requirements, and conduct any additional tests that the Administrator finds necessary, as warranted by the test results.

For example, certification endurance test shortfalls might be caused by omitting some prescribed engine test conditions, or from accelerated deterioration of individual parts arising from the need to force the engine to operating conditions that drive the engine above the engine cycle values of the type design. If an engine part fails during a certification test, the entire engine might be subjected to penalty runs, with a replacement or newer part design installed on the engine, to meet the test requirements. Also, the maintenance performed to replace the part, so that the engine could complete the test, would be included in the engine ICA. In another example, if the applicant replaces a part before completing an engine certification test because of a test facility failure and can substantiate the part to the Administrator through bench testing, they might not need to substantiate the part design using penalty runs with the entire engine.

The term “excessive” is used to describe the frequency of unplanned engine maintenance, and the frequency of unplanned test stoppages, to address engine issues that prevent the engine from completing the tests in special condition nos. 32(b)(1) and (2), respectively. Excessive frequency is an objective assessment from the FAA's analysis of the amount of unplanned maintenance needed for an engine to complete a certification test. The FAA's assessment may include the reasons for the unplanned maintenance, such as the effects test facility equipment may have on the engine, the inability to simulate a realistic engine operating environment, and the extent to which an engine requires modifications to complete a certification test. In some cases, the applicant may be able to show that unplanned maintenance has no effect on the certification test results, or they might be able to attribute the problem to the facility or test-enabling equipment that is not part of the type design. In these cases, the ICA will not be affected. However, if Safran cannot reconcile the amount of unplanned service, then the FAA may consider the unplanned maintenance required during the certification test to be “excessive,” prompting the need to add the unplanned maintenance to mandatory ICA to comply with the certification requirements.

Engine electrical systems: The current requirements in part 33 for electronic engine control systems were developed to maintain an equivalent level of safety demonstrated by engines that operate with hydromechanical engine control systems. At the time § 33.28 was codified, the only electrical systems used on turbine engines were low-voltage, electronic engine control systems (EEC) and the high-energy spark-ignition systems. Electric aircraft engines use high-voltage, high-current electrical systems and components that are physically located in the motor and motor controller. Therefore, the existing part 33 control system requirements do not adequately address all the electrical systems used in electric aircraft engines. Special condition no. 33 is established using the existing engine control systems requirement as a basis. It applies applicable airworthiness criteria from § 33.28, and it incorporates airworthiness criteria that recognize and focus on the electrical power system used in the engine.

Special condition no. 33(b) ensures that all aspects of an electrical system, including generation, distribution, and usage, do not experience any unacceptable operating characteristics.

Special condition no. 33(c) requires the electrical power distribution aspects of the electrical system to provide the safe transfer of electrical energy throughout the electric engine.

The term “abnormal conditions” used in special condition no. 33(c)(2) is intended to be consistent with the definitions in MIL-STD-704F “Aircraft Electric Power Characteristics” which defines normal operation and abnormal operation. MIL-STD-704F is a standard that ensures compatibility between power sources that provide power to the aircraft's electrical systems and airborne equipment that receive power from the power source. This standard also establishes technical criteria for aircraft electrical power. The term “abnormal conditions” refers to various engine operating conditions such as:

• System or component characteristics outside of normal statistical variation from circumstances such as systems degradation, installation error, and engine response to fault conditions;

• Unusual environmental conditions from extreme temperature, humidity, vibration, lightning, high-intensity radiated field (HIRF), atmospheric neutron radiation; and

• Unusual and infrequent events such as landing on icy runways, rejected take-offs or go-arounds, extended ground idling or taxiing in a hot environment, and abrupt load changes from foreign object damage or engine contamination.

The phrase “safe transmission of electric energy” used in special condition no. 33(c)(3) refers to the transmission of electrical energy in a manner that supports the operation of the electric engine(s) and the aircraft safety objectives without detrimental effects such as uncontrolled fire or structural failure due to severe overheating.

Special condition no. 33(d) requires the engine electrical system to be designed such that the loss, malfunction, or interruption of the electrical power source, or power conditions that exceed design limits, will not result in a hazardous engine effect.

Special condition no. 33(e) requires Safran to identify and declare, in the engine installation manual, the characteristics of any electrical power supplied from the aircraft to the engine, or electrical power supplied from the engine to the aircraft via energy regeneration, and any other characteristics necessary for safe operation of the engine.

Special condition no. 33(f) requires Safran to demonstrate that systems and components will operate properly up to environmental limits, using special conditions, when such limits cannot be adequately substantiated by the endurance demonstration, validated analysis, or a combination thereof. The environmental limits referred to in this proposed special condition include temperature, vibration, HIRF, and others addressed in RTCA DO-160G, “Environmental Conditions and Test Procedures for Airborne Electronic/Electrical Equipment and Instruments.”

Special condition 33(g) requires Safran to evaluate various electric engine system failures to ensure that these failures will not lead to unsafe engine conditions. The evaluation includes single-fault tolerance, ensures no single electrical or electronic fault or failure would result in hazardous engine effects, and ensures that any failure or malfunction leading to local events in the intended aircraft application do not result in certain hazardous engine effects. The special condition also implements integrity requirements, criteria for LOTC/LOPC events, and an acceptable LOTC/LOPC rate.

Special condition 33(h) requires Safran to conduct a safety assessment of the engine electrical system to support the safety analysis in special condition no. 17. This safety assessment provides engine response to failures, and rates of these failures that can be used at the aircraft safety assessment level.

The special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to Safran ENGINe US100 series electric engines. Should Safran apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model on the same type certificate incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

This action affects only Safran Model ENGINe US100 series electric engines. It is not a rule of general applicability.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Safran ENGINe US100 series electric engines. The applicant must also comply with the certification procedures set forth in part 21.

(a) Unless otherwise noted in these special conditions, the engine design must comply with the airworthiness standards for aircraft engines set forth in part 33, except for those airworthiness standards that are specifically and explicitly applicable only to reciprocating and turbine aircraft engines or as specified herein.

(b) The applicant must comply with this part using a means of compliance, which may include consensus standards, accepted by the Administrator.

(c) The applicant requesting acceptance of a means of compliance must provide the means of compliance to the FAA in a form and manner acceptable to the Administrator.

In addition to § 33.7(a), the engine ratings and operating limits must be established and included in the type certificate data sheet based on:

(a) Shaft power, torque, rotational speed, and temperature for:

(1) Rated takeoff power;

(2) Rated maximum continuous power; and

(3) Rated maximum temporary power and associated time limit.

(b) Duty cycle and the rating at that duty cycle. The duty cycle must be declared in the engine type certificate data sheet.

(c) Cooling fluid grade or specification.

(d) Power-supply requirements.

(e) Any other ratings or limitations that are necessary for the safe operation of the engine.

The engine design must comply with § 33.15.

The engine design must comply with § 33.17(b) through (g). In addition—

(a) The design and construction of the engine and the materials used must minimize the probability of the occurrence and spread of fire during normal operation and failure conditions and must minimize the effect of such a fire.

(b) High-voltage electrical wiring interconnect systems must be protected against arc faults that can lead to hazardous engine effects as defined in special condition no. 17(d)(2) of these special conditions. Any non-protected electrical wiring interconnects must be analyzed to show that arc faults do not cause a hazardous engine effect.

The engine design and construction must minimize the development of an unsafe condition of the engine between maintenance intervals, overhaul periods, or mandatory actions described in the applicable ICA.

The engine design and construction must comply with § 33.21. In addition, if cooling is required to satisfy the safety analysis as described in special condition no. 17 of these special conditions, the cooling system monitoring features and usage must be documented and provided to the installer as part of the requirements in § 33.5.

The engine mounting attachments and related engine structures must comply with § 33.23.

The engine must comply with § 33.25.

(a) A rotor overspeed must not result in a burst, rotor growth, or damage that results in a hazardous engine effect, as defined in special condition no. 17(d)(2) of these special conditions. Compliance with this paragraph must be shown by test, validated analysis, or a combination of both. Applicable assumed rotor speeds must be declared and justified.

(b) Rotors must possess sufficient strength with a margin to burst above certified operating conditions and above failure conditions leading to rotor overspeed. The margin to burst must be shown by test, validated analysis, or a combination thereof.

(c) The engine must not exceed the rotor speed operational limitations that could affect rotor structural integrity.

(a) Applicability. The requirements of this special condition apply to any system or device that is part of the engine type design that controls, limits, monitors, or protects engine operation, and is necessary for the continued airworthiness of the engine.

(b) Engine control. The engine control system must ensure that the engine does not experience any unacceptable operating characteristics or exceed its operating limits, including in failure conditions where the fault or failure results in a change from one control mode to another, from one channel to another, or from the primary system to the back-up system, if applicable.

(c) Design Assurance. The software and complex electronic hardware, including programmable logic devices, must be—

(1) Designed and developed using a structured and systematic approach that provides a level of assurance for the logic commensurate with the hazard associated with the failure or malfunction of the systems in which the devices are located; and

(2) Substantiated by a verification methodology acceptable to the Administrator.

(d) Validation. All functional aspects of the control system must be substantiated by test, analysis, or a combination thereof, to show that the engine control system performs the intended functions throughout the declared operational envelope.

(e) Environmental Limits. Environmental limits that cannot be adequately substantiated by endurance demonstration, validated analysis, or a combination thereof must be demonstrated by the system and component tests in special condition no. 27 of these special conditions.

(f) Engine control system failures. The engine control system must—

(1) Have a maximum rate of loss of power control (LOPC) that is suitable for the intended aircraft application. The estimated LOPC rate must be documented and provided to the installer as part of the requirements in § 33.5;

(2) When in the full-up configuration, be single-fault tolerant, as determined by the Administrator, for electrical, electrically detectable, and electronic failures involving LOPC events;

(3) Not have any single failure that results in hazardous engine effects as defined in special condition no. 17(d)(2) of these special conditions; and

(4) Ensure failures or malfunctions that lead to local events in the aircraft do not result in hazardous engine effects, as defined in special condition no. 17(d)(2) of these special conditions, due to engine control system failures or malfunctions.

(g) System safety assessment. The applicant must perform a system safety assessment. This assessment must identify faults or failures that affect normal operation, together with the predicted frequency of occurrence of these faults or failures. The intended aircraft application must be taken into account to assure that the assessment of the engine control system's safety is valid. The rates of hazardous and major faults must be documented and provided to the installer as part of the requirements in § 33.5.

(h) Protection systems. The engine control devices and systems' design and function, together with engine instruments, operating instructions, and maintenance instructions, must ensure that engine operating limits that can lead to a hazard will not be exceeded in service.

(i) Aircraft supplied data. Any single failure leading to loss, interruption, or corruption of aircraft-supplied data (other than power-command signals from the aircraft), or aircraft-supplied data shared between engine systems within a single engine or between fully independent engine systems, must—

(1) Not result in a hazardous engine effect, as defined in special condition no. 17(d)(2) of these special conditions, for any engine installed on the aircraft; and

(2) Be able to be detected and accommodated by the control system.

(j) Engine control system electrical power.

(1) The engine control system must be designed such that the loss, malfunction, or interruption of the control system electrical power source will not result in a hazardous engine effect, unacceptable transmission of erroneous data, or continued engine operation in the absence of the control function. Hazardous engine effects are defined in special condition no. 17(d)(2) of these special conditions. The engine control system must be capable of resuming normal operation when aircraft-supplied power returns to within the declared limits.

(2) The applicant must identify, document, and provide to the installer as part of the requirements in § 33.5, the characteristics of any electrical power supplied from the aircraft to the engine control system, including transient and steady-state voltage limits, and any other characteristics necessary for safe operation of the engine.

The applicant must comply with § 33.29(a), (e), and (g).

(a) In addition, as part of the system safety assessment of special condition nos. 10(g) and 33(h) of these special conditions, the applicant must assess the possibility and subsequent effect of incorrect fit of instruments, sensors, or connectors. Where practicable, the applicant must take design precautions to prevent incorrect configuration of the system.

(b) The applicant must provide instrumentation enabling the flight crew to monitor the functioning of the engine cooling system unless evidence shows that:

(1) Other existing instrumentation provides adequate warning of failure or impending failure;

(2) Failure of the cooling system would not lead to hazardous engine effects before detection; or

(3) The probability of failure of the cooling system is extremely remote.

(a) A mechanical and thermal stress analysis, as well as an analysis of the stress caused by electromagnetic forces, must show a sufficient design margin to prevent unacceptable operating characteristics and hazardous engine effects as defined in special condition no. 17(d)(2) of these special conditions.

(b) Maximum stresses in the engine must be determined by test, validated analysis, or a combination thereof, and must be shown not to exceed minimum material properties.

(a) The applicant must show, by a safety analysis or means acceptable to the Administrator, whether rotating or moving components, bearings, shafts, static parts, and non-redundant mount components should be classified, designed, manufactured, and managed throughout their service life as critical or life-limited parts.

(1) Critical part means a part that must meet prescribed integrity specifications to avoid its primary failure, which is likely to result in a hazardous engine effect as defined in special condition no. 17(d)(2) of these special conditions.

(2) Life-limited parts may include but are not limited to a rotor or major structural static part, the failure of which can result in a hazardous engine effect, as defined in special condition no. 17(d)(2) of these special conditions, due to a low-cycle fatigue (LCF) mechanism. A life limit is an operational limitation that specifies the maximum allowable number of flight cycles that a part can endure before the applicant must remove it from the engine.

(b) In establishing the integrity of each critical part or life-limited part, the applicant must provide to the Administrator the following three plans for approval:

(1) an engineering plan, as defined in § 33.70(a);

(2) a manufacturing plan, as defined in § 33.70(b); and

(3) a service-management plan, as defined in § 33.70(c).

(a) The lubrication system must be designed and constructed to function properly between scheduled maintenance intervals in all flight attitudes and atmospheric conditions in which the engine is expected to operate.

(b) The lubrication system must be designed to prevent contamination of the engine bearings and lubrication system components.

(c) The applicant must demonstrate by test, validated analysis, or a combination thereof, the unique lubrication attributes and functional capability of (a) and (b).

(a) The design and construction of the engine, including its control system, must enable an increase—

(1) From the minimum power setting to the highest rated power without detrimental engine effects;

(2) From the minimum obtainable power while in-flight and while on the ground to the highest rated power within a time interval determined to be appropriate for the intended aircraft application; and

(3) From the minimum torque to the highest rated torque without detrimental engine effects in the intended aircraft application.

(b) The results of (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3) of this special condition must be documented and provided to the installer as part of the requirements in § 33.5.

If the design allows any of the engine main rotating systems to continue to rotate after the engine is shut down while in-flight, this continued rotation must not result in any hazardous engine effects, as defined in special condition no. 17(d)(2) of these special conditions.

(a) The applicant must comply with § 33.75(a)(1) and (a)(2) using the failure definitions in special condition no. 17(d) of these special conditions.

(b) The primary failure of certain single elements cannot be sensibly estimated in numerical terms. If the failure of such elements is likely to result in hazardous engine effects, then compliance may be shown by reliance on the prescribed integrity requirements of § 33.15 and special condition nos. 9 and 13 of these special conditions, as applicable. These instances must be stated in the safety analysis.

(c) The applicant must comply with § 33.75(d) and (e) using the failure definitions in special condition no. 17(d) of these special conditions, and the ICA in § 33.4.

(d) Unless otherwise approved by the Administrator, the following definitions apply to the engine effects when showing compliance with this condition:

(1) A minor engine effect does not prohibit the engine from performing its intended functions in a manner consistent with § 33.28(b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(iii), and (b)(1)(iv), and the engine complies with the operability requirements of special condition no. 15 and special condition no. 25 of these special conditions, as appropriate.

(2) The engine effects in § 33.75(g)(2) are hazardous engine effects with the addition of:

(i) Electrocution of the crew, passengers, operators, maintainers, or others; and

(ii) Blockage of cooling systems that could cause the engine effects described in § 33.75(g)(2) and special condition 17(d)(2)(i) of these special conditions.

(3) Any other engine effect is a major engine effect.

(e) The intended aircraft application must be taken into account when performing the safety analysis.

(f) The results of the safety analysis, and the assumptions about the aircraft application used in the safety analysis, must be documented and provided to the installer as part of the requirements in § 33.5.

(a) Rain, ice, and hail ingestion must not result in an abnormal operation such as shutdown, power loss, erratic operation, or power oscillations throughout the engine operating range.

(b) Ingestion from other likely sources (birds, induction system ice, foreign objects—ice slabs) must not result in hazardous engine effects defined by special condition no. 17(d)(2) of these special conditions, or unacceptable power loss.

(c) If the design of the engine relies on features, attachments, or systems that the installer may supply, for the prevention of unacceptable power loss or hazardous engine effects, as defined in special condition no. 17(d)(2) of these special conditions, following potential ingestion, then the features, attachments, or systems must be documented and provided to the installer as part of the requirements in § 33.5.

(a) Each system used for lubrication or cooling of engine components must be designed and constructed to function properly in all flight attitudes and atmospheric conditions in which the engine is expected to operate.

(b) If a system used for lubrication or cooling of engine components is not self-contained, the interfaces to that system must be defined, documented, and provided to the installer as part of the requirements in § 33.5.

(c) The applicant must establish by test, validated analysis, or a combination of both that all static parts subject to significant pressure loads will not:

(1) Exhibit permanent distortion beyond serviceable limits, or exhibit leakage that could create a hazardous condition when subjected to normal and maximum working pressure with margin;

(2) Exhibit fracture or burst when subjected to the greater of maximum possible pressures with margin.

(d) Compliance with special condition no. 19(c) of these special conditions must take into account:

(1) The operating temperature of the part;

(2) Any other significant static loads in addition to pressure loads;

(3) Minimum properties representative of both the material and the processes used in the construction of the part; and

(4) Any adverse physical geometry conditions allowed by the type design, such as minimum material and minimum radii.

(e) Approved coolants and lubricants must be documented and provided to the installer as part of the requirements in § 33.5.

(a) The engine must be designed and constructed to function throughout its normal operating range of rotor speeds and engine output power, including defined exceedances, without inducing excessive stress in any of the engine parts because of vibration and without imparting excessive vibration forces to the aircraft structure.

(b) Each engine design must undergo a vibration survey to establish that the vibration characteristics of those components subject to induced vibration are acceptable throughout the declared flight envelope and engine operating range for the specific installation configuration. The possible sources of the induced vibration that the survey must assess are mechanical, aerodynamic, acoustical, internally induced electromagnetic, installation induced effects that can affect the engine vibration characteristics, and likely environmental effects. This survey must be shown by test, validated analysis, or a combination thereof.

When approval is sought for a transient maximum engine overtorque, the applicant must demonstrate by test, validated analysis, or a combination thereof, that the engine can continue operation after operating at the maximum engine overtorque condition without maintenance action. Upon conclusion of overtorque tests conducted to show compliance with this special condition, or any other tests that are conducted in combination with the overtorque test, each engine part or individual groups of components must meet the requirements of special condition no. 29 of these special conditions.

Each engine must be subjected to calibration tests to establish its power characteristics, and the conditions both before and after the endurance and durability demonstrations specified in special conditions nos. 23 and 26 of these special conditions.

The applicant must subject the engine to an endurance demonstration, acceptable to the Administrator, to demonstrate the engine's limit capabilities. The endurance demonstration must include increases and decreases of the engine's power settings, energy regeneration, and dwellings at the power settings and energy regeneration for sufficient durations that produce the extreme physical conditions the engine experiences at rated performance levels, operational limits, and at any other conditions or power settings, including energy regeneration, which are required to verify the limit capabilities of the engine.

The engine design must demonstrate its capability to endure operation at its temperature limits plus an acceptable margin. The applicant must quantify and justify the margin to the Administrator. The demonstration must be repeated for all declared duty cycles and ratings, and operating environments, which would impact temperature limits.

The engine design must demonstrate safe operating characteristics, including but not limited to power cycling, starting, acceleration, and overspeeding throughout its declared flight envelope and operating range. The declared engine operational characteristics must account for installation loads and effects.

The engine must be subjected to a durability demonstration to show that each part of the engine has been designed and constructed to minimize any unsafe condition of the system between overhaul periods, or between engine replacement intervals if the overhaul is not defined. This test must simulate the conditions in which the engine is expected to operate in service, including typical start-stop cycles, to establish when the initial maintenance is required.

The applicant must show that systems and components that cannot be adequately substantiated in accordance with the endurance demonstration or other demonstrations will perform their intended functions in all declared environmental and operating conditions.

If shaft rotation is prevented by locking the rotor(s), the engine must demonstrate:

(a) Reliable rotor locking performance;

(b) Reliable rotor unlocking performance; and

(c) That no hazardous engine effects, as specified in special condition no. 17(d)(2) of these special conditions, will occur.

(a) Teardown evaluation.

(1) After the endurance and durability demonstrations have been completed, the engine must be completely disassembled. Each engine component and lubricant must be eligible for continued operation in accordance with the information submitted for showing compliance with § 33.4.

(2) Each engine component, having an adjustment setting and a functioning characteristic that can be established independent of installation on or in the engine, must retain each setting and functioning characteristic within the established and recorded limits at the beginning of the endurance and durability demonstrations.

(b) Non-Teardown evaluation. If a teardown cannot be performed for all engine components in a non-destructive manner, then the inspection or replacement intervals for these components and lubricants must be established based on the endurance and durability demonstrations and must be documented in the ICA in accordance with § 33.4.

The engine must be designed and constructed to protect against likely hazards from rotating components as follows—

(a) The design of the stator case surrounding rotating components must provide for the containment of the rotating components in the event of failure, unless the applicant shows that the margin to rotor burst precludes the possibility of a rotor burst.

(b) If the margin to burst shows that the stator case must have containment features in the event of failure, then the stator case must provide for the containment of the failed rotating components. The applicant must define by test, validated analysis, or a combination thereof, and document and provide to the installer as part of the requirements in § 33.5, the energy level, trajectory, and size of fragments released from damage caused by the main-rotor failure, and that pass forward or aft of the surrounding stator case.

(a) Maintenance of the engine may be made during the tests in accordance with the service and maintenance instructions submitted in compliance with § 33.4.

(b) The applicant must subject the engine or its parts to any additional tests that the Administrator finds necessary if—

(1) The frequency of engine service is excessive;

(2) The number of stops due to engine malfunction is excessive;

(3) Major engine repairs are needed; or

(4) Replacement of an engine part is found necessary during the tests, or due to the teardown inspection findings.

(c) Upon completion of all demonstrations and testing specified in these special conditions, the engine and its components must be—

(1) Within serviceable limits;

(2) Safe for continued operation; and

(3) Capable of operating at declared ratings while remaining within limits.

(a) Applicability. Any system or device that provides, uses, conditions, or distributes electrical power, and is part of the engine type design, must provide for the continued airworthiness of the engine, and must maintain electric engine ratings.

(b) Electrical systems. The electrical system must ensure the safe generation and transmission of power, and electrical load shedding if load shedding is required, and that the engine does not experience any unacceptable operating characteristics or exceed its operating limits.

(c) Electrical power distribution.

(1) The engine electrical power distribution system must be designed to provide the safe transfer of electrical energy throughout the powerplant. The system must be designed to provide electrical power so that the loss, malfunction, or interruption of the electrical power source will not result in a hazardous engine effect, as defined in special condition no. 17(d)(2) of these special conditions.

(2) The system must be designed and maintained to withstand normal and abnormal conditions during all ground and flight operations.

(3) The system must provide mechanical or automatic means of isolating a faulted electrical energy generation or storage device from leading to hazardous engine effects, as defined in special condition no. 17(d)(2) of these special conditions, or detrimental effects in the intended aircraft application.

(d) Protection systems. The engine electrical system must be designed such that the loss, malfunction, interruption of the electrical power source, or power conditions that exceed design limits, will not result in a hazardous engine effect, as defined in special condition no. 17(d)(2) of these special conditions.

(e) Electrical power characteristics. The applicant must identify, declare, document, and provide to the installer as part of the requirements in § 33.5, the characteristics of any electrical power supplied from—

(1) the aircraft to the engine electrical system, for starting and operating the engine, including transient and steady-state voltage limits, and

(2) the engine to the aircraft via energy regeneration, and any other characteristics necessary for safe operation of the engine.

(f) Environmental limits. Environmental limits that cannot adequately be substantiated by endurance demonstration, validated analysis, or a combination thereof must be demonstrated by the system and component tests in special condition no. 27 of these special conditions.

(g) Electrical system failures. The engine electrical system must—

(1) Have a maximum rate of LOPC that is suitable for the intended aircraft application;

(2) When in the full-up configuration, be single-fault tolerant, as determined by the Administrator, for electrical, electrically detectable, and electronic failures involving LOPC events;

(3) Not have any single failure that results in hazardous engine effects; and

(4) Ensure failures or malfunctions that lead to local events in the intended aircraft application do not result in hazardous engine effects, as defined in special condition no. 17(d)(2) of these special conditions, due to electrical system failures or malfunctions.

(h) System safety assessment. The applicant must perform a system safety assessment. This assessment must identify faults or failures that affect normal operation, together with the predicted frequency of occurrence of these faults or failures. The intended aircraft application must be taken into account to assure the assessment of the engine system safety is valid. The rates of hazardous and major faults must be declared, documented, and provided to the installer as part of the requirements in § 33.5.

The direct final rule published at 90 FR 54573 included a 30-day public comment period that ended on December 29, 2025. The effective date of the direct final rule was January 27, 2026.

As explained in the direct final rule, the inoperative regulation intended to be removed in this rulemaking was, after a series of rule promulgations and lawsuits, suspended in 1992. 30 CFR 816.101 has not had any legal effect since 1992 but remained in the Code of Federal Regulations because OSM never completed the necessary steps to remove the language.

The Department and OSM maintain the position that it is confusing to allow inoperative provisions to remain in the Federal regulations. However, at the close of the comment period, OSM received several comments on the direct final rule that may be considered significant adverse comments. OSM has determined that the effective date of the direct final rule should be delayed by 60 days to allow it additional time to review and consider whether one or more of the comments received on the direct final rule are significant adverse comments warranting a response, withdrawal, or modification of the final rule.

The direct final rule published at 90 FR 54575 will become effective on January 27, 2026. OSM received one substantive comment on the direct final rule during the comment period, but that comment was not a significant adverse comment and does not warrant withdrawal or the issuance of a new final rule because the commenter misunderstands the effect of the rule and OSM's rationale for pursuing this revision through a direct final rule.

The commenter first argues that the removal of 30 CFR 816.46(b)(2) and 817.46(b)(2) are not appropriate through a direct final rule because the provisions relate to the prevention of damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area and that any OSM rule related to water quality is controversial due to concerns about water quality degradation from coal mines. However, this comment misunderstands the reason OSM is removing these provisions. Despite defending these provisions in court, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia remanded these provisions to OSM on July 15, 1985, because the court found OSM's rationale for these provisions flawed, and OSM later suspended them. These provisions have been suspended for forty years and removing them from the Code of Federal Regulations now will have no effect on whether or not siltation structures are required on surface coal mining and reclamation operations because these provisions are not enforceable and have no legal effect.

The commenter noted that the court in the In Re Permanent Surface Mining Regulation Litigation case did not determine that the Secretary lacked authority to determine what technology or technologies constituted the best technology currently available and argue that, because OSM does not lack authority to determine what technology constituted the best technology currently available, OSM should not remove the inoperative language without conducting notice and comment rulemaking. While it is true that OSM is not prohibited from conducting a rulemaking on this topic, the language to be removed in this direct final rule has been inoperative for 40 years. With this direct final rule, OSM is not proposing a change to the regulations in effect, it is merely removing language that has no application and could be confusing to someone without deep familiarity with the history of the SMCRA implementing regulations and esoteric procedures related to the Code of Federal Regulations. Removing inoperative language will not impact the current requirements of SMCRA, the Federal regulations, or impact water quality on or near surface coal mines.

Finally, the commenter alleged that removal of language vacated by a court through a direct final rule is not appropriate because it does not make notice and comment under 5 U.S.C. 553 “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” OSM disagrees. Certainly, if OSM were to propose new language to address the court's concerns, notice and comment rulemaking would be necessary. However, here, the provision cannot be enforced, has been suspended for forty years, and is merely being removed to avoid confusion. To invite comment on the deletion of language invalidated by a court forty years ago would be a waste of the public's time.

After considering this comment, OSM has determined that it is not a significant adverse comment and does not warrant delaying the effective date of this final rule.

The direct final rule published at 90 FR 54577 will become effective on January 27, 2026.

Over 25 years ago, the provisions identified in the direct final rule were struck down on judicial review because the court found that OSM failed to provide adequate support to justify its presumption that damage was the result of mining within the angle of draw. Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. Babbitt, 172 F.3d 906, 912 (1999). In response to the court's holding, OSMRE suspended these provisions on December 22, 1999, but did not remove the language from the Code of Federal Regulations. 64 FR 71652, 71653 (Dec. 22, 1999). As noted in the November 28, 2025, direct final rule and request for comments, OSMRE determined that the suspension should be lifted and paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (c)(4)(iv) of 30 CFR 817.121 should be rescinded because they were vacated by court order in 1999 and it is confusing to allow these inoperative provisions to remain in the Federal regulations.

At the close of the comment period, OSM received one comment on this rule expressing opposition to the elimination of the suspended language without notice and comment rulemaking. The commenter argued that deleting the language creating a rebuttable presumption of causation for damage to any non-commercial building or occupied dwelling or structure would be controversial because the result would be to add to the evidentiary burden of a citizen seeking redress for damage occurring near an underground coal mine. But this argument is flawed and relies on a misunderstanding of the facts. Despite defending this provision in court, a judge found that OSM failed to provide adequate support to justify its presumption that damage was the result of mining within the angle of draw and remanded this provision to OSM. OSM then suspended this provision on December 22, 1999. This provision has been suspended for more than 25 years and removing it from the Code of Federal Regulations now would have no effect on the evidentiary burden of a citizen seeking redress for damage occurring near an underground coal mine because the provision is not enforceable and has no legal effect.

The commenter next alleged that because OSM has the authority to create a rebuttable presumption of causation, that OSM should not be allowed to remove the inoperative language without conducting notice and comment rulemaking. While it is true that OSM could conduct a new rulemaking on this topic, the language to be removed in this direct final rule is inoperative and has been so for more than 25 years. With this direct final rule, OSM is not proposing a change to the regulations in effect or foreclosing a rulemaking on this topic in the future, but is merely removing language that has no application and could be confusing to someone without deep familiarity with the history of the SMCRA implementing regulations and esoteric procedures related to the Code of Federal Regulations. Removing inoperative language will not have any impact on the current requirements of SMCRA, the Federal regulations, or on the evidentiary burden of a citizen seeking redress for damages occurring near an underground coal mine.

Finally, the commenter alleged that removal of language vacated by a court through a direct final rule is not appropriate because it does not make notice and comment under 5 U.S.C. 553 “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” OSM disagrees. Certainly, if OSM were to propose new language to address the court's concerns, notice and comment rulemaking would be necessary. However, here, the provision cannot be enforced, has been suspended for more than 25 years, and is merely being removed to avoid confusion. To invite comment on the deletion of language invalidated by a judge more than 25 years ago would be a waste of the public's time.

After careful consideration of this comment, OSM has determined it is not a significant adverse comment and does not warrant delaying the effective date of this final rule.

The direct final rule published at 90 FR 54582 included a 30-day public comment period that ended on December 29, 2025. The effective date of the direct final rule was January 27, 2026.

As explained in the direct final rule, the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 874.11 clarify that States and Tribes must comply with 30 CFR part 874 when funding reclamation projects with prior balance replacement funds, which are moneys from the United States Treasury's General Fund that replaced State or Tribal share funds that were allocated before October 1, 2007, but never appropriated by Congress. As amended in 2006, section 411(h)(1) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 required OSM to distribute prior balance replacement funds to eligible States and Tribes for 7 years, beginning October 1, 2008. As the distribution of prior balance replacement funds is complete, the Department of the Interior (Department) and OSM concluded that existing 30 CFR 874.11(b) should be rescinded because it is obsolete.

The Department and OSM maintain this position. However, at the close of the comment period for the direct final rule, OSM received several comments that may be significant adverse comments. OSM has determined that the effective date of the direct final rule should be delayed by 60 days to allow it additional time to review and consider whether one or more of the comments received on the direct final rule are significant adverse comments warranting a response, withdrawal, or modification of the final rule. OSM recognizes that other direct final rules published on November 24 and 28, 2025, may also be impacted by these comments. During its review, OSM will consider what impact, if any, these comments have on those direct final rules and take appropriate action, as necessary.

Consistent with E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation (90 FR 9065, Feb. 6, 2025), and E.O. 14219, Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's “Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative (90 FR 10583, Feb. 25, 2025), FRA is reviewing its regulatory requirements in parts 200 through 299 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). This final rule is based on FRA's review of the Reflectorization Standards in part 224. This rule is expected to enhance safety, promote innovation, reduce unnecessary costs, and clarify existing requirements.

This rule also responds to the mandate of section 22411 of IIJA (Pub. L. 117-58), codified at 49 U.S.C. 20103(d)(4), which requires the Secretary to review and analyze existing waivers issued under 49 U.S.C. 20103 that have been in continuous effect for a 6-year period to determine whether issuing a rule implementing the waiver provisions is in the public interest and consistent with railroad safety. After conducting the appropriate analysis, if the Secretary concludes that it would be in the public interest and consistent with railroad safety to initiate a rulemaking to incorporate into the regulations the relevant aspects of the waivers analyzed, section 22411 specifically authorizes the Secretary to initiate such a rulemaking.

Part 224, Reflectorization of Rail Freight Rolling Stock (Reflectorization Standards or Part 224) contains minimum safety requirements to help motor vehicle operators see rail freight rolling stock at night and under conditions of poor visibility. Part 224 was designed to reduce the number and severity of highway-rail grade crossing accidents and deaths, injuries, and property damage resulting from those accidents. Generally, FRA has provided two types of relief, in the form of waivers, from part 224's requirements: (1) relief to THEERP operations;  1 and (2) relief to allow the use of a performance-based method (comparator panels) to determine when to replace reflectorization sheeting. 2

On July 21, 2022, FRA issued an NPRM proposing to codify those waivers. 3 As explained in the NPRM, FRA proposed to codify the waivers for two reasons, First, freight rolling stock used exclusively for THEERP purposes do not typically travel over low visibility highway-rail grade crossings at nighttime. Second, allowing for performance-based methods of reflectorization evaluation and replacement is a more reliable and accurate way to evaluate the effectiveness of the retroreflectivity of the required sheeting than part 224's current 10-year default replacement cycle. Codifying these waivers is expected to enhance safety ( i.e., by ensuring retroreflective sheeting is replaced when it is no longer effective), promote innovation, and reduce unnecessary paperwork burdens for both industry and FRA by eliminating the need to continue to use the waiver process for relief. Codifying these waivers will also provide the railroad industry with regulatory certainty as to the applicability of part 224 to equipment used for THEERP purposes.

In addition, FRA proposed to remove § 224.107, which has become outdated. Section 224.107 requires the locomotive fleet population to be fully equipped with part 224 compliant retroreflective sheeting by November 28, 2010, and the freight car fleet to be compliant by November 28, 2015. 4 FRA proposed to remove this section because the implementation dates have passed and are no longer necessary to have in the regulation.

Two comments to the NPRM were submitted by AAR and the Railway Supply Institute (RSI). 5 As discussed in more detail below, the comments generally supported the proposal in the NPRM with some suggested revisions. In addition, in response to DOT's April 3, 2025 request for information (RFI) related to reducing regulatory burdens, 6 AAR commented that FRA should finalize the NPRM and reiterated the revisions AAR requested in their comment to the NPRM. 7

FRA reviewed the comments, and in response as described in more detail below, has clarified the inspection process for properly trained and experienced inspectors and to allow additional flexibility to conduct inspections in limited space. No other changes to the proposed rule text are provided in this final rule.

This final rule is effective immediately, consistent with 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), as it is “a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction.”

This rule eliminates the need for railroads to submit waiver petitions (and repeated extensions of those waivers approximately every 5 years) from part 224 for certain older railroad equipment used in THEERP operations and eliminates the Federal Government's need to review and approve the waiver petitions and extension requests. In addition, the rule allows railroads and private car owners to replace retroreflective sheeting based on performance, instead of time, thus increasing efficient use of resources and reducing environmental waste from discarding retroreflective sheeting prior to the end of its useful life. FRA estimates there will be minor costs for purchasing and recalibration of the comparator panels used to evaluate retroreflective sheeting, and training employees in their use (about 0.2 percent of total final rule costs).

FRA expects the rule to enhance safety, promote innovation, clarify existing requirements, and reduce unnecessary burdens. Entities that have been operating under these waivers have not shown an increase in accidents/incidents. Also, retroreflective sheeting that is performing poorly will likely be replaced sooner under this rule's amendments than under the existing 10-year replacement cycle, better ensuring continued effectiveness of the sheeting. Overall, FRA estimates the rule will result in net benefits. FRA's estimates of benefits for the final rule are shown in the table below.