Section 10311 of OBBBA (Pub. L. 119-21) increases the EAATM payment rate to five cents per pound beginning on August 1, 2025. Accordingly, AMS is revising 7 CFR 870.9(a) to reflect this change.

Section 1207(c) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-234) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to provide economic adjustment assistance to domestic users of upland cotton. The EAATM program was initially authorized with a payment rate of four cents per pound, which was reduced effective August 1, 2013, to three cents per pound. EAATM was further authorized in the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-79), and the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-334) changed the name of the program to “The Economic Adjustment Assistance for Textile Mills” or “EAATM”. No payment rate changes have been enacted until passage of the OBBBA.

The Commodity Credit Corporation is authorized to make EAATM payments to eligible participants. Eligible participants are domestic users who are regularly engaged in the business of opening bales of eligible upland cotton for the purpose of spinning such cotton into yarn, papermaking, or production of non-woven cotton products.

The EAATM program is authorized under title I of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (7 U.S.C. 9037(c)). As such, regulations for EAATM are without regard to the notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act at 5 U.S.C. 553 (see 7 U.S.C. 9091(c)(2)(A)). Further, AMS finds there is good cause for making this final rule effective immediately. Under the OBBBA, the payment rate change was effective August 1, 2025; this final rule merely updates the text of the implementing regulation to align with the statute.

The EAATM program is exempt from the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act at 44 U.S.C. chapter 35 (see 7 U.S.C. 9091(c)(2)(B)).

Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), AMS considered the economic impact of the action on small entities, and, accordingly, prepared this Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA). AMS concluded this rule will not have a significant impact on small entities, and to the extent it may create a burden, the program is voluntary, and the impacts are economically advantageous.

The purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility Act is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions so that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. AMS certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact or burden on small textile mill entities. In making this determination, AMS considered the current and possible participant base of the EAATM program and the nature of this action. The EAATM program is authorized by various “Farm Bills:” first in 2008 (Food, Conservation, and Energy Act (Pub. L. 110-246)) and reauthorized in 2014 (Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-79)); in 2018 (Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-334)); and again in 2025 (One Big Beautiful Bill Act (Pub. L. 119-21)). This program is funded through the Commodity Credit Corporation with administrative oversight and operational authority delegated to the Agricultural Marketing Service.

In conducting its analysis, AMS used the Small Business Administration's (SBA) definition of “small business” applicable to textile mills, found at 13 CFR 121.201. The affected industry falls under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) as Subsector 313, with most current participants classified as code 313110—Textile Mills, Fiber, Yarn, and Thread Mills. This classification includes firms that process raw cotton into cotton products. SBA determines firm size for this industry by number of employees, but on a per firm basis, with “small firms” defined as having fewer than 1,500 employees. The EAATM program has fewer than 30 participants, and AMS does not anticipate any surge in participation due to this action. Current participants of the EAATM program are required to be registered with the System for Awards Management, however none of the current participants appear to have the small business registration denoted on the entity profile. EAATM participants do not disclose the number of employees in the agreements or applications submitted to CCC but based on familiarity with the industry and information from SBA's Dynamic Small Business Search Database, AMS estimates that 21 out of the 23 current participants can be considered “small entities.”

In analyzing the current economic impact on small entities, AMS could only deduce positive economic impact based on rate of eligible consumption. That is, this program does not impose new regulations on textile mills; rather, it is designed to provide them with economic assistance. Small textile mill participants in the EAATM program will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Textile mills of all sizes benefit proportionately from the program, as it provides a payment per pound of cotton consumed to encourage domestic consumption of cotton. This action merely increases the payment rate from $0.03 to $0.05 per pound of eligible consumption and does not impose any new requirements.

The definition of an eligible participant in reference to the EAATM program is someone regularly engaged in opening bales of eligible upland cotton for the purposes of spinning cotton into yarn, paper making, or production of non-woven cotton products in the United States, and who has entered into an agreement with the CCC to participate in the upland cotton user program. Participants may be public or private nonprofit entities. All entities that meet the program's definition of “eligible domestic user” and submit a monthly application indicating consumed bales of upland cotton, regardless of size, can voluntarily participate and benefit from the EAATM program. The application asks only for information that is part of normal business records. Program provisions are administered without regard for business size. The information collection burden for eligible participants is minimal as they must only complete the domestic user agreement with the textile mill's monthly consumption report. The voluntary nature of the program allows any eligible participant to stop participating if they find program participation causes an undue or disproportionate burden.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this rule as not significant under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” Therefore, OMB has not reviewed this rule.

This final rule was reviewed under Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform.” This rule will not preempt State or local laws, regulations, or policies unless they represent an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. The final rule is not intended to have retroactive effect. Before any judicial actions may be brought regarding the provisions of this rule, administrative appeal provisions of 7 CFR parts 11 and 780 must be exhausted.

This final rule was reviewed under Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” which requires agencies to consider whether their rulemaking actions have Tribal implications. AMS has determined that this final rule is unlikely to have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

USDA is committed to complying with the E-Government Act (44 U.S.C. 3601 et seq. ) by promoting the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, AMS amends 7 CFR part 870 as follows:

Comments Invited

The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments using a method listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include Docket No. FAA-2026-1332 and Project Identifier AD-2026-00084-T at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

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

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Derrick Herrera, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 817-222-5140; email: derrick.r.herrera@faa.gov . Any commentary that the FAA receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA has received two reports of in-flight events of excessive cabin and flight deck temperatures that could not be controlled by the flightcrew using existing procedures. An investigation found these events resulted from the BAT BUS SECT 2 circuit breaker (CB3062) on the SPCU tripping. The SPCU gives automatic and manual control of the battery and standby buses. The BAT BUS SECT 2 provides power to air conditioning and cabin pressure functions, including the left and right pack flow control valve solenoids (On/Off), left and right pack overheat protection circuits, zone supply duct overheat protection circuits, and cabin pressure manual mode control. The BAT BUS SECT 2 circuit breaker trip causes an unintended erroneous electrical ground signal to the smart ram air door actuators (SRADAs), which in turn causes both ram air deflector doors to extend (close), thus reducing cooling airflow to the air conditioning heat exchangers. The reduced airflow causes insufficient cooling of the hot bleed air, which causes both packs to supply excessively hot air to the cabin and flight deck. This air conditioning system malfunction could cause an uncontrollable, excessively high temperature in the cabin and flight deck. This condition, if not addressed, could lead to injury or incapacitation of flightcrew and passengers, which could result in the inability to maintain safe flight and landing. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

This AD provides flightcrew procedures for a controlled descent, an attempt to reset the tripped BAT BUS SECT 2 circuit breaker and, if that attempt is unsuccessful, selecting engine bleed switches OFF. This AD includes three AFM procedures, one of which is revised (Cabin Temperature Hot procedure) as shown in Appendix 1 of this AD, another of which is new (Cabin Temperature Hot BAT BUS Sect 2 Circuit Breaker Trips procedure) as shown in Appendix 2 of this AD, and the other procedure currently exists in the quick reference handbook (QRH) but not in the existing AFM (PACK procedure) as shown in Appendix 3.

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

This AD requires revising the Operating Procedures section of the existing AFM to provide the flightcrew with non-normal checklists if the BAT BUS SECT 2 circuit breaker in the SPCU trips.

The FAA considers this AD to be an interim action. An assessment of the SPCU found that two environmental control system (ECS) circuit breakers (C262 and C263) downstream of the SPCU may also trip. The FAA is considering further rulemaking to provide flightcrew procedures for addressing tripped ECS circuit breakers. Additionally, the manufacturer is currently developing a modification to address the unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once this modification is developed, FAA-approved, and available, the FAA might consider additional rulemaking.

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

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies forgoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because a tripped BAT BUS SECT 2 circuit breaker, and resulting effects on the cabin environment that cannot be controlled via normal procedures, could lead to injury or incapacitation of flightcrew and passengers, which could result in the inability to maintain safe flight and landing. Additionally, the compliance time in this AD is shorter than the time necessary for the public to comment and for publication of the final rule. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

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

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 771 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

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

Comments Invited

The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments using a method listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2026-1334; Project Identifier AD-2025-01336-E” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

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

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Itanza Young, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA received a report of a quality escape on certain HPC stage 5 blisks that are installed on certain GE Model GEnx-1B64, GEnx-1B64/P1, GEnx-1B64/P2, GEnx-1B67, GEnx-1B67/P1, GEnx-1B67/P2, GEnx-1B70, GEnx-1B70/75/P1, GEnx-1B70/75/P2, GEnx-1B70/P1, GEnx-1B70/P2, GEnx-1B70C/P1, GEnx-1B70C/P2, GEnx-1B74/75/P1, GEnx-1B74/75/P2, GEnx-1B76/P2, Genx-1B76A/P2, GEnx-2B67, GEnx-2B67/P, and GEnx-2B67B engines. A manufacturer investigation revealed that a nonconforming indication was discovered in a single forged ingot used to manufacture the affected parts, potentially making them susceptible to failure earlier than previously determined. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent fracture and subsequent uncontained release of certain HPC stage 5 blisks. This condition, if not addressed, could result in uncontained debris release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

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

This AD requires replacement of certain HPC stage 5 blisks with parts eligible for installation.

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

The FAA justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because no domestic operators are affected by this AD. It is unlikely that the FAA will receive any adverse comments or useful information about this AD from any U.S. operator.

Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b). In addition, for the foregoing reason(s), the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 0 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2023-22-11, Amendment 39-22595 (88 FR 80565, November 20, 2023) (AD 2023-22-11). AD 2023-22-11 applied to certain serial-numbered Embraer Model EMB-505 airplanes. The FAA issued AD 2023-22-11 to address failure of the clutch retaining bolt of the aileron autopilot servo mount, which could disengage the clutch from the drive pin and jam the aileron controls and result in reduced controllability of the airplane.

The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on April 3, 2025 (90 FR 14587). The NPRM was prompted by ANAC AD 2023-02-01R3, effective October 25, 2024 (ANAC AD 2023-02-01R3) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by ANAC, which is the aviation authority for Brazil. The MCAI maintains the applicability of ANAC AD 2023-02-01R2, effective October 16, 2024 (ANAC AD 2023-02-01R2) [no FAA corresponding AD], to include all Embraer Model EMB-505 airplanes, require initial replacement of the retaining bolt and washer, and require repetitively replacing the aileron autopilot servo mount clutch retaining bolt and washer. It also includes an optional terminating action for the repetitive replacement of the aileron autopilot servo mount clutch retaining bolt and washer by replacing the cable guard, clutch cartridge, bolt, and washer with new parts having new part numbers.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to retain some of the requirements of AD 2023-22-11, specifically the repetitive replacement requirements. Additionally, in the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require accomplishing the actions specified in ANAC AD 2023-02-01R3 described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-0478.

The FAA received comments from four commenters; three anonymous commenters and one individual commenter. All four commenters supported the NPRM without change.

The FAA also received 10 other comments from one anonymous commenter. Six comments were questions for the FAA. Four comments were recommendations made to the FAA. In summary, the anonymous commenter's concerns involved a question on the FAA evaluation of the environmental impact of increased maintenance, a recommendation for the FAA to consider subsidies to help defray the financial burden on small operators, a question about what measures are in place to maintain safety from exposure to hazards resulting from increased maintenance, a recommendation that the FAA should encourage data collection through voluntary reporting for future safety analysis, a question on how the FAA plans to coordinate implementation of this AD with international aviation authorities, a recommendation about seeking a long-term solution eliminating repetitive replacements, a question on specific training to ensure proper replacement procedures for the proposed required actions, a recommendation that the FAA assesses the availability of replacement parts, a question about how the FAA will assess the effectiveness of this AD and mitigate additional safety risks, and a recommendation that the FAA maintain transparency about the outcomes of this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

The anonymous commenter questioned whether the FAA evaluated the environmental implications of increased maintenance, specifically, the waste management of replaced components. The anonymous commenter noted that the aviation industry is under scrutiny for its environmental footprint and emphasized the need for sustainable maintenance practices. The FAA infers that the commenter wants information added as to what the environmental effects of this AD would be.

The FAA disagrees with the request. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.5, the FAA issues an AD when an unsafe condition exists on an aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, or appliances, and the condition is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design. Mandating how operators dispose of parts removed from an airplane or their spares inventory does not address the unsafe condition. Further, according to § 39.11, an AD specifies the actions that must be taken to resolve the unsafe condition. Any actions required beyond that may create an unnecessary burden on operators. This AD has not been changed as a result of this comment.

The anonymous commenter stated the AD may impose financial strains upon small operators. The commenter requested the FAA consider subsidies or financial assistance programs to help mitigate the financial costs on small operators. The anonymous commenter discussed the financial challenges faced by small operators in complying with regulatory mandates.

The FAA acknowledges the commenter's concern. The FAA recognizes that the AD imposes operational costs on operators, and that operators have an obligation to maintain their airplanes in airworthy condition. For this AD, the cost to replace the bolt and washer and to replace cable guard, clutch cartridge, bolt, and washer with new parts, an optional terminating action, would not have a significant economic impact on small operators. Under certain circumstances, the airplane manufacturer might provide financial relief, but the FAA does not provide economic mitigation to small or large operators. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

The anonymous commenter asked what measures are in place to ensure the safety of technicians from exposure to potential hazards during repetitive replacement procedures. The anonymous commenter highlighted the importance of safety protocols during aircraft maintenance to prevent occupational hazards.

The FAA acknowledges the concern regarding worker safety but considers the question to be outside the scope of this rulemaking and highly recommends that maintenance technicians follow any safety protocols outlined in Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC) AD 2023-02-01R3, effective October 25, 2024. This AD has not been changed as a result of this comment.

The anonymous commenter requested the FAA encourage voluntary reporting. The commenter stated that voluntary reporting could enhance data collection for future safety analyses. The MCAI, which was proposed for incorporation by reference in the NPRM, specified the use of service material that states that operators should take pictures of the removed parts and email them, along with additional information, to Embraer S.A. and Garmin. However, the MCAI does not specifically require this task. The FAA also determined that those tasks were not necessary to address the unsafe condition, thus the FAA is not requiring the reporting of removed parts. However, operators may report the information specified in the service material referenced in the MCAI, but are not required to report any information by this AD. This AD has not been changed as a result of this comment.

The anonymous commenter questioned if the FAA has a plan to coordinate with international authorities to ensure the consistent implementation of this AD. The anonymous commenter mentioned the importance of harmonized global safety. The FAA acknowledges this concern and explained in the NPRM that there is a process to use civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The NPRM further explained that the FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs, and as a result, proposed to incorporate by reference an AD issued by ANAC. Additionally, the NPRM explained that the FAA is acting in accordance with the bilateral agreement it has with ANAC, the Brazilian state of design authority for the identified products. ANAC notified the FAA of the unsafe condition as described in ANAC AD 2023-02-01R3. By proposing an AD that incorporates the MCAI actions by reference, the FAA is ensuring consistent implementation of these actions for the identified products approved for operation in the United States. In addition, all ADs are sent to foreign airworthiness authorities with bilateral agreement by the State of Design for the corresponding aviation product. This AD has not been changed as a result of this comment.

The anonymous commenter requested the FAA explore long-term design modifications to eliminate the need for repetitive replacements. The commenter stated that long-term modifications could enhance safety and reduce maintenance burdens. The anonymous commenter noted that the FAA previously endorsed design changes as effective long-term solutions for recurring maintenance issues.

The FAA acknowledges that in certain cases, long-term continued operational safety is better ensured by design changes that remove the source of the problem and the need for repetitive inspections. In those cases, we mandate terminating action. In other cases, mandating a terminating action is not necessary to ensure the continued operational safety of a product. Regarding this comment and how it specifically relates to this AD, the FAA refers to paragraph (c) of ANAC AD 2023-02-01R3, which is incorporated by reference in this AD and provides an optional terminating action for the repetitive replacement of the identified affected parts. ANAC and the FAA have both determined that the unsafe condition is addressed by both the repetitive actions of this AD and the terminating action. This AD has not been changed as a result of this comment.

The anonymous commenter questioned if there are specific training requirements for maintenance personnel that will ensure proper execution of replacement procedures. The commenter cited the “Aviation Maintenance Technician Handbook” (FAA, 2020) outlining the necessity of specialized training for complex maintenance tasks as a source for the question.

The FAA acknowledges this concern. FAA-certified maintenance technicians must meet the qualifications and maintain the criteria outlined in FAA regulations (14 CFR). This AD has not been changed as a result of this comment.

The anonymous commenter requested the FAA assess the supply chain's capacity to meet the demand for replacement parts. The commenter noted that having replacement parts available is crucial to prevent maintenance delays.

The FAA agrees that having available replacement parts is crucial to preventing maintenance delays; however, the FAA does not manage parts for the supplier. When proposing or mandating AD actions, the FAA does take into consideration the availability of replacement parts versus the risk of not addressing an unsafe condition. To the extent replacement parts may not exist to replace the specified parts of this AD, the FAA cannot base its AD action on whether replacement parts are available or can be produced. While every effort is made to avoid grounding aircraft, the FAA must address the unsafe condition. This AD has not been changed as a result of this comment.

The anonymous commenter requested information regarding the metrics the FAA will use to assess the effectiveness of the AD in mitigating the identified safety risks.

The FAA acknowledges this question. The FAA utilizes data obtained through voluntary reporting using the service difficulty report (SDR) system and, for this AD, any additional information received from the State of Design. This AD has not been changed as a result of this comment.

The anonymous commenter requested the FAA maintain transparency about the AD's implementation and outcome. The commenter noted that this could bolster public trust in aviation safety measures.

The FAA acknowledges the commenter's statement; however, ADs are issued to address a known unsafe condition and the actions required to correct that unsafe condition. The FAA maintains transparency with the public by publishing the final rule in the Federal Register with discussion of public comments made on the NPRM along with responses made by the FAA. This AD has not been changed as a result of this comment.

ANAC AD 2023-02-01R3 maintains the same applicability as MCAI 2023-02-01R2 to all Embraer Model EMB-505 airplanes. However, this AD has a reduced applicability reflecting what the service material referenced by ANAC AD 2023-02-01R3 states as certain serial numbers and onward have the terminating action installed at the factory. ANAC approved the request made by the FAA to use the reduced applicability. Additionally, a new calculation was run on the number of affected airplanes within the reduced applicability. Based on that calculation, the material identified in the MCAI identifies 773 airplanes worldwide of the reduced applicability. Of those 773 airplanes, 638 airplanes are on the U.S. Registry. Although 638 airplanes is more than identified in the NPRM, it is based on the total number of U.S.-registered airplanes identified as of the issuance of this final rule.

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

The FAA reviewed ANAC AD 2023-02-01R3, which specifies procedures for repetitively replacing the clutch retaining bolt and washer of the aileron autopilot servo mount. ANAC AD 2023-02-01R3 also provides a terminating action for repetitively replacing the clutch retaining bolt and washer of the aileron autopilot servo mount by replacing the cable guard, clutch cartridge, bolt, and washer with new parts having new part numbers.

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

The material specified in ANAC AD 2023-02-01R3 states that operators should take pictures of the removed clutch retaining bolt and the removed washer and email them, along with additional information, to Embraer S.A and Garmin. ANAC AD 2023-02-01R3 does not specifically require this task, and this AD does not include this task.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 638 airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary replacements that are required based on selection of the terminating action. The agency has no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need these replacements:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2025-2415 in the Federal Register (90 FR 43578; September 10, 2025), proposing to amend Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal Airways V-14, V-192, V-210, and V-221 in the vicinity of Muncie, Indiana. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. Four comments were received, but one comment was a duplicate of another with an added PDF attachment the commenter referred to as a “petition.” One comment relating to the decommissioning of the VOR portion of the VOR/DME NAVAID is outside of the scope of this action. While this rule involves removing routes that will become unusable due to the decommissioning of the VOR portion of the NAVAID, the decommissioning is a separate action from this rule, and therefore, it is outside the scope of this rule.

Another commenter stated they oppose the action proposed in the NPRM. The commenter asserted that pilots and many older general aviation aircraft rely on VOR navigation for situational awareness and emergency planning. The commenter claimed that eliminating these route segments would force pilots to shift their navigational planning or require RNAV/GPS equipment not available in all general aviation aircraft. The commenter also asserted that VOR navigation is essential for flight training. The commenter urged the FAA to preserve the airway segments for general aviation or provide clear, equivalent alternatives. In response to this comment, the FAA offers that transitioning the National Airspace System from a ground-based system of VORs to Performance Based Navigation (PBN) increases safety, efficiency, and capacity in the NAS. PBN allows for more direct flight paths, which leads to reduced fuel consumption, fewer emissions, and lower noise pollution. It also enables more efficient use of airspace by allowing aircraft to fly more precise routes, especially in congested terminal areas, and helps manage the projected increase in air traffic.

The VOR Minimum Operating Network (VOR MON) program will not eliminate all the VORs in the NAS. Instead, this program identified which VORs would need to be retained. MIE was not one of those needed to provide a conventional backup service in the event of an unplanned Global Positioning System (GPS) outage. During an unplanned GPS outage, aircraft will be able to continue VOR to VOR navigation or proceed to a MON airport and conduct a VOR, Localizer (LOC), or Instrument Landing System (ILS) approach. The VOR MON program assures that at least one airport will be within 100 Nautical Miles (NM).

When the MIE VOR is decommissioned, there will remain numerous MON airports within this 100 NM range. The closest four are Shelbyville, IN, (GEZ) at 41 NM; Fort Wayne, IN, (FWA) at 45 NM; Dayton, OH, (DAY) at 48 NM; and Indianapolis, IN, (IND) at 52 NM. Shelbyville and Fort Wayne each have a VOR instrument approach procedure. In addition, there are nearby federal airways that will remain to provide navigation service: V-11 between the Indianapolis (VHP) VORTAC and the Fort Wayne, IN (FWA) VORTAC; V-50 between the VHP VORTAC and Dayton, OH (DQN) VOR/DME; and V-55 between the FWA VORTAC and the DQN VOR/DME. Lastly, a pilot can request air traffic control radar vectors through the area.

Another commenter submitted a “petition” and raised issues with amending the routes listed in this rule but referenced the changes as occurring in the Salt Lake City area. This rule involves airspace in the vicinity of Muncie, Indiana, which is nowhere near Salt Lake City. Additionally, these routes do not even run in the vicinity of Salt Lake City. The commenter's assertions about potentially higher operational costs in the intermountain west or the need for an analysis of this rule's impact on the Salt Lake City airspace or operators are inapplicable to this rule.

The petition further asserts that the FAA did not comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act because of alleged boilerplate language. The petition makes assumptions that because standard language is used in the NPRM, the FAA did not perform the requisite analysis to comply with applicable rules and regulations. The FAA reviews updates to each piece of airspace individually and conducts all necessary analyses on its airspace actions in accordance with applicable law, authority, and agency guidance, including the Administrative Procedures Act; the Regulatory Flexibility Act; E.O. 12866; FAA Order JO 7400.2R, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters; and FAA Order 1050.1G, FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures. Language in the NPRM and final rule for this action utilizes certain standardized text common to similar routine airspace actions, but is tailored to the specific action. Use of standardized text ensures consistency among similar routine actions, and allows FAA to streamline one of its most prolific rulemaking portfolios. However, adoption of standardized text does not indicate a lack of thorough and adequate analysis.

The petition also referenced the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and requested certain actions. However, there was no requirement for an environmental review to be performed prior to the NPRM stage. The NPRM contained an “Environmental Review” section noting that the proposal was subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1G, FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures, before any FAA final regulatory action.

VOR Federal Airways are published in paragraph 6010 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11K, dated August 4, 2025, and effective September 15, 2025. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11K, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by modifying VOR Federal Airways V-14, V-192, V-210 and V-221 in the vicinity of Muncie, Indiana.

V-14: Prior to this rule, V-14 extended between the Chisum, NM, VORTAC and the Flag City, OH, VORTAC. A portion of V-14, between the Brickyard, IN, VORTAC and the Flag City, VORTAC will become unusable with the decommissioning of Muncie, IN, VOR. Additionally, the portion of V-14 between the Terre Haute, IN, VORTAC and the Brickyard VORTAC is redundant as it is overlaid by V-50. As amended, V-14 extends between the Chisum VORTAC and the St. Louis, MO, VORTAC.

V-192: Prior to this rule, V-192 extended between the Champaign, IL, VORTAC and the Dayton, OH, VOR/DME. The portion of V-192 between the Brickyard, IN VORTAC and the Dayton VOR/DME will become unusable with the decommissioning of the Muncie, IN, VOR. As a mitigation, aircraft can utilize nearby V-50 to navigate between the Brickyard VORTAC and the Dayton VOR/DME. As amended, V-192 extends between the Champaign VORTAC and the Brickyard VORTAC.

V-210: Prior to this rule, V-210 extended between the Los Angeles, CA, VORTAC and the Lamar, CO, VOR/DME, between the Will Rogers, OK, VORTAC and the Okmulgee, OK, VOR/DME, between the Brickyard, IN, VORTAC and the Rosewood, OH, VORTAC, and between the Harrisburg, PA, VORTAC and the Yardley, PA, VOR/DME. The portion of V-210 between the Brickyard and Rosewood VORTACs will become unusable with the decommissioning of the Muncie, IN, VOR. As amended, V-210 extends between the Los Angeles VORTAC and the Lamar VOR/DME, between the Will Rogers VORTAC and the Okmulgee VOR/DME, and between the Harrisburg VORTAC and the Yardley VOR/DME.

V-221: Prior to this rule, V-221 extended between the Bible Grove, IL, VORTAC and the intersection of the Fort Wayne, IN, VORTAC 016° and the Goshen, IN, TACAN 092° radials. The portion of V-221 between the Shelbyville, IN, NDB and the Fort Wayne VORTAC will become unusable with the decommissioning of the Muncie, IN, VOR. As amended, V-221 extends between the Bible Grove VORTAC and the Shelbyville NDB.

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

The FAA has determined that this action of amending Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal Airways V-14, V-192, V-210, and V-221 qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq. ) and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1G, FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures, paragraph B-2.5(a) which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points); and paragraph B-2.5(i), which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review the establishment of new or revised air traffic control procedures conducted at 3,000 feet or more above ground level (AGL); procedures conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not cause traffic to be routinely routed over noise sensitive areas; modifications to currently approved procedures conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not significantly increase noise over noise sensitive areas; and increases in minimum altitudes and landing minima. As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

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

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

The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2025-2023 in the Federal Register (90 FR 34777; July 24, 2025), proposing to establish United States Area Navigation (RNAV) Route Q-151 and revoke Jet Route J-517 in the northern United States. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

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

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by establishing RNAV Route Q-151 and revoking J-517 in its entirety. The FAA is taking these actions due to the lack of navigational signal coverage restricting usage of J-157.

J-517: Prior to this final rule, Jet Route J-517 extended between the Boise, ID, Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range (VOR)/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) and the Cranbrook, BC, Canada, VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME), excluding the airspace with Canada. J-517 is unavailable to aircraft between the Boise and Spokane VORTACs unless they are equipped with a RNAV system with GPS as annotated in Notice to Airmen FDC 5/7559 and FDC 5/7557. The FAA is revoking J-517 in its entirety and establishing RNAV Route Q-151 as a replacement.

Q-151: The FAA is establishing RNAV Route Q-151 as a replacement for the loss of Jet Route J-517. As established, Q-151 extends between the WINEN, UT, WP and the EDGES, ID, Fix.

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

The FAA has determined that this action of establishing RNAV route Q 151 and revoking J-517 qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq. ) and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1G, FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures, paragraph B-2.5(a) which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points); and paragraph B-2.5(i), which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review the establishment of new or revised air traffic control procedures conducted at 3,000 feet or more AGL; procedures conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not cause traffic to be routinely routed over noise sensitive areas; modifications to currently approved procedures conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not significantly increase noise over noise sensitive areas; and increases in minimum altitudes and landing minima.. As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

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

This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, pilots do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.

The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.

Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

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

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, 14 CFR part 97 is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The applicable FAA Forms are 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, 8260-15B, when required by an entry on 8260-15A, and 8260-15C.

The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, pilots do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flights safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

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

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, 14 CFR part 97 is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

1. On October 7, 2025, the Commission issued a final rule (final rule) amending its regulations to remove § 157.23 and modify § 153.4 to remove the cross-reference to § 157.23. 1 These sections placed restrictions on the issuance of authorizations to proceed with the construction of natural gas facilities. On November 6, 2025, a coalition of petitioners (together, Petitioners)  2 filed a request for rehearing of the final rule.

2. Pursuant to Allegheny Defense Project v. FERC, 3 the rehearing request filed in this proceeding may be deemed denied by operation of law. However, as permitted by section 19(a) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), 4 we are modifying the discussion in the final rule and continue to reach the same result in this proceeding, as discussed below. 5

3. In Order No. 871, the Commission amended its regulations to add § 157.23, precluding the issuance of authorizations to proceed with construction of new natural gas transportation, export, or import facilities, authorized pursuant to sections 3 and 7(c) of the NGA, for a limited time while certain requests for rehearing were pending before the Commission. 6 On January 20, 2025, the President issued Executive Order 14154, to unleash American energy by, among other things, eliminating delays in and streamlining the permitting process for energy infrastructure projects, stating that it is “in the national interest to unleash America's affordable and reliable energy and natural resources.”  7 On the same date, the President issued Executive Order 14156, which declared a national energy emergency and prioritized the expansion of energy infrastructure as a matter of critical national and economic security. 8

4. On April 14, 2025, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) filed a petition for rulemaking, requesting that the Commission adopt a rule rescinding Order No. 871, removing § 157.23 from the regulations, and amending § 153.4, which relates to applications to authorize liquefied natural gas facilities under NGA section 3, to remove the reference to § 157.23.

5. On June 18, 2025, the Commission issued an order temporarily waiving § 157.23 for one year, until June 30, 2026 (Waiver Order). 9 At the same time, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR), which proposed to permanently remove § 157.23 from its regulations and revise § 153.4 to eliminate the cross-reference to § 157.23. 10 The Commission proposed to remove § 157.23 to respond to the imperative to remove barriers to the construction of necessary energy infrastructure. In addition to requesting public comments on the NOPR proposal to eliminate § 157.23 in its entirety, the Commission posed two specific questions. The Commission sought comment on whether it should instead revise § 157.23 to (1) limit its scope while maintaining some protections for certain types of stakeholders or (2) reduce the time period on the limitation for issuing authorizations to proceed with construction. 11

6. The NOPR was published in the Federal Register with a 30-day comment period. 12 The Commission received 23 comments in response to the NOPR, including 11 comments from various individuals and organizations opposing the Commission's proposal to remove § 157.23;  13 and 12 comments from various entities supporting its removal. 14

7. On October 7, 2025, the Commission issued the final rule, removing § 157.23 from its regulations. In developing the final rule, the Commission considered and responded to all comments received in response to the NOPR. The Commission ultimately found that removal of the regulation was warranted to reduce construction delays as well as to promote and expedite efficient energy development and ensure that there is sufficient natural gas infrastructure to timely address resource adequacy and reliability concerns but that sufficient safeguards available to impacted stakeholders remained. 15

8. On November 6, 2025, Petitioners sought rehearing of the final rule arguing that the Commission (1) failed to provide an explanation for its departure from prior policy regarding construction delays and the stakeholder protections clarified in Allegheny, and relied on arguments that the Commission previously discredited in Order No. 871; (2) failed to provide evidence that § 157.23 impedes gas infrastructure development; (3) failed to provide evidence that other protections available to stakeholders sufficiently address the potential harms from project developers commencing construction during the rehearing period; and (4) used the rulemaking to cure the lack of notice and comment procedures in the Waiver Order.

9. Petitioners disagree with the Commission's conclusion that the removal of § 157.23 is warranted because judicial review and other case-by-case relief offer sufficient protection, given that projects subject to the regulation are found to be in the public interest. 16 They argue that the existence of a public interest finding to justify the removal of § 157.23 does not explain how the protections previously found to be inadequate in Order No. 871 are now sufficient to protect parties seeking rehearing. 17 Petitioners maintain that the Commission relied on arguments that it previously discredited in Order No. 871. Specifically, they contend that the Commission failed to provide an explanation for reversing course from its previous finding that even though parties can seek judicial review once rehearing has been deemed denied, the purpose of § 157.23 was to prevent construction until the Commission completed its review process. 18 Additionally, noting that the Commission previously found that adopting § 157.23 would not substantially impact the natural gas industry, Petitioners argue that the Commission failed to explain why this prior finding is now improper. 19

10. The Commission is entitled to change its approach and depart from prior precedent, provided that it acknowledges the change in policy and provides a reasoned explanation for the new approach. 20 In the final rule, the Commission acknowledged that it departed from the prior policy set forth in Order No. 871. 21 The Commission recognized that “Order No. 871 provided necessary protections along with Allegheny' s assurance of timely judicial review of initial Commission orders.”  22 However, the Commission explained that, in light of resource adequacy and reliability concerns from increasing electricity and natural gas demand, the Commission had cause to reevaluate its prior policy concerns and now concluded that § 157.23 was no longer necessary to protect stakeholders, given the Commission's thorough review of each NGA section 3 and 7 application and the other protections available to stakeholders, including judicial review, injunctive relief, motions for stays, and the Commission's presumptive stay policy. 23 Additionally, the Commission did not find in the final rule that removal was warranted due to Order No. 871's impact on the natural gas industry. Rather, the Commission concluded that removal of § 157.23 advances the Commission's mission under the NGA to facilitate the orderly development of natural gas supplies and ensure that approved projects are developed in a timely manner to combat resource adequacy concerns and natural gas and electricity system reliability concerns. 24 Accordingly, we continue to find that delaying the issuance of construction authorizations for approved projects as a result of § 157.23 is no longer in the public interest. 25

11. Petitioners assert that the Commission determined that the risk of potential delay from § 157.23 justified removal of the regulation and contend that the Commission failed to provide evidence that § 157.23 impedes gas infrastructure development. 26 They argue that, prior to Order No. 871, project developers had to account for potential delays and that the Commission could minimize the risk of delays, as it controls the timeframe for acting on rehearing requests. 27 They maintain that the Commission's reliance on resource adequacy and reliability concerns to remove § 157.23 does not provide sufficient evidence that potential delays could have an effect on grid reliability. 28 Petitioners aver that the Commission should not authorize construction until the conclusion of the decision making process on rehearing, because of the possibility that it could have made an incorrect determination in the initial order. 29 They further claim that the Commission disregards the potential disruption of infrastructure development plans should the Commission order a project developer to halt construction in the event that it grants rehearing. 30

12. As explained in the final rule, the estimated increases in electricity and natural gas demand, without sufficient natural gas supplies and infrastructure, could impact grid reliability. 31 The Commission found that removing § 157.23 would lessen the risk that any potential delays would affect the availability of necessary natural gas supplies to meet increasing demands. 32 In Order No. 871-B, the Commission acknowledged that the regulation could add delays and that project development schedules had to account for some uncertainty as the Commission's timeline for processing project applications is dictated by several factors. 33 However, as stated above, evidence of increasing demand amplifies our concern that the potential delay resulting from application of § 157.23 could affect the timeliness of natural gas supplies. Regardless of the length of the average construction delay, 34 the Commission sought to remove the risk of an additional regulatory delay of up to five months in the gas development process. 35 Additionally, the Commission determined that the default should be for certificate and authorization orders to go into effect absent case-specific reasons to the contrary. 36

13. Petitioners argue that the Commission's reliability goals are “red herrings,” particularly when one considers the disruption to gas planning that may occur if the Commission authorized construction while rehearing was pending and then subsequently granted rehearing. 37 They argue that it is best to wait to authorize the start of construction until the Commission finishes its decision-making process on rehearing.

14. We are not persuaded by Petitioners' argument that a generic delay in construction for all natural gas infrastructure is preferable because the Commission may grant a request for rehearing in an individual case. Recognizing that the Commission is tasked under the NGA with the orderly development of natural gas supplies, Congress itself presumed that an application for rehearing should not operate as a stay unless “specifically” ordered by the Commission. 38 Consistent with this view, the Commission in the final rule explained that § 157.23 was now overly broad given that projected natural gas and electric generator demands require timely natural gas infrastructure development. 39 We went on to explain it was no longer necessary to impose such a delay given the other protections available to landowners and stakeholders, including (1) the Commission's ability to consider stays on a case-by-case basis and (2) the availability of both judicial review, which, after Allegheny, parties may now seek more promptly following an initial order, and judicial stays. 40 To the extent there is any disruption associated with a potential construction stop work order on rehearing, it is outweighed by the national benefits from eliminating § 157.23.

15. Petitioners argue that the Commission failed to provide evidence that other protections available to stakeholders, including judicial review, motions for stay, and the presumptive stay policy, adequately address the potential harms of commencing construction during the rehearing period. 41 They assert that neither the Commission nor the courts have granted a motion for a stay in favor of an impacted stakeholder (noting four presumptive stays that were issued pursuant to Order No. 871) and that the courts do not timely act on judicial review or injunctive relief to prevent damage caused by construction authorizations during the rehearing period. 42

16. In the final rule, the Commission explained that natural gas infrastructure projects are only approved following an extensive agency review, which requires the consideration of concerns raised by all stakeholders and any additional protection that may be warranted during project construction and operation. 43 Following the Commission's review, project developers must comply with the required conditions in a section 3 authorization or section 7 certificate order. Stakeholders and affected landowners may seek judicial review or injunctive relief after rehearing is deemed denied or file a motion for a stay with the Commission. 44 Additionally, the presumptive stay policy allows directly affected landowners who would be subject to eminent domain under NGA section 7 to request a stay of a certificate order and protects such landowners from potential harm where a pipeline may initiate eminent domain proceedings immediately following the issuance of an order. 45 The Commission considers each project application and requested Commission remedy on a case-by-case basis to address all raised concerns and determine whether other relief is required to prevent irreparable harm. The fact that the Commission and courts do not frequently grant motions for stay is not evidence of an unwillingness to grant a meritorious request, but rather, a reflection of the merits of such requests. 46 On the contrary, the Commission invoked its presumptive stay policy in a recent section 7 certificate proceeding in which a directly affected landowner intervened and protested, and the applicant had not acquired all necessary property interests. The Commission stayed the certificate during the 30-day rehearing period, and pending Commission resolution of any timely requests for rehearing filed by an affected landowner subject to eminent domain, up until 90 days following the date that a request for rehearing may be deemed to have been denied under NGA section 19(a). 47

17. Finally, Petitioners argue that all these protections existed prior to § 157.23 and are not enough to justify the rule's recission. 48 They argue that the Commission erred by failing to provide any evidence that stays or expedited judicial review sufficiently address the harms § 157.23 is meant to protect against. 49

18. Petitioners err to the extent that they suggest Allegheny' s reform of the Commission's rehearing practice or the presumptive stay were in place when the Commission issued Order No. 871. Both occurred after the Commission initially adopted § 157.23. In Order No. 871, the Commission explained that it was exercising its discretion to balance its commitment to respond to parties' concerns in comprehensive orders on rehearing and the concerns posed by the possibility of construction proceeding prior to the completion of Commission review. 50 Although we are sensitive to these concerns, after five years with the rule in place, the Commission appropriately determined the rule was overly broad in light of other case-by-case protections and our NGA duties during a period of increasing national natural gas demand.

19. Petitioners argue that the issuance of the Waiver Order constituted a rulemaking. 51 Citing cases where agencies failed to provide notice and comment prior to the promulgation of a final rule, Petitioners argue that the Commission attempted to cure the Waiver Order's lack of notice and comment procedures by offering what they characterize as a post-promulgation comment period in the final rule docket. 52 Petitioners contend that the issuance of the Waiver Order simultaneously with the final rule signaled the Commission's desire to repeal § 157.23 before soliciting public comment. 53

20. Despite Petitioners' arguments to the contrary, a post-promulgation comment period is not at issue here. The Commission complied with section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act by providing notice and an opportunity to comment on its proposal to eliminate § 157.23 prior to issuing the final rule. 54 Unlike the cases cited by Petitioners, prior to the effective date of the final rule, the Commission issued the NOPR, which was published in the Federal Register and established a 30-day comment period, and determined that the removal of § 157.23 was warranted after considering all comments submitted in response to the NOPR. 55 Further, as the Commission previously explained, any arguments challenging the Waiver Order are outside the scope of this rulemaking proceeding. 56 Additionally, arguments challenging the Waiver Order are moot as the Commission's November 13, 2025 order dismissing the rehearing request of the Waiver Order, which was not appealed, is now final. 57

21. In response to Petitioners' request for rehearing the final rule is hereby modified and the result sustained, as discussed in the body of this order.

22. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register , the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the internet through the Commission's Home Page ( http://www.ferc.gov ).

23. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.

24. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.

25. The effective date of the document published on October 10, 2025 (90 FR 48221), is confirmed: November 10, 2025.

DOI is issuing this final rule to adopt as final, subject to the revisions made by this final rule, the IFR promulgated on July 3, 2025. The IFR partially rescinded and made other needed, targeted updates to DOI's regulations, codified at 43 CFR part 46, implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., as amended (NEPA). DOI's prior NEPA implementing regulations were promulgated in 2008 “as a “supplement[ ] . . . to be used in conjunction with” the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)'s NEPA regulations. 43 CFR 46.20 (2008). DOI provided that the “[p]urpose of this part” was to ensure “compliance with” not only NEPA itself but CEQ's regulations implementing NEPA. 43 CFR 46.10(a)(2) (2008). However, CEQ has now repealed its residual regulations, effective as of April 11, 2025. See Removal of National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations, 90 FR 10,610 (February 25, 2025); Final Rule Removal of National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations, 91 FR 618 (January 8, 2026).

Since DOI's regulations were originally designed to supplement CEQ's NEPA regulations, DOI awaited CEQ action before revising its own regulations. See 40 CFR 1507.3(b) (2024); see also 86 FR 34,154 (June 29, 2021). Now that the removal of CEQ's regulations has been finalized through a final rule issued on January 8, 2026, DOI is issuing a final rule concurrently with its updated Department of the Interior Handbook: National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures.

DOI's foundation for the updates to its NEPA procedures is NEPA itself. Now that CEQ has rescinded its NEPA implementing regulations, see 91 FR 618 (Jan. 8, 2026) (final rule finalizing removal of CEQ's NEPA implementing regulations), DOI is issuing this final rule and NEPA Handbook in compliance with NEPA 102(2)(B), 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(B), which directs all agencies of the federal government to identify and develop methods and procedures, in consultation with CEQ, to conduct the environmental analysis that NEPA requires.

DOI, in its IFR, rescinded portions of its NEPA implementing regulations at 43 CFR part 46, while retaining and making targeted updates to certain provisions. Specifically, DOI retained and made limited updates to provisions relating to emergency responses to ensure that DOI can respond timely to any such event and to avoid any confusion regarding the continued validity of this already-established provision for action in emergency situations (43 CFR 46.150); categorical exclusions and their use to avoid any instability in these vital procedures or uncertainty about the continued validity of its already-established categorical exclusions (43 CFR 46.205, 46.210, 46.215); and applicant and contractor preparation of environmental documents to provide a durable framework for the use of such documents (43 CFR 46.105, 46.107).

In response to public comment on the IFR, DOI adds in this final rule a section on the designation of lead agencies and a section on the selection of cooperating agencies to codify the procedures by which Federal agencies and State, local, and Tribal agencies with special expertise continue to be involved in development of agency NEPA reviews (43 CFR 46.220 and 46.225, respectively). All other provisions were removed from 43 CFR part 46, consistent with DOI's IFR. Other than these few provisions, DOI's procedures are contained in the Department of the Interior Handbook: National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (referred to as DOI NEPA Handbook hereinafter), which is available in the DOI Electronic Library of the Interior Policies at https://www.doi.gov/document-library (but which will not be codified in the CFR). A section-by-section analysis is provided below highlighting where in the DOI NEPA Handbook concepts originally addressed in 43 CFR part 46 now appear.

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

NEPA, as amended, furthers this national policy by requiring Federal agencies to prepare an environmental impact statement—“in essence, a report”—for proposed “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C); Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, 605 U.S. 168, 173 (2025). This statement must address: (1) The reasonably foreseeable environmental effects of the proposed agency action; (2) the reasonably foreseeable adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided; (3) a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed agency action, including an analysis of any negative environmental impacts of not implementing the proposed agency action in the case of a no action alternative, that are technically and economically feasible, and meet the purpose and need of the proposal; (4) the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; and (5) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved in the proposed action. 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C).

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

NEPA does not mandate specific results or substantive outcomes. Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, 605 U.S. at 173; see also Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 756-57 (2004). Rather, NEPA requires Federal agencies to consider the environmental effects of proposed actions as part of agencies' decision-making processes. As amended by the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (FRA), Public Law 118-5 (June 3, 2023), NEPA provides additional requirements to facilitate timely and unified Federal reviews, including provisions clarifying lead, joint lead, and cooperating agency designations, generally requiring the development of a single environmental document, directing agencies to develop procedures for project sponsors to prepare environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, and prescribing page limits and deadlines. 42 U.S.C. 4336a. NEPA also sets forth the circumstances under which agencies may rely on programmatic environmental documents, 42 U.S.C. 4336b, and adopt and use another agency's categorical exclusions. 42 U.S.C. 4336c.

Finally, NEPA requires that “copies of such [environmental impact statement] and the comments and views of the appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, which are authorized to develop and enforce environmental standards, shall be made available to the President, the Council on Environmental Quality and to the public as provided by section 552 of title 5, United States Code, and shall accompany the proposal through the existing agency review processes.” 42 U.S.C. 4332. That is, NEPA provides that the extent to which a statement is made available to the public is governed by the requirements and standards of the Federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued E.O. 14154, Unleashing American Energy. 90 FR 8,353 (Jan. 29, 2025). The E.O. revoked E.O. 11991, Relating to protection and enhancement of environmental quality, 42 FR 26,967 (May 25, 1977), which directed CEQ to issue regulations implementing NEPA and required Federal agencies to comply with those regulations. E.O. 14154 at sec. 5. E.O. 14154 also directed CEQ to provide guidance on implementing NEPA and propose rescinding CEQ's NEPA regulations within 30 days of the order. Id. at sec 5(a). The guidance and any resulting agency implementing regulations must “expedite permitting approvals and meet deadlines established in the [FRA].” Id. at sec 5(c). CEQ issued an IFR rescinding CEQ's NEPA implementing regulations (including as they relate to agency NEPA procedures) on February 25, 2025, effective April 11, 2025, 90 FR 10,610, which CEQ adopted as final on January 8, 2026, 91 FR 618. E.O. 14154 also directs the Chairman of CEQ to convene a working group to coordinate the revision of agency-level NEPA implementing regulations for consistency.

Until 2008, DOI provided procedures for implementing NEPA in chapters of part 516 of the Department Manual. DOI periodically revised the Departmental Manual chapters containing NEPA procedures through a notice-and-comment process required by CEQ NEPA regulations at the time that involved publication of proposed and final revisions in the Federal Register (FR), see 40 CFR 1507.3(a) (1978) (rescinded), but did not promulgate as regulations the procedures contained in the Department Manual. In 2008, DOI promulgated regulations codifying DOI's NEPA procedures at 43 CFR part 46, pursuant to direction in CEQ NEPA regulations that “[t]hey shall confine themselves to implementing procedures” and through a notice-and-comment process. 40 CFR 1507.3(a) (2005). DOI explained in the IFR its reasons for transitioning away from regulations and toward internal procedures, namely to allow DOI and its bureaus to implement changes in policy more quickly than would be possible while retaining the NEPA implementing regulations. DOI is affirming that approach and finalizing its internal procedures in parallel with issuing this final rule.

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

These procedures, therefore, attempt to align NEPA with its Congressionally mandated dimensions, Presidential directives, and Supreme Court precedent, making review faster, more flexible, and more efficient.

No third parties have cognizable reliance interests in DOI's existing NEPA procedures. Revised agency procedures will have no effect on ongoing NEPA reviews, where DOI, following CEQ guidance, will continue to apply the preexisting procedures to applications that are sufficiently advanced. Moreover, as the Supreme Court has long held, and just reaffirmed, NEPA “is a purely procedural statute” that “imposes no substantive environmental obligations or restrictions.” Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, 605 U.S. at 173; Public Citizen, 541 U.S. at 756; Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 558 (1978). To the extent any asserted reliance interests are grounded in substantive environmental concerns, such interests are not entitled to any weight as to this rulemaking, given that DOI's procedures simply provide the process by which a bureau accounts for environmental considerations, rather than determining the substantive policy or decision on an individual application or project. See, e.g., Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of California, 591 U.S. 1, 32 (2020).

DOI provided an opportunity to comment on its IFR and considered comments in issuing its final rule and DOI NEPA Handbook. Comments were considered and addressed, which included revising DOI NEPA procedures. A summary of comments and responses on the rulemaking are addressed in section III below.

As explained in the IFR, DOI has revised its NEPA implementing procedures to conform to the 2023 statutory amendments, to respond to President Trump's direction in E.O. 14154, and to address the difficulties associated with the NEPA process and NEPA litigation identified by the Supreme Court in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition. Where DOI has retained an aspect of its preexisting NEPA implementing procedures, it is because that aspect is compatible with these guiding principles; where DOI has revised or removed an aspect, it is because that aspect is not compatible. After considering public comments, DOI has adopted the IFR in this final rule, subject to the revisions explained below.

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

The IFR removed most of the existing DOI NEPA regulations in favor of relying on Departmental guidance for the reasons discussed in the IFR and summarized above, but the rule retained and made targeted updates to its regulations that authorize four tools that DOI bureaus rely on, when appropriate, to expedite NEPA reviews and ensure that compliance with NEPA is achieved in an efficient manner. The final rule reaffirms this approach and reserves for Departmental guidance most of the substance of the provisions from the regulations previously in place.

First, DOI retained 43 CFR 46.150, which allows bureaus to respond to emergencies while either forgoing NEPA analysis so as to allow the bureau to take actions “urgently needed to mitigate harm to life, property, or important natural, cultural, or historic resources” or relying on alternative arrangements for NEPA compliance to take other actions beyond those immediately necessary to protect life, property, and resources in response to emergencies. The IFR made minor clarifying adjustments to the text that reflect DOI's experience implementing these provisions. The final rule revises 43 CFR 46.150 to clarify that NEPA's analysis and documentation requirements should not impede timely execution of actions needed to address imminent threats to life, property, or important natural, cultural, or historic resources. For such actions, the responsible official may take such actions without conducting a NEPA review. The responsible official is directed to take into account the probable environmental consequences of the action and consider taking steps to mitigate reasonably foreseeable adverse environmental effects to the extent practical and consistent with agency authority.

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

Although DOI is largely retaining these provisions in regulation, the IFR revised them to refine the description of, or, in some cases, remove certain extraordinary circumstances that, when present, would preclude reliance on a categorical exclusion. Section 46.205 of the IFR, meanwhile, included new paragraphs (e) through (j), which provide that DOI bureaus may rely on categorical exclusion determinations made by other agencies, may apply multiple categorical exclusions to a proposed action that is a composite of multiple smaller actions or action elements, and may rely on a categorical exclusion administratively established or adopted by another DOI bureau; establish procedures to govern the establishment, modification, or removal of categorical exclusions from NEPA procedures; and clarify that any such establishment, modification, or removal does not itself have any environmental effects for purposes of NEPA. (The IFR also eliminated certain categorical exclusions from Section 46.210 on the basis that they were not used across the Department; as noted below, the final rule restores those categorical exclusions to the regulation to ensure continuity in reference and citation.)

In the final rule, DOI adds cross references to paragraphs (d) and (e) in paragraph (a) of Section 46.205 for additional clarity. Public comment on the IFR requested this clarification. In addition, DOI is revising paragraph (f) with non-substantive and clarifying editorial changes. Finally, DOI is removing errant paragraph topic headings in paragraph (f) and (i) for consistency with the rest of the section, which does not use this organizational format.

In Section 46.210, the final rule reinstates paragraphs (k) and ( l ) which had been removed in the IFR, and which describe categorical exclusions for hazardous fuels reduction activities using prescribed fire and post-fire rehabilitation activities, respectively. Although they are not properly considered Department-wide categorical exclusions, bureaus have relied on this regulatory citation since the 2008 DOI NEPA rule, and DOI reorganized the bureau-specific categorical exclusion list in the DOI NEPA Handbook to consolidate the list in a more user-friendly format to facilitate use. DOI also identifies limitations in this final rule on use of the hazardous fuels reduction activities categorical exclusion in paragraph (k), revising the regulatory text to add a limitation on its use in States under the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In addition, DOI is revising the introductory paragraph in this section to provide that reliance on either of the two categorical exclusions described in paragraphs (k) and ( l ) requires documentation, consistent with the 2008 DOI NEPA regulation, and revising text to provide that reliance on any of the other categorical exclusions in paragraph (a) through (j) does not require documentation, again consistent with the 2008 DOI NEPA regulation. 43 CFR 46.20(c) (2008).

In Section 46.215, which lists the “extraordinary circumstances” that, if present, preclude use of a categorical exclusion, the IFR removed legacy paragraphs (c), (i), and (j), and then renumbered the remaining paragraphs.

Legacy paragraph (c) had provided that an extraordinary circumstance is present if an action may “[h]ave highly controversial environmental effects or involve unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources.” 43 CFR 46.215(c) (2008). This provision caused confusion as it was frequently misunderstood to mean that any controversy surrounding the substance of the action—as opposed to controversy about the nature or magnitude of the environmental effects, which was the appropriate, limited focus of the provision—itself constitutes an extraordinary circumstance. In any event, the concept is sufficiently addressed in legacy paragraph (d) (which the IFR renumbered as paragraph (c)), which addresses proposed actions that have highly uncertain and potentially significant environmental effects or involve unique or unknown environmental risks. DOI makes no changes to this paragraph in the final rule.

Legacy paragraph (i) had provided that an extraordinary circumstance is present if an action may “[v]iolate a Federal law, or a State, local, or tribal law or requirement imposed for the protection of the environment.” 43 CFR 46.215(i) (2008). Whether a proposed Federal action may violate a law imposed for the protection of the environment is a question that goes beyond the procedural requirements of NEPA and may be better considered and appropriately addressed by the Responsible Official when making the decision on the proposed action. While a proposed action's inconsistency with such a law should be appropriately considered in the agency decision-making process—and may suggest that that the proposed action should not be approved—it is not relevant to the determination of whether the proposed action may have significant environmental effects or the analysis of what those effects are. DOI makes no changes to this paragraph in the final rule.

Legacy paragraph (j) had been promulgated in response to E.O. 12898, Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (Feb. 11, 1994). That E.O. was rescinded by E.O. 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity, 90 FR 8633 (Jan. 31, 2025). Therefore, it was appropriate to remove the associated provision in Section 46.215, and DOI makes no changes to this paragraph in the final rule.

In addition, all references to E.O.s in the DOI list of extraordinary circumstances were removed. These E.O.s could change over time or could unduly limit the review of the resources listed, not allowing for more relevant information to be considered in the extraordinary circumstances review for a proposed action. Further, the E.O.s in force when an agency proposes action are, if relevant, authoritative in their own right, regardless of whether they are set forth in these regulations.

In the IFR, DOI also retained Section 46.105, with some revisions, and added Section 46.107. These sections set standards and procedures that apply when DOI bureaus hire contractors to prepare environmental assessments, environmental impact statements, or other environmental information; or rely on applicants to prepare environmental information, including environmental assessments or environmental impact statements. Section 107(f) of NEPA, enacted through the FRA, requires agencies to develop procedures to allow for the preparation of environmental assessments and environmental impact statements by applicants for Federal approvals. DOI already had a regulation allowing for bureaus to rely on applicant-prepared environmental assessments. The revisions made by the IFR extended that allowance to applicant-prepared environmental impact statements while also adding standards and procedures to ensure that the process for using applicant-prepared environmental assessments and environmental impact statements is both efficient and legally defensible. For similar reasons, additional standards and procedures were added to the regulation governing bureau use of environmental information or documents prepared by contractors engaged directly by the bureaus.

The final rule affirms the IFR by retaining Section 46.105 with a minor revision that adds references to NEPA and a DOI Secretarial Order. In paragraph (c) of Section 46.107, DOI removes the last phrase “if potential significance of an effect or issue is not clear,” which described when another agency may be used to verify analyses in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. DOI determined that this phrase was unnecessary and could be unduly limiting when in-house expertise is not available and DOI seeks to rely on another agency's expertise regarding the scientific quality and integrity of an impact assessment.

In the final rule, DOI reinstates Section 46.220, How to designate lead agencies, as modified from legacy paragraph 1.7(a) from the DOI NEPA Handbook, How to designate lead agencies, and makes formatting changes to align with the format for rules. In response to public comment and to keep the roles of those agencies in the NEPA process together in the DOI NEPA implementing procedures, DOI elects to re-codify this section and the next section, 46.225, in the final rule.

In the final rule, DOI reinstates Section 46.225, How to select cooperating agencies, as modified from legacy paragraph 1.7(b) from the DOI NEPA Handbook, How to select cooperating agencies. In doing so, DOI amends the term “eligible governmental entity” to “agency” to align with NEPA and CEQ guidance in memorandum, Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act, Appendix 1—Agency NEPA Procedures Template, and makes editing and formatting changes to align with the format for rules. In addition, DOI corrected “must” to “may” in the provision regarding inviting cooperating agencies when preparing an environmental assessment, which corresponds to DOI's previous NEPA procedures and the text of NEPA. Finally, DOI added a clarifying phrase regarding documentation with cooperating agencies on their roles to explicitly note the potential limitations of laws on the confidentiality of pre-publication environmental documents. In response to numerous public comments requesting that DOI retain the procedures for including cooperating agencies in NEPA reviews in regulation, DOI elects to re-codify this section in the final rule to ensure that the agency's procedures effectively describe the process for selecting cooperating agencies and to promote maximum efficiency and cross-agency work in service of timely environmental reviews.

In this section, DOI provides a section-by-section summary of the provisions of DOI's NEPA Handbook. Though the Handbook is not part of the rulemaking, DOI is electing to provide this summary to assist the public in understanding the relationship between DOI's rulemaking and other updates to its NEPA procedures. In DOI's 2025 IFR, DOI explained that it was moving much of the material previously contained within its NEPA procedures in the CFR to a non-regulatory handbook. When publishing its IFR, DOI solicited comment on its revision of its NEPA procedures, including this step of transferring much of the procedures into the handbook. This section and the response to comments in section III below explain the contents of the handbook and respond to comments.

Section 0.1 of the DOI NEPA Handbook describes the purpose of the document and makes clear that the Handbook, together with the handful of provisions retained in regulation, constitute DOI's NEPA procedures. This section was revised from the version of the Handbook released in July 2025 with the IFR to provide explicitly that “environmental information” relevant to a decision-maker may include “economic information” and clarify that the Handbook is meant only to guide bureaus in their efforts to comply with NEPA and not with other legal obligations that may apply to a proposed action.

Section 0.2 of the DOI NEPA Handbook describes the extent of the applicability of the guidance document and provides that it applies to all DOI bureaus.

Section 1.1 of the DOI NEPA Handbook guides DOI bureaus on the standards for when the bureau must comply with NEPA, including what constitutes a “major Federal action[ ]” within the meaning of the statute. 42 U.S.C. 4332(C). Some commenters took exception to the statement in that discussion that “[t]he terms `major' and `Federal action[ ]' each have independent force.” DOI NEPA Handbook 1.1(a)(6)(i). Each word of the statute should be given weight. In this instance, Congress has itself defined the phrase, excluding certain kinds of proposed actions from its ambit, and in so doing repeated its two component terms first introduced in 1969. This interpretation that each term has a distinct meaning is also consistent with the interpretation of the statutory language in the period soon after NEPA's enactment, before the first CEQ NEPA regulations.

This section was revised from the version of the Handbook released in July 2025 with the IFR to remove references to an appendix listing examples of classes of actions that normally require an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement, which has been eliminated, and to clarify that the reason that the activities identified in Section 1.1(a)(6)(iii) do not usually require preparation of an environmental document is that they usually do not result in significant environmental effects and not necessarily that they are not “major Federal actions.”

Section 1.2 of the DOI NEPA Handbook presents the standards for determining, once it is established that NEPA applies, whether the bureau may use a categorical exclusion, prepare an environmental assessment, or prepare an environmental impact statement. Bureaus will prepare an environmental impact statement if the bureau anticipates that “the reasonably foreseeable effects of the proposed action or action alternatives would be significant.” DOI NEPA Handbook 1.2(b).

Some commenters took issue with the provision allowing that, “[i]f the proposed action warrants the establishment of a new categorical exclusion, or the revision of an existing categorical exclusion, pursuant to section 1.4(b), the bureau will consider whether to so establish or revise, and then may apply the categorical exclusion to the proposed action,” DOI NEPA Handbook 1.2(a)(3), and perceived it as a means of circumventing the usual process for establishing new or revising existing categorical exclusions.

DOI has revised this particular provision from the version of the Handbook released in July 2025 to make explicit that any establishment or revision of a categorical exclusion will follow the standard procedures. It is wholly appropriate for DOI bureaus to consider establishing a new categorical exclusion when confronted with an action of a type it has found normally does not significantly affect the quality of the human environment but for which no categorical exclusion has already been established.

Some commenters took issue with the criteria listed in this section, comparing those criteria to the treatment of “significance” under the 2024 CEQ regulations and objecting to the inclusion of “[e]conomic effects” and “[e]ffects on the quality of life of the American people” among those criteria to the exclusion of others.

The criteria identified in Section 1.2(b)(2) are necessarily defined at a high level of generality— e.g., “short- and long-term effects,” DOI NEPA Handbook 1.2(b)(2)(i), and the inclusion of references generally to economic and other quality of life impacts does not, as commenters suppose, prioritize those concepts above impacts to other environmental resources encompassed within but not explicitly listed among the broad criteria included in the Handbook. DOI has determined that this higher level of generality better reflects the broad understanding of “significance” under the statute than would an attempt to define the concept with more particularity, as CEQ did in 2024 and as some commenters appear to prefer.

Moreover, Congress enacted NEPA to declare a national policy “to use all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and [to] fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans.” 42 U.S.C. 4331(a). Given the statutory language as it relates to fulfilling the social and economic requirements of present and future generations, and DOI's longstanding practice in integrating its consideration of social impacts into its environmental analysis under NEPA, DOI finds it appropriate to continue to consider social effects, including economic effects, when evaluating environmental effects under NEPA.

This section was revised to make explicit that a bureau may, in determining whether an action will have significant effects, consider beneficial effects that directly offset adverse effects to a given resource value. DOI NEPA Handbook 1.2(b)(2).

Section 1.3 of the DOI NEPA Handbook describes the relationship between the NEPA process and other DOI and bureau processes and decisions. It includes direction to integrate the NEPA process with other processes as soon as practicable and articulates the limitations on bureau decision-making while the NEPA process is underway. DOI NEPA Handbook 1.3(a)-(b). This direction is consistent with long-standing CEQ and DOI NEPA guidance. See 40 CFR 1500.4(k); 40 CFR 1502.25(a) (1978) (rescinded); 43 CFR 46.430 (2008) (rescinded in part). It identifies important (largely practical) considerations in cases where the bureau action will be in response to a third-party application and where it will be a bureau rulemaking. DOI NEPA Handbook 1.3.(c)-(d). DOI revised these paragraphs (c) and (d), relative to the version of the Handbook released in July 2025, to provide additional detail.

Finally, section 1.3(e) provides standards for evaluating mitigation measures within the range of alternatives, with the important caveat that NEPA itself does not provide authority for a bureau to require or implement mitigation measures. DOI NEPA Handbook 1.3(e). The provisions in the DOI NEPA Handbook are consistent with the long-standing provisions in both the original CEQ and DOI NEPA regulations, including the definition of “mitigation.” See 40 CFR 1500.3 (describing the mandate of the regulations as “applicable to . . . implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA”) (1978) (rescinded); 40 CFR 1502.14(f) (1978) (rescinded), 1508.20 (1978) (setting forth the types of “mitigation”; rescinded); 43 CFR 46.130 (2008) (rescinded in part). Some commenters suggested that DOI should provide more detail in its procedures as to how to consider mitigation in NEPA reviews, even as those comments acknowledged that the procedures do address the topic. This section articulates the proposition that “NEPA requires bureaus to consider reasonable mitigation measures,” and it and other provisions within the Handbook provide appropriate standards for Responsible Officials to fulfill that obligation. DOI acknowledges that CEQ took a more granular approach in its 2024 Rule, but DOI has determined that the higher level of generality expressed in the DOI NEPA Handbook will provide Responsible Officials with the flexibility and reasonable discretion needed to efficiently carry out their duties consistent with NEPA's requirements. DOI NEPA Handbook 1.3(e); see also DOI NEPA Handbook 1.6(a)(3), 2.3(a)(6).

Section 1.4 of the DOI NEPA Handbook concerns categorical exclusions. Because the DOI NEPA procedures for categorical exclusions have been maintained as regulations, this section consists largely of cross-references to the appropriate regulatory section for the establishment, adoption, application, and documentation of categorical exclusions. See Section II.B.2, supra.

This section was revised from the version of the Handbook released in July 2025 with the IFR to provide additional details for considering whether a categorical exclusion applies to a proposed action that has been modified.

Section 1.5 of the DOI NEPA Handbook identifies and describes the considerations relevant to the preparation of an environmental assessment. It addresses both the character of environmental assessments as set forth in the statute, and is consistent with long-standing provisions in both the original CEQ and DOI NEPA regulations ( see 40 CFR 1508.9) (1978) (rescinded); 43 CFR 46.300, 310 (2008) (rescinded), including the elements they include and their appropriate scope, as well as more technical details, including page limits, timeframes for preparation, and certification. This section was revised from the version of the Handbook released in July 2025 with the IFR to add discussion of Section 112 of NEPA, enacted after the Handbook was first released, and to eliminate references to the appendix listing examples of classes of actions that normally require an environmental assessment (but not an environmental impact statement). DOI has determined that this appendix was not useful because the amendments to the statute and DOI's NEPA implementing procedures as adopted in the 2025 IFR, this final rule, and elsewhere in its NEPA Handbook provide sufficient guidance as to when DOI is required to develop an environmental assessment, and it is not included in the revised version of the Handbook.

Section 1.6 of the DOI NEPA Handbook details the procedures that bureaus follow when making and documenting a finding of no significant impact. As noted above in the discussion of section 1.3(e), this section provides that a finding of no significant impact will “identify the mitigation measures that will be undertaken to avoid significant effects and the mechanisms to ensure their implementation.” DOI NEPA Handbook 1.6(a)(3). No changes have been made to this section relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

Section 1.7 of the DOI NEPA Handbook concerns identification of a lead agency in cases where more than one agency will participate in a NEPA process and procedures for engaging with the broader set of cooperating agencies. The substance that appeared in the July 2025 version of the Handbook that accompanied the IFR has been moved to the regulations at 43 CFR 46.220 and 46.225; therefore, this section now consists primarily of cross-references to those provisions. See also Section II.B.4-5, supra.

Section 1.8 of the DOI NEPA Handbook describes DOI's procedures for the scoping process that precedes development of an environmental document, including the process for issuing a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement. Paragraph (b) of this section provides that when a bureau intends to prepare an environmental impact statement to evaluate a proposed action, the bureau must publish a notice of intent in the Federal Register . The notice of intent process includes an opportunity for public comment, as is required by statute. 42 U.S.C. 4336a(c). Paragraph (c) of this Handbook section includes examples of other steps bureaus might take as part of the scoping process. Paragraph (a) has been revised from what appeared in the July 2025 version of the Handbook for clarity.

Section 2.1 reiterates the standard for when an environmental impact statement is required, as well as the expectations and procedures for soliciting comments from Federal agencies; State, Tribal, and local governments and agencies; and the public. This section was revised from the version of the Handbook released in July 2025 with the IFR to eliminate references to the appendix listing examples of actions that normally require an environmental impact statement. DOI has determined that this appendix was not useful, and it is not included in the revised version of the Handbook.

Many comments addressed DOI's approach to public participation in the IFR and Handbook. Those comments are relevant to this section of the Handbook but generally address the question of public participation more broadly. For a consolidated response to those comments, see Section III.E, infra.

Section 2.2 provides guidance on developing the statement of purpose and need that is included in all environmental impact statements, including the particular considerations that are present when a bureau's proposed action responds to an application from a third party. Some commenters took issue with the provision that, in such circumstances, “the purpose and need for the proposed action will also be informed by the goals of the applicant,” claiming that it would limit consideration of appropriate alternatives to the proposed action. DOI disagrees because while the provision requires Responsible Officials to consider the applicant's goals when reasonably defining the purpose and need for a proposed action, it does not require those officials to adopt the applicant's goals as the bureau's purpose and need or exclude from consideration otherwise reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. DOI also notes that DOI's 2008 NEPA regulations included the directive that when considering such applications, “the bureau should consider the needs and goals of the parties involved in the application or permit as well as the public interest,” see 43 CFR 46.420(a)(2) (rescinded), and that this concept is merely carried into this section of the DOI NEPA Handbook. No changes have been made to this section relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

Section 2.3 outlines the content of an environmental impact statement, providing guidance on what should be included, which closely tracks the statutory requirements at 42 U.S.C. 4332(C); and provides guidance about how to determine the appropriate scope of the analysis, including by incorporating concepts and language from the Supreme Court's recent consideration of that issue in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition. Compare DOI NEPA Handbook 2.3(b)(3) (“To the extent it assists in reasoned decision-making, the bureau may, but is not required to by NEPA, analyze environmental effects from other projects separate in time, or separate in place, or that fall outside of the bureau's regulatory authority, or that would have to be initiated by a third party.”), with Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, 605 U.S. at 182 (“So long as the EIS addresses environmental effects from the project at issue, courts should defer to agencies' decisions about where to draw the line—including (i) how far to go in considering indirect environmental effects from the project at hand and (ii) whether to analyze environmental effects from other projects separate in time or place from the project at hand.”).

Section 2.3(a)(3) directs bureaus to identify and evaluate the environmental effects of “a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed action.” DOI NEPA Handbook 2.3(a)(3); see also 42 U.S.C. 4332(C)(iii). Some commenters suggested that DOI should or must incorporate into its guidance additional direction concerning the development and selection of alternatives from CEQ's rescinded regulations. The guidance concerning the identification and consideration of alternatives in DOI's Handbook substantially aligns with the content of CEQ's now-rescinded regulations and CEQ guidance, including that bureaus must consider a reasonable range of alternatives, see 40 CFR 1502.14(a) (1978) (rescinded); see also Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act Regulations, Question and Answer 1b (“When there are potentially a very large number of alternatives, only a reasonable number of examples, covering the full spectrum of alternatives, must be analyzed and compared in the EIS.”), 46 FR 18,026 (March 23, 1981).

But, as noted above, DOI's Handbook is not simply a subsequent iteration of the policies previously contained in CEQ's now-rescinded regulations, or a direct successor to them, but rather draws upon and implements the requirements of NEPA itself. Based on its experience and judgment, DOI believes that the guidance it is providing in Section 2.3(a)(3) better hews to the statutory language and better guides bureaus in developing alternatives to a given proposed action than would reconstituting the particular approach taken by the now-rescinded CEQ regulations. For example, one commenter noted while the version of the Handbook released in July 2025 expressly provides that environmental assessments do not need to include a “no action alternative,” the Handbook is not clear whether environmental impact statements must include a “no action alternative.” DOI agrees. The DOI Handbook, Appendix 1, has now been revised to encourage, but not require, DOI bureaus to include a “no action alternative” in both environmental assessments and environmental impact statements. While including a “no action alternative” is often useful to compare the effects of the proposed action to the future without the Federal action, it is not always necessary; no specific invocation of a “no action alternative” is necessary as the effects of the proposed action and any reasonable alternatives thereto would necessarily be described in terms of change to the prevailing circumstances or “Affected Environment.”

No other changes have been made to this section relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

Section 2.4 provides that environmental impact statements must be no more than 150 pages or, where the proposed action is of extraordinary complexity, 300 pages, consistent with statutory limits enacted in the 2023 amendments to NEPA. See 42 U.S.C. 4336a(e). The section also provides that the Responsible Official will certify that the environmental impact statement appropriately prioritizes the most important considerations for the analysis in light of both the page limitation and the factors that the bureau must consider under NEPA. The section has been revised from the version of the Handbook released in July 2025 with the IFR to clarify that citations and appendices are not counted toward the page limit.

Section 2.5 provides guidance and direction on compliance with NEPA's deadlines for completing an environmental impact statement under both Section 107 and Section 112 of the statute. It also directs the Responsible Official to certify that the environmental impact statement has thoroughly considered the factors that the bureau must consider under NEPA while making a good-faith effort to fulfill NEPA's requirements within the statutory deadlines. This section was revised from the version of the Handbook released in July 2025 with the IFR to add discussion of Section 112 of NEPA, enacted after the Handbook was first released.

Section 2.6 directs bureaus to make environmental impact statements available to the public. No changes have been made to this section relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

Section 3.1 provides guidance for bureaus when they seek to use a previously prepared environmental document to satisfy their NEPA compliance obligations with respect to a new proposed action. The section identifies the standards for making a Determination of NEPA Adequacy or similar finding, including by providing detail on what constitutes “substantial similarity.” Some commenters objected to the allowance that bureaus should provide for public comment when they plan to rely on a previously prepared environmental document only “to the extent that solicitation of comment will assist the bureau in expeditiously adapting the relied-upon statement or assessment so that it is fit for the bureau's purposes.” See DOI NEPA Handbook 3.1(b)(2). While those comments are specific to this section of the Handbook, they join many other comments addressed to DOI's approach to public participation in general. For a consolidated response to those comments, see Section III.E, infra.

No changes, beyond one technical correction, have been made to this section relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

Section 3.2 articulates guidance and details the procedures for preparing programmatic environmental assessments and environmental impact statements. The section tracks the statutory provisions for programmatic environmental documents at Section 108 to describe the circumstances under which a bureau may rely on a programmatic environmental document, without further NEPA review as well as when a bureau may, in the course of additional NEPA review, tier to an existing programmatic environmental assessment or environmental impact statement so as to truncate additional review. Finally, the section provides that a bureau may prepare an environmental assessment and reach a finding of no additional significant impacts when it tiers to a programmatic environmental impact statement that has already fully analyzed any significant effects the proposed action would have. This provision carries forward a clarification in tiering practice introduced in DOI's 2008 NEPA regulations. See 43 CFR 46.140 (rescinded). No changes have been made to this section relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

Section 3.3 provides allowance for a bureau to release drafts of environmental documents and other pre-decisional materials when doing so “may assist in fulfilling its responsibilities under NEPA.” No changes have been made to this section relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

Section 3.4 directs bureaus to combine environmental documents prepared to comply with NEPA with other bureau documents prepared in the course of making a decision to pursue the proposed action to the fullest extent practicable. This provision is designed to increase efficiency and decrease the extent of the materials to support agency decision-making. No changes have been made to this section relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

Section 3.5 describes the allowance for bureaus to incorporate other materials by reference, to reduce the length of environmental documents. When incorporating by reference, bureaus must describe the content briefly and provide relevant citation to the material being incorporated. This is consistent with a provision in the 2008 DOI NEPA regulations. See 43 CFR 46.135 (rescinded). With respect to cost-benefit analysis specifically, although NEPA itself does not require preparation of a cost-benefit analysis, these procedures direct bureaus to incorporate any cost-benefit analysis they do prepare by reference in the associated environmental document. This provision is consistent with long-standing guidance in the CEQ regulations. See 40 CFR 1502.23 (1978) (rescinded). In DOI's judgment, retaining it is compatible with the statute, will enhance DOI's ability to comply with the statutory page limits and deadlines, and will otherwise further the policies of E.O. 14154. No changes, beyond one technical correction, have been made to this section relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

22. Section 3.6—Supplements to Environmental Impact Statements

Section 3.6 concerns when a bureau must supplement an environmental impact statement. A supplement is required when “a major Federal action remains to occur” and the bureau makes substantial changes to the action or the bureau determines there are significant changed circumstances, in either case implicating environmental effects. DOI NEPA Handbook 3.6(a). Some comments took issue with the Handbook's use of the phrase “remains to occur,” preferring the phrase “incomplete and ongoing,” used in the CEQ's since-rescinded regulations. DOI disagrees with any suggestion that “remains to occur” is vague. Bureaus should have no trouble determining whether in the course of implementing a bureau action any “major Federal action remains to occur.” This approach is also consistent with long-standing provisions in the original CEQ regulations that required supplements only for “proposed actions”—that is, for actions that have not yet occurred but remain “proposals” or “that stage in the development of an action when an agency subject to [NEPA] has a goal and is actively preparing to make a decision on one or more alternative means of accomplishing that goal and the effects can be meaningfully evaluated.” See 40 CFR 1502.9(c) (1978) (rescinded); 40 CFR 1508.23 (1978, defining “proposal”) (rescinded).

Some comments also took issue with the Handbook's treatment of public participation on supplements to an environmental impact statement. The Handbook provides that the Responsible Official may, but is not obliged to, circulate a supplement for public input “as appropriate to the scope of the supplement and the proposed action.” DOI NEPA Handbook 3.6(b). While those comments are specific to this section of the Handbook, they join many other comments addressed to DOI's approach to public participation in general. For a consolidated response to those comments, see Section III.E, infra.

No changes have been made to this section relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

Section 3.7 expresses a preference for reliance on existing data and other information resources, directing bureaus to undertake new scientific or technical research only when “the bureau anticipates that the results of that research will be essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives and the overall costs and time frame of such undertaking are not unreasonable.” DOI NEPA Handbook 3.7(a). This approach is consistent with the original CEQ regulations, Congress codified this approach in the 2023 statutory amendments. See 40 CFR 1502.22(a) (1978); 42 U.S.C. 4336(b)(3). New research can be costly and time-consuming, and to make the NEPA process more efficient, bureaus should rely on existing sources of information wherever possible.

Paragraph (b) of this section provides guidance to bureaus in situations where existing data or information is incomplete but cannot be reasonably obtained or developed at a reasonable cost. In such cases, again for efficiency's sake, the bureau should document the data or information gap and proceed with preparation of the environmental document. Some comments suggested that DOI should incorporate a provision akin to one in the CEQ regulations that agencies apply accepted scientific methods to resolve data gaps. As an initial matter, and as noted above, in developing its Handbook, DOI is implementing the statute, not simply standing in for CEQ's now-rescinded regulations, which are no longer in force. Section 3.7(b) is consistent with NEPA, and because the Handbook is designed to promote efficiency and certainty, DOI declines to make the change suggested by those comments.

No changes, beyond one technical correction, have been made to this section relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

Section 3.8 directs bureaus to combine NEPA analysis and environmental documents with other analysis processes and documentation associated with the proposed action at issue and provides guidance on how to do so. No changes, beyond one edit for clarity, have been made to this section relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

Section 3.9 directs bureaus to coordinate NEPA analysis and the preparation of environmental documents with State, Tribal, and local agencies engaged in similar processes and provides guidance on how to do so. This section implements Congress's design in Section 107 as added by the 2023 statutory amendments. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. 4336a(a), (b). No changes have been made to this section relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

Section 3.10 directs bureaus to consider whether documents prepared in the course of rulemaking also may be used to satisfy NEPA with respect to that rulemaking and to rely on such documents when they are able. No changes have been made to this section relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

Section 3.11 addresses the practical concern of establishing a system by which relevant information and documents can be tracked in conjunction with one another. The requirement to coordinate use of identification numbers with CEQ is intended to support cross-agency coordination across multiple Federal agencies and navigation by the public of documents that support decisions made.

DOI elected to retain the provisions addressing NEPA compliance as related to emergencies in its NEPA regulations at 43 CFR 46.150; therefore, this section now consists primarily of cross-references to those provisions. See Section II.B.1, supra, for discussion of the relevant regulation.

Section 4.1 provides direction to bureaus as to how and when to document and make public their decisions, in particular how the mode of complying with NEPA affects Department expectations and requirements for how decisions are documented. The section reiterates the bureaus' discretion to select any one or a blend of the alternatives considered in the course of the NEPA process. DOI has revised this section from the version released with the IFR in July 2025 to better clarify when a decision should be documented and when a decision should be published.

Section 4.2 provides guidance for filing environmental impact statements with the Environmental Protection Agency for publication and notification of availability. No changes, beyond one edit for clarity, have been made to this section relative to the version released with the IFR in July 2025.

Because procedures for applicant-prepared environmental documents are retained in regulation, this section of the Handbook consists only of a cross-reference. See Section II.B.3, supra, for discussion of the relevant regulation.

Because procedures for preparation of environmental documents by a bureau-directed contractor are retained in regulation, this section of the Handbook consists only of a cross-reference. See Section II.B.3, supra, for discussion of the relevant regulation.

Section 6.1 defines the terms of art used throughout the Handbook. DOI has added definitions of the terms design features and environmental document to the definitions section since the Handbook was first published in July 2025 alongside the IFR. Other definitions have been revised for clarity in this updated version of the Handbook.

Section 7.1 consists of a statement of severability in the event one or more of the DOI NEPA procedures contained in the Handbook are found to be invalid.

DOI received approximately 6,601 written submissions in response to the interim final rule. The overwhelming majority of comments (approximately 6,122) were in the form of two different letters that were identical or very similar in form and content. From among the 6,601 comments, DOI received approximately 458 unique public comments, including from non-governmental organizations, State agencies, local and regional governments, Tribes, industry groups, members of the U.S. House of Representatives, and members of the public.

DOI is providing summaries of and responses to those unique and substantive comments it received on the IFR in the following section of this final rule. The DOI received comments expressing general support for the IFR and comments expressing opposition to the IFR. None of the comments changed DOI's conclusion that it is appropriate to partially rescind and otherwise revise the previous regulations, though DOI made minor edits to those regulations upon further review. In addition, DOI made various edits to the Department of the Interior Handbook: National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (hereinafter, DOI NEPA Handbook) to correct or clarify procedural issues, or address internal or external comments. Responses to comments on the DOI NEPA Handbook are not addressed specifically in this section as revision and publication of the DOI NEPA Handbook is not part of the rulemaking. However, DOI considered comments on the DOI NEPA Handbook when making revisions to that document, which is being reissued concurrently with this final rule, and as appropriate provides responses in the interest of clarity and ensuring public understanding of DOI's rationales. Further, the section-by-section discussion the DOI NEPA Handbook herein addresses, with particular focus, how concepts previously addressed in 43 CFR part 46 now appear in the DOI NEPA Handbook. For example, defined terms used in this rule are found in the DOI NEPA Handbook, Section 6.1 Definitions and, in several instances, are consistent with how they appeared in 43 CFR part 46, often, with more helpful detail. See, e.g., 43 CFR 46.30 (definitions of “Proposed Action” and “Responsible Official”; rescinded).

Comment: Several commenters expressed support for the IFR. Letters of support commended the Department for updating its NEPA procedures to be consistent with E.O. 14154, aligning the NEPA implementing procedures with the FRA and the Supreme Court's decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, and simplifying permitting procedures and the NEPA process.

Response: DOI acknowledges these supportive comments.

Comment: Many commenters expressed opposition to the IFR. Letters of opposition urged the Department to reverse course.

Response: DOI acknowledges these opposing comments.

Comment: One commenter expressed support for the new DOI NEPA Procedures and stated that it is imperative that DOI leadership ensure that bureaus implement these procedures and adapt their practices to conform to them.

Response: The DOI NEPA procedures are part of a coordinated effort to reduce the burdens associated with NEPA compliance across the Federal Government and ensure that DOI bureaus comply with NEPA and DOI NEPA regulations. DOI acknowledges that additional guidance or training may be necessary to appropriately implement these revised DOI NEPA procedures.

Comment: Several commenters requested that DOI extend the comment period for the IFR.

Response: DOI determined that 30 days was adequate because the scope of the IFR was limited to partial removal and minimal additions or revisions to the DOI regulations. While DOI made a greater number of revisions to the procedural provisions related to compliance with NEPA now present in the DOI NEPA Handbook, these changes, which are not part of this rulemaking, largely aligned DOI procedures with recent amendments to NEPA or developments in case law, such as the renewed focus in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition on limiting the scope of analysis to the reasonably foreseeable environmental effects of the agency's proposed action and reasonable alternatives. Moreover, DOI received more than 6,600 comments on its IFR, and the volume and substantive content of the comments indicates that the public had an adequate opportunity to comment.

Comment: Several commenters requested that the IFR be published as a proposed rule with a period for public comment prior to the IFR's effective date.

Response: The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) authorizes agencies to issue regulations without notice and public comment when the rule is an “interpretative rule[ ], general statement[ ] of policy, or rule[ ] of agency . . . procedure[ ] or practice,” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), or when an agency finds, for good cause, that notice and comment is “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest,” id. 553(b)(B). The APA did not require DOI to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking and consider public comments before the effective date of the rule because three separate exceptions to the APA's general requirement apply here: (1) the legacy DOI NEPA regulations were procedural only and did not dictate or preclude any DOI actions; rather, the legacy DOI NEPA regulations prescribed processes for DOI and its bureaus to follow when complying with NEPA; (2) the legacy DOI NEPA regulations merely provided an interpretation of a statute rather than making discretionary policy choices establishing enforceable rights or obligations for regulated parties; and (3) good cause exists to forgo notice-and-comment procedures and put the rule into immediate effect because public comment on the rule was and is unnecessary and impracticable. The legacy DOI NEPA regulations were expressly promulgated to supplement CEQ's NEPA regulations; following the vacatur and rescission of CEQ's NEPA regulations, DOI was left with vestigial NEPA regulations that “supplemented” a CEQ regulatory regime that no longer existed. 5 U.S.C. 553 (b)(A)-(B).

Comment: Several commenters disagreed that DOI had good cause to waive the APA notice-and-comment requirements imposed by 5 U.S.C. 553(b). These commenters stated that DOI's IFR did not establish that notice and an opportunity to comment were unnecessary, impracticable, or contrary to the public interest. These commenters asserted that, rather than reducing confusion and supporting public interest, the IFR creates more confusion about how DOI will undertake its NEPA reviews. In addition, several commenters disagreed with DOI's conclusion that its rule to partially remove and revise its NEPA implementing regulations is an interpretative rule or, in the alternative, a rule of agency procedure that does not, in either case, require notice and comment.

Response: DOI proceeded via IFR in response to E.O. 14154, which, among other things, revoked E.O. 11991, the E.O. in which President Carter had delegated authority to CEQ to promulgate regulations implementing NEPA and binding agencies in their implementation of NEPA; DOI's NEPA implementing regulations supplemented those CEQ regulations. Without E.O. 11991 and its Presidential delegation of authority, CEQ was obligated to rescind its NEPA implementing regulations and thus it was imperative for DOI to address supplementary regulations that were no longer consistent with CEQ direction. The APA did not require the Department to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking and consider public comments before the effective date of the rule because three separate exceptions to that requirement apply: (1) the legacy DOI NEPA regulations were procedural only and did not dictate or preclude any DOI actions; rather, the legacy DOI NEPA regulations prescribed processes for the Department and its bureaus to follow when complying with NEPA; (2) the legacy DOI NEPA regulations merely provided an interpretation of a statute rather than making discretionary policy choices establishing enforceable rights or obligations for regulated parties; and (3) good cause exists to forgo notice-and-comment procedures and put the rule into immediate effect because the legacy DOI NEPA regulations were expressly promulgated to supplement CEQ's NEPA regulations; following the vacatur and rescission of CEQ's NEPA regulations, the Department was left with vestigial NEPA regulations that “supplemented” a CEQ regulatory regime that no longer existed. 5 U.S.C. 553 (b)(A)-(B).

Moreover, DOI's IFR contained all the elements of a notice of proposed rulemaking as required by the APA. 5 U.S.C. 553(b); see also Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter & Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, 591 U.S. 657 (2020). DOI explained its position with sufficient detail to put the public on notice that it was partially rescinding and otherwise revising its NEPA implementing regulations and provided its rationale along with an opportunity to comment. The public understood the action DOI was taking and took advantage of the opportunity to comment; DOI received more than 6,600 comments on its IFR. Thus, while DOI maintains for the reasons noted above that its IFR is subject to the exceptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b), this final rule represents the culmination of a process functionally equivalent to a traditional notice-and-comment rulemaking regardless of the initial procedural basis for the IFR.

DOI is issuing this final rule to respond to comments on the IFR and explain that it is reaffirming its decision to partially remove and otherwise revise its NEPA implementing regulations, subject to the additional revisions made by this final rule. This final rule therefore supersedes the IFR. The public had the opportunity to comment prior to issuance of this final rule, thereby rendering comments objecting to the IFR process moot.

Comment: Some Tribes and organizations representing Tribal interests requested formal government-to-government consultation regarding the IFR before it took effect. Commenters noted that there was no communication or notification of the IFR before publication. Some commenters disagreed with DOI's statement that the IFR does not require consultation with Tribal governments. Some commenters stated that the IFR incorrectly states that it is not a regulatory policy with Tribal implications. Several commenters note that the Federal Government has a duty to consult with Tribal Nations on Federal actions that may have Tribal implications, as expressed in E.O. 13175.

Response: Changes to Federal agency NEPA compliance procedures do not implicate Tribal interests that would be the subject of government-to-government consultation but pertain only to internal procedures for agencies to comply with NEPA, including their analysis of environmental impacts. The way in which agencies conduct analysis of the environmental impacts of proposed actions is independent of the way agencies engage in government-to-government consultation about proposed actions of interest to Tribes, and independent of the way agencies must comply with other laws and policies. Members of Tribes may always provide input into agency decision-making. Pursuant to E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (Nov. 6, 2000), agencies must consult with Tribes before promulgating regulations with Tribal implications in certain instances, none of which are triggered here. Although DOI is not conducting government-to-government consultation, it has considered the input from Tribal governments and organizations representing Tribal interests provided during the public comment period on the IFR, as reflected in this rulemaking. Neither the IFR nor this rulemaking alters DOI's duties towards Tribes.

Comment: Several commenters stated that the IFR is not supported by adequate reasoning, particularly given the magnitude of change in DOI NEPA implementing procedures, and that E.O. 14154 does not justify the move from codified regulations to a handbook.

Response: DOI explained that it revised its NEPA procedures to adjust for the fact that CEQ regulations no longer exist, conform these procedures to the 2023 statutory amendments, respond to President Trump's direction in E.O. 14154, and address the difficulties associated with the NEPA process and NEPA litigation identified by the Supreme Court in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition.

DOI also provided more detailed explanation as to how the handful of provisions that will remain in regulation would operate, including by explaining the reasons to retain those provisions in regulation and for the targeted changes made to those provisions and how those changes are intended to be implemented. DOI is not required to provide the same kind of detail on the establishment of its internal guidance ( i.e., the DOI NEPA Handbook), where the balance of its NEPA procedures now reside, but the agency nevertheless provided discussion of the DOI NEPA Handbook, and made it available for public comment along with the IFR. Further, the section-by-section discussion of the DOI NEPA Handbook herein addresses, with particular focus, how concepts that originally appeared in 43 CFR part 46 are now addressed in the DOI NEPA Handbook. And as DOI explained, it moved its procedures back to Departmental policy—where it appeared for decades prior to 2008—for the benefit of greater flexibility that it provides at this time given that NEPA is rapidly evolving as reflected in statutory amendments over the last several years.

Comment: Several commenters requested that the Department recodify its NEPA regulations instead of providing guidance in the form of a handbook because the latter lacks the enforceability and consistency associated with codified regulations.

Response: In response to both E.O. 14192, which requires reducing regulation, and E.O. 14154, which resulted in CEQ rescinding its NEPA regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 -1508), the Department reduced its NEPA regulations and consolidated DOI's NEPA procedures in the DOI NEPA Handbook. Those changes reflect DOI's reasoned judgment as to how best to provide for the implementation of NEPA, including in light of recent amendments to and judicial interpretations of NEPA as a “purely procedural statute.” Further, as noted above, this return of the DOI NEPA procedures from primarily in regulations to primarily in Departmental policy—where it appeared for decades prior to 2008—supports the Departmental goals of flexibility in a changing legal landscape.

Comment: Some commenters stated that the new DOI NEPA procedures will result in increased litigation and delays. Some comments warned that the IFR could lead to regulatory questions because there are no codified procedures and project sponsors may face conflicting standards due to a combination of regulatory decentralization, legal shifts, and procedural ambiguity in the DOI NEPA procedures. These commenters further assert that the new DOI NEPA procedures will result in deficient records that may need to be supplemented in litigation or as part of later site-specific actions.

Response: Though these asserted harms are speculative, DOI did consider previous litigation and judicial precedents in revising the DOI NEPA procedures, most particularly in moving many of these procedural provisions from regulation back to Departmental policy documents. Procedural rules have always been subject to change without notice and comment. And even if (and to the extent that) DOI's NEPA regulations are deemed to be interpretive rather than procedural, notice-and-comment procedures are not required for interpretive rulemaking, regardless of whether they were originally promulgated with notice and comment. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A); Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n, 575 U.S. 92 (2015). DOI provided notice of the DOI NEPA procedure revisions, and the announcement of the IFR explicitly allows for previously initiated NEPA reviews to proceed under the previous NEPA procedures as expressed in the 2008 DOI NEPA regulations when appropriate. Additionally, DOI disagrees with commenters' assertions that the flexibilities and efficiencies secured in the new DOI procedures will detract from DOI's ability to assemble sufficient administrative records or otherwise exacerbate litigation risk. The basis for DOI's new procedures is the statute as amended, the implementation of President Trump's policy direction in E.O. 14154 section 5 as consistent with applicable law, and the Supreme Court's recent, landmark Seven County opinion. DOI is confident that NEPA implementing procedures shaped under the guidance of these three pillars will produce legally durable NEPA analyses that are sound as a matter of policy.

Comment: Several commenters raised concerns that the changes to the DOI NEPA procedures would potentially cause conflict with State laws, including third-party compliance with State environmental review requirements. One commenter stated the revised DOI NEPA procedures result in an increased burden on States to evaluate impacts of Federal actions.

Response: With respect to State interests in maintaining DOI's NEPA implementing procedures in regulation, the removal and revisions do not change the statutory mandate for agencies to ensure a coordinated environmental review process with the States. See 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), 4332(2)(G), 4332(2)(J), 4334, and 4336a. State obligations and authorities related to the evaluation of Federal actions are unchanged by the revision of the DOI NEPA procedures—much less by their return from a regulatory to a Departmental policy format.

Comment: Several commenters noted differences between DOI's NEPA procedures and those of other Federal agencies that issued NEPA procedures concurrently and requested more consistency or expressed preferences regarding aspects of the NEPA procedures. Some of the preferences noted included maintaining previous DOI NEPA procedure regulatory text or revising remaining DOI NEPA procedure regulatory text or guidance. For example, several commenters suggested that DOI adopt NEPA procedures used by other agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture extraordinary circumstances review protocol for reliance on categorical exclusions.

Response: DOI carefully considered revisions to its NEPA procedures based on the experience of its bureaus and believes the changes, with the edits made in this final rule and the revisions to the DOI NEPA Handbook, provide for both consistency and increased effectiveness in DOI decision-making for its mission and programs. CEQ, including through the working group created by E.O. 14154, is coordinating the revision of Federal agency-level implementing procedures for consistency. This is in keeping with Congress's direction that agencies consult with CEQ when developing their procedures for implementing NEPA, see 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(B).

Comment: Several commenters stated that DOI failed to provide a reasoned explanation for the decision to largely rescind its NEPA regulations in favor of establishing the DOI NEPA Handbook.

Response: As explained in the IFR and this final rule, NEPA “is a purely procedural statute” that covers internal processes, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, 605 U.S. at 173, and DOI's implementation of that procedural statute need not be in regulation. And, as explained above, DOI's legacy regulations were procedural only—those regulations merely described processes for DOI and its bureaus to follow when complying with NEPA. Many Federal agencies do not have NEPA procedures in regulation, just as DOI did not have its NEPA procedures in regulation before 2008, and agencies have discretion to determine the form of their NEPA procedures for effective NEPA implementation. DOI finds the benefit of greater flexibility that guidance provides appropriate at this time given that NEPA is rapidly evolving as reflected in statutory amendments over the last several years.

Comment: Several commenters asserted that DOI failed to adequately explain its departure from CEQ's rescinded regulations and policy positions. These comments suggest that DOI is required to acknowledge CEQ's earlier positions, identify with specificity where DOI's regulations and NEPA Handbook differ from them, and justify those differences in light of CEQ's prior interpretations of NEPA or retain CEQ's regulations.

Response: As explained in greater detail above, DOI acknowledges that CEQ's regulations previously provided a framework for NEPA compliance and informed agency practices. However, as CEQ explained in its final rule affirming the removal of its regulations, CEQ lacks independent statutory authority to maintain NEPA implementing regulations that bind agencies in the absence of an executive order delegating rulemaking authority to CEQ. 91 FR at 622-23; see also Executive Order 14154, Unleashing American Energy, 90 FR 8,353. Accordingly, agencies may now exercise discretion to adopt procedures consistent with NEPA and executive policies. Indeed, as DOI explained in its IFR, because DOI's prior NEPA implementing procedures were expressly designed as a supplement to CEQ's rescinded regulations, CEQ's recission necessitated that DOI adopt new procedures designed to independently implement NEPA.

While some commenters evaluated DOI's NEPA implementing procedures against CEQ's prior regulations, DOI does not consider the adoption of its new procedures to be a departure from DOI's own prior policy simply because CEQ may in the past have expressed a different view on a given point of NEPA implementation. DOI's primary foundation for the updates to its NEPA procedures, as explained above, is the statute and Supreme Court precedent. Instead of seeking to carry forward or build upon CEQ's repealed procedures, DOI focused on developing NEPA procedures to meet the statutory requirements found in 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347. DOI disagrees that it must retain elements of the former CEQ regulations simply because CEQ in its rescinded regulatory regime included those elements and provided some rationale for so doing. CEQ's regulations no longer govern agency compliance, and the relevant question is whether DOI's procedures satisfy NEPA's requirements. As explained in this rulemaking, DOI has determined, after consultation with CEQ and consideration of comments received, that procedures adopted here as final satisfy NEPA's requirements and DOI's other statutory responsibilities. DOI's updated NEPA procedures appropriately account for DOI's specific authorities and activities, the environmental effects it typically encounters, and the need for timely and efficient decision-making, as well as for significant changes in law since DOI established its prior regulations. Nevertheless, where relevant and appropriate, this preamble to the final rule addresses aspects of DOI's NEPA procedures that follow or depart from aspects of CEQ's prior approach.

Comment: Some comments noted that DOI did not explain how its approach to implementing NEPA compared to approaches adopted by other agencies. For example, commenters raised issue with DOI using a non-codified handbook to implement NEPA, where differently some agencies codified some or all of their NEPA implementing regulations.

Response: DOI recognizes that its approach to implementing NEPA may differ from other agencies' approaches to implementing NEPA. Through issuance of this final rulemaking and NEPA Handbook, DOI has determined the best position for DOI to establish NEPA implementing procedures that fit its programs and authorities. Following the removal of CEQ's NEPA regulations, DOI has flexibility to determine agency-specific NEPA procedures to modernize, simplify, and accelerate NEPA reviews and support responsible development.

Furthermore, DOI notes that NEPA requires agencies to consult with CEQ when developing agency NEPA procedures. See 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(B). NEPA does not require agencies to coordinate with one another to ensure identicality between their respective NEPA procedures, let alone between the means by which each agency issues those procedures. Agencies' statutory authorities and subject-matter expertise differ greatly, and variance on these matters is to be expected. Indeed, agencies' NEPA procedures were not homogenous or identical during the era in which CEQ maintained overarching implementing regulations, and there is no requirement or reasonable expectation that they should be so once those CEQ regulations have been vacated and rescinded.

Comment: Some commenters, citing a 2025 CEQ report from the previous administration, take the position that the data do not support the need to implement measures to shorten timelines for the completion of environmental assessments and environmental impact statements. At least one commenter claims that trends towards longer timelines had been reversed by the policies of the previous administration.

Response: DOI has concluded that further measures are necessary to meet the statutory requirements of NEPA and the policies set forth in E.O. 14154. As part of the FRA, Congress amended NEPA to add mandatory deadlines and related procedural reforms for the development of environmental assessments and environmental impact statements. 42 U.S.C. 4336a(g). Specifically, Congress identified certain triggering events and directed agencies to complete environmental assessments and environmental impact statements within one and two years, respectively, of those events. Id. To enforce these deadlines, Congress provided project sponsors with a cause of action to seek judicial review of an agency's failure to act by the deadline. Id. 4336a(g)(3).

The 2025 CEQ report on which commenters rely compared median timelines for environmental impact statements completed from 2013 to 2016 (3.5 years), 2017 to 2020 (3.1 years) and 2021 to 2024 (2.4 years). CEQ, Environmental Impact Statement Timelines (2010-2024), at 4 (Jan. 13, 2025). Though CEQ noted the general downward trend in the amount of time taken to prepare environmental impact statements, it did not evaluate how fewer statements being completed over the periods it analyzed may have contributed to this trend: 2013 to 2016 (621 statements); 2017 to 2020 (436 statements); and 2021 and 2024 (232 statements). For example, CEQ did not assess whether the decline from a median of 3.1 years (2017-2020) to 2.4 years (2021-2024), a 22.6 percent decrease, could be attributed to a 46.8 percent decline in total statements completed. Similarly, CEQ did not assess whether Federal resources available for completing environmental reviews changed over these periods. CEQ also declined to analyze average timelines over these same periods, relegating those averages from 2010 to 2024 to a simple chart. But the report's accompanying spreadsheet estimates that environmental impact statements were completed in 4.1 years on average from 2010 to 2024.

Even assuming CEQ's characterizations were accurate, the report states that environmental impact statements were not completed within the statutorily required two-year period when measured by the median of completed statements. CEQ's data shows that agencies, without more fundamental reform, would not achieve compliance with the statute as amended. Commenters have not provided a basis for DOI to alter its view that the reforms in the IFR as finalized in this final rule are an appropriate means to accomplish compliance with NEPA and the policies of the United States. Regardless, DOI concludes that CEQ's 2025 report is flawed. An equally plausible explanation for its data is the large reduction in output, i.e., fewer environmental impact statements. DOI notes that the Inflation Reduction Act also provided hundreds of millions of dollars above baseline Federal spending for expediting and improving environmental reviews during the 2021 to 2024 period. Public Law 117-169. DOI cannot rely on CEQ's prior conclusions about the reasons for the downward trend in time needed to complete environmental impact statements when alternative explanations for those conclusions were plainly ignored. 1 Moreover, DOI cannot rely on CEQ's report where the fundamental conditions are reversed. This administration's policies are designed to increase output and demand energetic, efficient responses to a declared energy emergency, see E.O. 14156, Declaring a National Energy Emergency, 90 Fed Reg. 8,433 (Jan. 29, 2025); see also Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Energy, 91 FR 1,667 (Jan. 14, 2026), and related Executive Orders. See, e.g., E.O. 14154, Unleashing American Energy, 90 FR 8,353.

Comment: Some commenters expressed concerns and proposed edits or text changes to the DOI NEPA procedures to provide clarity or address their specific concerns.

Response: DOI has considered comments and, in some cases, where DOI agrees with the commenter, has made edits to either the regulatory text in the final rule or to the DOI NEPA Handbook. Regulatory text changes in the final rule are non-substantive changes from the IFR and described in Section II above. Text changes to the DOI NEPA Handbook that is reissued concurrently with the final rule reflect both substantive and editorial revisions to address corrections or provide clarity.

Comment: Many commenters expressed concerns about removing NEPA procedures from regulation, which often include notice-and-comment rulemaking, and one commenter “cautions against moving entirely to guidance documents rather than notice-and-comment rulemaking.”

Response: From soon after the enactment of NEPA in 1970 through 2008, the DOI NEPA procedures appeared solely in guidance. This procedural guidance was subject to notice-and-comment requirements only by virtue of CEQ regulations that have now been rescinded. See 43 Fed Reg. 55,978, 56,003 (Nov. 29, 1978) (promulgation of CEQ's NEPA implementing regulations, directing agencies to publish their proposed procedures for comment); 91 FR 618 (Jan. 8, 2026) (final rule adopting interim final rule rescinding CEQ's NEPA implementing regulations). Contrast 42 U.S.C. 102(2)(B) (Congressional direction to agencies to “develop methods and procedures” in consultation with CEQ to implement NEPA, with no notice-and-comment requirement). As the procedural guidance is binding only on the DOI bureaus themselves, it is guidance that does not need to be in regulation or be subject to notice-and-comment requirements for rulemakings under the APA. And as explained above, DOI finds the benefit of greater flexibility that guidance provides appropriate at this time given that NEPA is rapidly evolving as reflected in statutory amendments over the last several years.

Comment: Many commenters expressed concerns that all cooperating agency provisions were removed from regulation, stating that durability and consistency is provided when these provisions are codified in regulation. One commenter stated, “[NEPA] reflect[s] a deliberate congressional commitment to cooperative federalism. The IFR[ ] should be revised to reflect the full breadth of this mandate by reinstating clearly defined, enforceable provisions for engaging cooperating agencies . . . .”

Response: In response to these and other comments, and to better implement the statutory requirement for lead agencies to coordinate with them, 42 U.S.C. 4336a(a) and (b), DOI has reinserted modified regulations for the designation of lead agencies and the selection of cooperating agencies at 43 CFR 46.220 and 46.225, respectively. Because DOI recognizes the unique and special role that cooperating agencies, as representatives of sovereign governments, have in the Federal NEPA process, and because Congress has specifically provided a mechanism in statute for these government agencies to participate under appropriate circumstances in the cooperating agency process, DOI has elected to transfer the procedures governing that process from the DOI NEPA Handbook to the Code of Federal Regulations.

Comment: One commenter proposed edits to the DOI NEPA Handbook that would require all eligible governmental entities be approved as cooperating agencies and would eliminate the bureaus' discretion to deny requests by eligible agencies for cooperating agency status.

Response: DOI is declining to restrict the discretion to consider whether to approve requests for cooperating agency status granted to lead agencies by NEPA in section 107(a)(3)(B), 42 U.S.C. 4336a(a)(3)(B). Such requests cannot be arbitrarily denied under the DOI NEPA procedures. See 43 CFR 46.225(c).

Comment: Commenters raised concerns regarding public participation in NEPA processes and that the revised DOI NEPA procedures alter the long-standing, but now-abrogated, opportunities for public participation, for example by not requiring public comment with the issuance of a draft environmental impact statement, and that in light of the benefits to the agency from public comment periods and other forms of public participation, the reasoning to support that change was inadequate and arbitrary. Additionally, some commenters asserted that DOI has not sufficiently explained why it is not practicable for its NEPA procedures to impose across-the-board requirements that DOI solicit comment beyond those stages in the NEPA process that Congress has mandated.

Response: The updates to DOI's NEPA public participation procedures, including in the final rule, mirror what NEPA requires. As discussed above, in the past, CEQ's NEPA regulations substantially guided and informed the content of DOI's NEPA procedures. CEQ's NEPA regulations, in all their iterations dating back to 1978, included procedural requirements that exceed those required by the statute. With respect to public participation in particular, CEQ's regulations historically included comment periods that the statute does not compel. For example, CEQ's 1978 regulations directed agencies to prepare environmental impact statements “in two stages,” 40 CFR 1502.9 (1978), which included circulation of a draft environmental impact statement for public review and comment. 40 CFR 1503.1(a)(4) (1978).

CEQ's NEPA regulations have now been rescinded by CEQ, Removal of National Environmental Policy Act Implementation Regulations, 91 FR 618 (Jan. 8, 2026). In response, DOI developed its own updated NEPA regulations and other NEPA procedures, implementing the President's direction in E.O. 14154, Unleashing American Energy, 90 FR 8353, and E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, 90 FR 9065 (Feb. 6, 2025), to ensure that regulatory requirements are grounded in applicable law and to alleviate any unnecessary regulatory burdens. In doing so, DOI considered the appropriate scope of its public participation processes, including whether to define these processes in regulation or by guidance. Having elected to proceed by guidance to allow for greater flexibility to engage in the appropriate mode and extent of public participation on a case-by-case basis, DOI designed the DOI NEPA Handbook that replaces the repealed regulations to reflect the statute's requirements.

NEPA, as amended by the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, requires agencies to take public comment in only one specific circumstance: when agencies issue a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement. See 42 U.S.C. 4336a(c). This requirement is fully incorporated into DOI's updated NEPA procedures, which provide, for example, that when a bureau intends to prepare an environmental impact statement, the bureau must publish a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement in the Federal Register . DOI NEPA Handbook 1.8(b). Consistent with the statute, the DOI procedures specify that a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement shall include “a request for public comment on alternatives or effects and on relevant information, studies, or analyses with respect to the proposed agency action.” DOI NEPA Handbook 1.8(b)(1).

In developing its regulations and NEPA Handbook, DOI elected not to create new and additional public participation requirements that are not grounded in applicable law and which would result in unnecessary regulatory burdens. DOI was also mindful that NEPA, as amended by the Fiscal Responsibility Act, now includes statutory deadlines that agencies must meet. See 42 U.S.C. 4336a(g)(1) (establishing a two-year deadline to prepare environmental impact statements and a one-year deadline to prepare environmental assessments). Mandating a comment period for all environmental impact statements and environmental assessments would not only go beyond statutory requirements but could be in tension with DOI's statutory obligation to meet these deadlines.

Though it need not have done so, DOI has established in its NEPA procedures that when a DOI bureau intends to prepare an environmental impact statement, the bureau must publish a Federal Register notice of such intent. DOI NEPA Handbook 1.8(b). And while a bureau intending to prepare an environmental assessment may publish a notice of intent to prepare an environmental assessment, it need not do so. DOI NEPA Handbook 1.8(b). In this respect, the DOI NEPA Procedures are consistent with long-standing flexibility regarding whether and how an agency involves the public when preparing an environmental assessment, as expressed in both the 1978 CEQ regulations and the 2008 DOI NEPA regulations. See 40 CFR 1506.6(a) (requiring only “diligent efforts”; rescinded); 43 CFR 46.305 (requiring bureaus to provide for public notification and public involvement when an environmental assessment is being prepared only “to the extent practicable”; rescinded). That is, pre-decisional public involvement when a bureau was preparing an environmental assessment was never guaranteed. While DOI has considered and agrees with comments describing how the agency decision-making process can be improved by public comments and other forms of public participation, Congress has not elected to make pre-decisional public involvement a requirement. Crucially, however, the fact that DOI's NEPA procedures no longer prescribe a particular public comment process or period over and above what NEPA requires—apart from the DOI decision to require bureaus to publish a notice of intent in the Federal Register that invites comment when intending to prepare an environmental impact statement—does not prevent DOI bureaus from exercising their discretion to solicit additional public comment when they determine that doing so would be appropriate or helpful. Indeed, since publication of the IFR and DOI NEPA Handbook, DOI bureaus have regularly sought public comment on draft or preliminary NEPA documents. They have voluntarily elected to do so in a variety of contexts, including inviting public comment on certain environmental assessments for forestry and timber actions, see, e.g., the Outlaw Ridge Timber Management Project, DOI-BLM-ORWA-N010-2025-0011-EA (BLM Cascades Field Office, Oregon); fluid mineral development, see, e.g., Hazel Inez Multi Well Project, DOI-BLM-NM-P020-2026-0287-EA (BLM Carlsbad Field Office, New Mexico); road maintenance, see, e.g., Yellowstone National Park, North Entrance Road Reconstruction Project EA, PEPC 115825 (NPS January 2026); habitat conservation plans, see, e.g., Environmental Assessment of a Proposed Habitat Conservation Plan and Incidental Take Permit for the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard ( Sceloporus arenicolus ) in New Mexico, FWS-R2-ES-2025-0053-0002 (FWS December 2025); and recreation and visitor services. See Grand Teton National Park, Reimagining the Taggart Lake Experience, PEPC 119939 (NPS August 2025); SR9 Campground Management, DOI-BLM-UT-C030-2025-0019-EA (BLM St. George Field Office, Utah). Finally, although it should go without saying, what NEPA may or may not require regarding public involvement does not change what other statutes might require; agencies must comply with the provisions of all statutes applicable to their actions.

Additionally, DOI notes that commenters specifically cite section 2(b) of E.O. 11514, 35 FR 4247 (March 7, 1970), President Nixon's initial executive order regarding implementation of NEPA following the Act's original passage, in which President Nixon provided that agency NEPA implementing procedures “shall include, whenever appropriate, providing for public hearings.” In this regard, President Trump's E.O. 14154 at section 2(b) provides that it is the policy of the United States that agencies “provide opportunity for public comment.” DOI notes that this provision of 14154 is not specifically directed towards NEPA implementation, but rather is contained in the introductory policy section of the Executive Order, which addresses the national interest in affordable and reliable energy and natural resources. President Nixon's Executive Order, which is specifically directed towards NEPA implementation, also specifically provides that agency NEPA procedures shall provide public hearings “whenever appropriate” and “the fullest practicable” provision of public information.

DOI's view is that the NEPA implementing procedures it adopted via the summer 2025 IFR and Handbook, and this final rule and Handbook, constitute an appropriate execution of the policy direction in these two Executive Orders. Specifically: given both Congress's imposition of deadlines in the 2023 statutory amendments to NEPA and President Trump's specific direction with respect to permitting reform in E.O. 14154 section 5 that, consistent with applicable law, efficiency be prioritized over other policy values; and mindful that President Nixon's Executive Order both predated the 2023 statutory amendments and President Trump's Executive Order; and furthermore that President Nixon's Executive Order conditioned its references to public engagement with the qualifier that they be “practicable”; DOI's view is that its NEPA implementing procedures are consistent with these Executive Orders because they provide for public comment where Congress has directed all agencies to do so under NEPA, and, as explained elsewhere in this document, that DOI has and will continue to exercise its discretion to solicit additional public comment when it determines that doing so would be appropriate or helpful.

Comment: Some commenters asserted that public participation is central to NEPA and that DOI is required to invite and respond to comments on draft environmental documents.

Response: DOI disagrees that NEPA requires it prepare draft environmental documents and solicit public comment on each one. Before the FRA amendments to NEPA, the statute contained no requirement to solicit public comment at any stage in the NEPA process. As discussed in Section I.A., supra, NEPA's only reference to public review of an agency's environmental document stated that “[c]opies of [the environmental impact statement] and the comments and views of the appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies . . . shall be made available . . . to the public as provided by section 552 of title 5,” also known as FOIA. 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C). Nonetheless, even this provision does not contemplate solicitation of public comment; it merely speaks of the public's ability to view an environmental impact statement and comments submitted by certain governmental agencies.

CEQ's prior regulations generally required, in relevant part, that agencies prepare and provide members of the public an opportunity to comment on a draft environmental impact statement. 40 CFR 1503.1 (1978) (rescinded). However, Congress comprehensively amended NEPA in the FRA to provide more prescriptive instructions to agencies on completing timely and unified Federal NEPA reviews. 42 U.S.C. 4336a. Specifically, Congress expressly provided for public comment for the first time, at one and only one step of the process for developing an environmental document: when an agency issues a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement, it must invite public comment on that notice regarding “alternatives or impacts and on relevant information, studies, or analyses with respect to the proposed agency action.” 40 U.S.C. 4336a(c). Congress retained the original obligation to make the environmental impact statement available through FOIA.

Congress elected to require public comment only at the notice of intent stage in the NEPA process. DOI's view is that comment at the notice of intent stage is unique: It provides an opportunity for fact-gathering from persons who may have relevant (indeed, unique) information about environmental conditions of land they live on or by with respect to projects that the bureau has determined will have a significant effect on the environment. It makes sense that Congress required solicitation of public comment on all notices of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement, while imposing no such requirement with respect to an environmental assessment, both because Congress imposed a shorter deadline for agencies to develop an environmental assessment than to develop an environmental impact statement and because an environmental assessment, by definition, is typically prepared only for proposed actions that do not have reasonably foreseeable significant environmental effects. Accordingly, Congress intended that government and public resources should focus on developing and facilitating public engagement on matters considered in environmental impact statements. DOI's revised regulations reflect this statutory structure.

DOI's NEPA procedures are thus consistent with Congress's instruction to provide an opportunity for members of the public to comment on the notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement. DOI will continue to make its environmental documents available to the public consistent with FOIA, and this requirement is not affected by this rulemaking. DOI otherwise maintains discretion to offer opportunities for public comment on draft environmental documents as appropriate.

Comment: Commenters assert that DOI must independently justify the removal of certain public participation procedures, having acknowledged the importance of public engagement in the NEPA process during the rulemaking in which it codified in regulation its NEPA implementing procedures in 2008. Specifically, a commenter stated that the removal of consensus-based management from DOI regulations requires independent justification.

Response: As explained elsewhere in this document, DOI continues to believe that public engagement is an important part of the NEPA process, where Congress has seen fit to require it, or in those cases in which it would be helpful and appropriate. As noted elsewhere in this notice, after DOI revised its NEPA implementing process in the IFR, it has elected to take comment in multiple NEPA reviews where its revised procedures did not impose such obligation. Consensus-based management was never a requirement of NEPA; it was a policy preference toward documenting public input in a certain way during the NEPA process. Members of the public have always been able to suggest reasonable alternatives for analysis to Federal agencies and remain able to do so. As agencies are required to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives, the agencies must necessarily evaluate reasonable alternatives presented by the public if not already considered.

Comment: Some commenters argued that DOI, rather than adopting the NEPA implementing procedures that it adopted in the summer of 2025 IFR, should instead have adopted some or all of the provisions of one or more of CEQ's now-rescinded NEPA regulations.

Response: As DOI explains elsewhere in this document, the DOI NEPA procedures as adopted in the summer 2025 IFR and this final rule are not simply a subsequent iteration of the policies previously contained in CEQ's now-rescinded regulations, or a direct successor to them, but rather draw upon and implement the requirements of NEPA itself. DOI explained in the IFR and explains further in this final rule why it has adopted the NEPA implementing procedures that it has adopted, some aspects of which are the same as those in CEQ's now-rescinded regulations and others of which differ. It would not have been appropriate for DOI to more generally adopt CEQ's regulations, which were the product of and based on an Executive Order granting CEQ regulatory authority that has now been rescinded, and of which all but the 2024 rule did not have the benefit of Congress's major overhaul of NEPA in 2023; even with respect to the 2024 CEQ rulemaking, that rulemaking did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court's major, recent Seven County opinion, which instructed agencies, lower courts, and the general public that NEPA's effects analysis properly operates in a manner much different than that which formed the basis of the 2024 rule.

Comment: Various commenters asserted that the removal of regulations would affect environmental reviews of proposed actions, and would result in unexamined, unaddressed, and unmitigated impacts, specifically those related to climate change, environmental justice, and cumulative impacts. Commenters also asserted that DOI did not explain its decision to remove references to concepts such as “direct effects,” “indirect effects,” “cumulative effects,” “environmental justice concerns,” and “climate-change-related effects.”

Response: First, as explained elsewhere in this preamble, the return of DOI's NEPA procedures from regulation to Departmental policy format does not, itself, change the procedural requirements of NEPA compliance for DOI's bureaus. The statute itself sets forth the framework of those procedural requirements and DOI's NEPA procedures, however formatted, merely elaborate upon that framework, hewing as closely as possible to the statutory provisions. Second, NEPA does not contain any provisions addressing any specific type of environmental impact. Direction from within the executive branch may in the past have pushed agencies to articulate environmental analysis according to artificial distinctions between “direct,” “indirect,” and “cumulative” types of effects, or to place special emphasis upon certain categories of effects ( i.e., “climate change,” “environmental justice”), but that direction has now been rescinded. See 91 FR 618 (Jan. 8, 2026) (final rule rescinding CEQ's NEPA regulations); Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025) (revoking Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations; Executive Order 14154, Unleashing American Energy, 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 20, 2025) (revoking Executive Order 14096, Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to Environmental Justice for All ). In other words, the distinctions and concepts identified by commenters do not exist in statute and were conceptual creations of CEQ, agencies, and courts to formulate analysis and guide agency decision-making.

Instead of formulating the evaluation of environmental effects of bureau action using the artificial devices of “direct,” “indirect,” and “cumulative” effects that do not appear in the statute, DOI's NEPA procedures focus on the underlying principle of what constitutes an “effect.” In reorienting the focus of its procedures, DOI does not change or purport to change the scope of effects that DOI bureaus are required by statute to consider. Both before and after the updates to DOI's NEPA procedures, DOI bureaus were and are required to consider effects that are both reasonably foreseeable and have a reasonably close causal relationship to their proposed actions, each including a reasonable range of action alternatives, consistent with the statute, as clarified by the Supreme Court in Public Citizen and Seven County Infrastructure Coalition. Additionally, in light of Supreme Court's decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, DOI elected to update its procedures to reflect the phrasing provided by the Supreme Court regarding effects. That is, “agencies may, but are not required to, analyze environmental effects from other projects separate in time, or separate in place, or that fall outside of the bureau's regulatory authority, or that would have to be initiated by a third party. If the bureau determines that such analysis would assist it in reasoned decision-making regarding the proposed action, it will document this determination in the environmental assessment and explain where it drew a reasonable and manageable line relating to the consideration of such effects from such separate projects.” DOI NEPA Handbook 1.5(c). “Similarly, the bureau will document in the environmental assessment where and how it drew a reasonable and manageable line relating to its consideration of any environmental effects from the proposed action that extend outside the geographical territory of the project or might materialize later in time.” Id. (citing Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, 605 U.S. 168). This language, adapted directly from Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, provides DOI with direction on how to consider, as appropriate, the environmental consequences of bureau action that may previously been expressed in concepts such as “indirect effects” and “cumulative effects.” This focus on the meaning of “effect” has led DOI to restore in large part the concept of “connected action” to the way it was defined in the CEQ's 1978 regulations, with clarifying emphasis that the subject of analysis is the Federal action, not action taken by non-Federal entities. See 40 CFR 1508.25(a)(1) (rescinded). Even as originally defined in CEQ's 1978 regulations, the term “cumulative impact” referred to the “incremental impact” of the agency proposed action in relation to the context within which that action was taken. See 40 CFR 1508.7 (rescinded). That is, the focus, even of the “cumulative impact analysis” should always have been on change wrought by the effects of the proposed action, and Seven County Infrastructure Coalition merely refines that focus.

As to one term—climate change—to which the comment refers, that term has never appeared in DOI's NEPA procedures previously.

DOI will conduct its NEPA reviews in accordance with statutory requirements and relevant caselaw, such as the Supreme Court's decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition.

Comment: Various commenters urged the Department to reconsider decisions made in reliance on alternative arrangements for compliance with NEPA. Alternative arrangements are flexible procedures authorized by CEQ that agencies can use when there is an immediate threat to human health or safety, urgent action is needed to protect valuable natural or cultural resources, and the standard process would create delays in critical response efforts (collectively described in DOI's regulations as “Emergency Responses”). In addition, several commenters raised questions regarding the use of alternative arrangements for energy-related projects related to E.O. 14156, Declaring a National Energy Emergency.

Response: These comments are outside the scope of this rulemaking. Importantly, these alternative arrangements do not waive NEPA compliance, they simply provide a different path to meets its requirements. Particular determinations under the DOI NEPA procedures related to E.O. 14156 are not within the scope of this rulemaking, which pertains solely to the establishment or revision of DOI procedures for compliance with NEPA.

Comment: A commenter requested that DOI remove the discretionary authority currently granted to Responsible Officials in the DOI NEPA procedures, such as the alternative arrangements under 43 CFR 46.150.

Response: It is appropriate for Responsible Officials to have a degree of discretion in conducting NEPA reviews, especially with respect to internal procedures. Further, DOI does not claim to have the authority to exempt actions from NEPA or to otherwise excuse noncompliance, regardless of whether an emergency exists. DOI's emergency response provisions, including its “alternative arrangements” process, do not circumvent NEPA compliance obligations but rather enable DOI to establish alternative means for NEPA compliance to ensure that it can act swiftly to address emergencies while also meeting its statutory obligations under NEPA.

Comment: Some commenters expressed concern about the procedures and content associated with applicant-prepared environmental assessments and environmental impact statements stating they do not provide enough guidance, may create a risk of bias and conflict of interest, and raise questions about the scientific accuracy of the NEPA analyses in the documents.

Response: As noted in the IFR, DOI is ensuring that its procedures conform to the statute, including the amendments made by the FRA directing agencies to provide for procedures governing applicant-prepared environmental assessments and environmental impact statements 42 U.S.C. 4336a(f). In the IFR, DOI established procedures for applicant-prepared environmental assessments and environmental impact statements at 43 CFR 46.107. These procedures ensure that applicant-prepared NEPA documents are completed according to standards required by the DOI Responsible Official. They require the submission of a professional integrity statement by the applicant or applicant-directed contractor, as applicable. Id. at 46.107(g). They also require applicants or their contractors to furnish to DOI bureaus “all relevant supporting information, including all studies, surveys, and technical reports” used to support applicant-prepared environmental assessments or environmental impact statements. Id. at 46.107(f). Applicants or their contractors must further “certify that the materials provided to the bureau are complete for the bureau's independent review.” Id. As to conflicts of interest, the fact that NEPA provides for applicants (who, by definition, have an interest in the outcome of the Federal review of their application) to prepare NEPA documents in the first instance indicates Congress resolved any concern over potential conflicts of interest in favor of allowing applicant and applicant-contractor prepared NEPA documents. As outlined in the FRA, it is ultimately the responsibility of DOI to ensure applicant-prepared documents comply with NEPA and associated DOI policy. DOI's NEPA procedures therefore clarify that each DOI bureau relying on an applicant-prepared environmental assessment or environmental impact statement “must independently evaluate and verify that the environmental analysis, including the methodologies used by the applicant or applicant-directed contractor,” and verify that the environmental analysis meets applicable legal and bureau standards. Id.

Comment: At least one commenter stated that NEPA does not preclude applicant preparation of documentation, even beyond environmental assessments and environmental impact statements. The commenter requested that DOI make clear in the regulation that Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA) checklists may be prepared by applicants and applicant-directed contractors.

Response: NEPA directs agencies to “prescribe procedures” governing the preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement, consistent with the agency's statutory obligation to “independently evaluate the environmental document and . . . take responsibility for the contents.” 42 U.S.C. 4336a(f). DOI's final rule does so at 43 CFR 46.107. Additionally, the rule does not preclude preparation of split documents ( i.e., drafted in part by an applicant or applicant-directed contractor and in part by the agency), nor does it preclude applicants from providing information to assist DOI in the preparation of environmental documentation, such as DNA checklists. When not preparing the environmental assessment or environmental impact statement, applicants may provide information that the Responsible Official evaluates and uses in the environmental review or making a determination of NEPA compliance.

Comment: Some commenters expressed concerns regarding a perceived overreliance on categorical exclusions in the DOI NEPA procedures, stating that categorical exclusions could be used to circumvent engaging the public in environmental reviews.

Response: Categorical exclusions can apply to a category of actions that a Federal agency has determined normally does not significantly affect the quality of the human environment within the meaning of section 4332(2)(C) of the statute. 42 U.S.C. 4336e(1). Categorical exclusions are a longstanding and legally recognized tool under NEPA that allow agencies to efficiently manage routine actions that they have determined do not normally result in any significant effects to the human environment. See 43 CFR 46.205. Categorical exclusions remain a vital tool for streamlining environmental review. Categorical exclusions established or adopted for the use of the bureaus are included in Appendix 2 of the DOI NEPA Handbook and are tailored to bureau-specific activities, such as routine maintenance, administrative actions, and certain land management operations. It is important to note that the DOI NEPA Handbook requires that before applying a categorical exclusion, each proposed action must undergo a review to determine that it applies and that no extraordinary circumstances exist ( see 43 CFR 46.215). Finally, expanding or updating categorical exclusions does not limit public involvement for projects where significant effects are possible.

Comment: One commenter suggested that the “[P]roposal to allow any of [DOI's] individual bureaus to utilize any categorical exclusions adopted by any other bureau within DOI is far too sweeping [and] may be suitable only to the other bureau's circumstances” and potentially unsuitable to covering another bureau-specific action.

Response: The focus of a categorical exclusion is on the characteristics of the proposed action and that the proposed action does not result in significant impacts, not on the identity of the agency that conducts the action. There is, therefore, no reason in principle that a bureau cannot apply another agency's categorical exclusion for the same kind of proposed action. Should a bureau's proposed action be different from the proposed action encompassed by the other bureau's categorical exclusion, there would be no reason for the bureau to apply that other bureau's categorical exclusion, and the concerns the commenter raises would not arise. Likewise, where a bureau's categorical exclusion could apply only to that bureau's actions—for example, because of unique programmatic aspects—other bureaus could not seek to apply that CE to their actions. In the case of DOI bureaus being able to use one another's categorical exclusions, DOI bureaus also share the same extraordinary circumstances review protocol and are readily able to confer with their sister bureaus when questions arise.

Comment: Commenters expressed concern with applying multiple categorical exclusions to a proposed action, including one commenter that suggested the use of multiple categorical exclusions for a proposed action would violate NEPA.

Response: NEPA allows an agency to rely on multiple categorical exclusions to approve a single proposed action, provided that the agency verifies that no extraordinary circumstances are present. For example, if a DOI bureau determines that more than one categorical exclusion supports a proposed action in its entirety, and if the bureau further determines that no extraordinary circumstances are present, then the bureau can authorize the action using alternative or multiple categorical exclusions, documenting reliance on those categorical exclusions, as appropriate, in one categorical exclusion determination.

A DOI bureau might also determine that categorical exclusions apply to every constituent element of a proposed action, even though no one categorical exclusion may apply to all of those constituent elements. Under DOI's NEPA procedures, the DOI bureau may, in such cases, use multiple categorical exclusions, ensuring that at least one categorical exclusion supports each element of the proposed action, and provided that the DOI bureau completes extraordinary circumstance review for the proposed action as a whole. This approach promotes permitting efficiency by allowing DOI bureaus to exercise discretion to rely on multiple appropriate categorical exclusions to authorize broader actions. NEPA does not require DOI bureaus, when using categorical exclusions, to contrive smaller proposed actions by artificially breaking apart larger ones. DOI's more efficient approach is consistent with NEPA because, crucially, the agency must determine that each element of a larger proposal is not the type of action that normally results in significant effects to the human environment. And DOI's NEPA procedures safeguard against the possibility that applying multiple categorical exclusions to a proposed action in this manner would result in significant effects. In particular, DOI will evaluate for extraordinary circumstances and will not apply a CE to a particular action if it might result in significant effects. See 43 CFR 46.205(c)(1) (requiring DOI bureaus to prepare “further analysis and environmental documents” for an action if any extraordinary circumstances are present).

Comment: One commenter noted that the Department's categorical exclusion list should be expanded to include categorical exclusions from external agencies.

Response: The DOI has not included the categorical exclusions of external agencies unless a DOI bureau has complied with the requirements of NEPA Section 109 regarding adoption of another agency categorical exclusion, i.e., non-Department or bureau categorical exclusions. These categorical exclusions are in Appendix 2 of the DOI NEPA Handbook.

Comment: One commenter argued that there is “improper expansion of the availability of categorical exclusions and adoption of unlawful procedures for their establishment and application in violation of the statute” under section 4336c of NEPA and stated that it is unclear what is required for relying on another agency's categorical exclusion determination, including whether a DOI extraordinary circumstances review is necessary.

Response: If one agency determines that a categorical exclusion applies to a proposed action and another agency is taking substantially the same action, then there is no reason why the second agency cannot rely on the first agency's determination that a categorical exclusion applies to the action. Agency A's determination that the action fits within a particular category of actions for which Agency A does not anticipate significant effects is available for Agency B to rely on, where Agency B is taking substantially the same action. It is important to note that reliance on another agency's categorical exclusion determination has been available to bureaus since the 2020 CEQ NEPA regulation ( see 40 CFR 1506.3(d) (2020), which used the term “adoption” to describe this concept) and, based on experience to date, DOI proposes no change to this procedure other than to incorporate the procedure in its own regulation.

Comment: One commenter questioned why categorical exclusions established by section 390 of the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) were not subject to extraordinary circumstances review since “the statute does not absolutely require those activities to be excluded from NEPA review.”

Response: DOI has not changed its position regarding the Bureau of Land Management's use of the EPAct section 390 categorical exclusions. This protocol for use of these categorical exclusions has been in place almost since the enactment of the EPAct of 2005, was noticed and explained in the Federal Register at 85 FR 25472 (May 1, 2020) and is merely repeated in the DOI NEPA procedures.

Comment: Several commenters asserted that the removal of three extraordinary circumstances at 43 CFR 46.215(c), (i), and (j) (2008), and revision of other extraordinary circumstances was without reasoned explanation. At least one commenter provided examples of purported “unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources” citing 2024 CEQ NEPA regulations and suggested that the “highly controversial” criterion that was eliminated is not sufficiently addressed by other extraordinary circumstances. Several other commenters supported the DOI's removal of these extraordinary circumstances.

Response: As part of the Department's ongoing efforts to modernize and streamline its NEPA procedures, these revisions reflect a deliberate and necessary recalibration of our regulatory framework in light of recent legal, executive, and statutory developments.

Paragraph (i) was removed because whether a proposed Federal action may violate a law imposed for the protection of the environment is a question that goes beyond the procedural requirements of NEPA and may be better considered and appropriately addressed by the Responsible Official when making the decision on the proposed action. While some commenters speculated specifically that this extraordinary circumstance was grounded in the statutory direction that agencies consider “comments and views of the appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, which are authorized to develop and enforce environmental standards,” see 43 U.S.C. 4332(C)(v), and that the removal of the extraordinary circumstance might prevent a DOI bureau or the public from considering how an action might have legal infirmities, these concerns are misplaced. For actions that “may violate a Federal, State, local, or Tribal law” imposed for the protection of the environment, the Department will continue to comply with all applicable laws and continue to consider State, local, and Tribal laws in its decision-making process. These concerns also misunderstand the reason that agencies review categorically excluded actions for extraordinary circumstances, which is to evaluate whether a proposed action might have significant environmental effects. Federal, State, local, and Tribal laws—even those directed towards the protection of the environment—often balance a number of competing political or policy objectives. They simply do not provide a sound basis for evaluating whether a proposed Federal action may have significant environmental effects within the meaning of NEPA. For these reasons, DOI has changed its position and eliminated this extraordinary circumstance.

Paragraph (j) regarding environmental justice impacts was promulgated in response to E.O. 12898, Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (Feb. 11, 1994), but that E.O. was rescinded by E.O. 14173. Therefore, it is appropriate to remove the associated provision.

Furthermore, and to provide further clarity, paragraph (c) has been removed as it causes confusion and has been frequently misunderstood to mean that any controversy surrounding the substance of the action itself constitutes an extraordinary circumstance. The concept is sufficiently addressed in existing paragraph (d), which the final rule renumbered as paragraph (c) and which applies to proposed actions where there are highly uncertain and potentially significant environmental effects or that involve unique or unknown environmental risks. If a proposed action's environmental effects are highly uncertain and have potentially significant effects or involve unique or unknown environmental risks, that extraordinary circumstance (c), which remains in DOI's NEPA regulations, would apply.

Finally, the term “cumulative” was appropriately removed from 43 CFR 46.215(f) (2008), now paragraph (e) in this section, as unnecessary. In addition, 43 CFR 46.215(k) and (l) (2008), now paragraphs (h) and (i) in this section, were appropriately revised to focus their application on whether there is a potential for significant effects.

Comment: One commenter noted that the removal of paragraph (i) addressing any violation of Federal, State, local or Tribal law from the list of extraordinary circumstances at 43 CFR 46.215 (2008) is not consistent with E.O. 13132, Federalism (Aug. 4, 1999), where it is stated that Federal rulemakings should not affect the “distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

Response: As explained above, violation of a Federal, State, local or Tribal law imposed for the protection of the environment is not an issue of environmental effect but a question of compliance with law; therefore, it need not be considered when reviewing environmental effects.

Comment: Various commenters raised concerns regarding other laws that could affect environmental reviews or decision-making, including the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, Organic Act, Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, and Endangered Species Act.

Response: As noted, there are some laws or regulations that might also apply when bureaus make decisions regarding Federal actions and these still apply, including any public participation requirements. Compliance with these other laws does not depend on how an agency complies with NEPA.

Comment: Several commenters stated that for the rulemaking DOI was required to engage in consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the FWS, as appropriate, under Section 7 of the ESA, which requires each Federal agency to “insure [sic] that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of” any designated critical habitat.

Response: DOI has determined that to the extent to which Section 7 of the ESA may apply to this rulemaking action neither the IFR nor this rulemaking affects listed species or critical habitat, as it is entirely procedural and relates to how the DOI and its bureaus proceed to evaluate the environmental effects of their actions. That is, neither the DOI NEPA implementing regulations themselves, nor the action to amend them, result in any environmental effects; therefore, this procedural rulemaking would not result in adverse impacts on endangered or threatened species or critical habitat. Rather, NEPA and its implementing regulations provide procedures to ensure that DOI accounts for the environmental effects of its actions. Any alleged harm to species raised by the commenter is speculative. To the extent any harm occurs, it would result from separate future agency actions, not DOI's establishment or revision of NEPA procedures. Moreover, these future actions remain subject to Section 7 of the ESA, as applicable.

Comment: One commenter noted that the rulemaking Regulatory Impact Analysis acknowledges that the rule will have a significant impact, and argues that this significance means that this rulemaking action is subject to an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under NEPA. The commenter states that the Regulatory Impact Analysis “only discusses potential cost savings and fails to analyze the increased costs associated with an uncertain NEPA process that presents litigation risks” and notes that “the lack of permitting certainty has significant impacts on public health and safety [and] creates highly uncertain and unique risks” especially for infrastructure projects. In addition, “[s]ince the Handbook could be changed arbitrarily, nothing in it can be relied upon to mitigate these effects.”

Response: The determination by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and E.O. 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, that a rulemaking is significant is separate from a determination of applicability and necessary level of review under NEPA. As stated in the IFR and this final rule, the rulemaking was deemed “significant” by OMB as that word is understood in the context of E.O. 12866. The DOI rule is considered economically significant since DOI expects that revisions and updates to the DOI NEPA implementing regulations will have a broad range of cost savings for the Federal Government, interested stakeholders, and DOI applicants. The commenter's examples of permitting uncertainty are not directly related to the appropriate level of NEPA review for the IFR or this final rule. While the DOI NEPA procedures provide for the consideration of environmental effects in decision-making processes, including economic, public health, and safety, DOI does not believe that this rule will have a significant effect on the environment because it will not authorize any specific agency activity or commit resources to a project that may affect the environment. Under DOI NEPA procedures, DOI determined that a categorical exclusion was an appropriate level of NEPA review for this rulemaking.

Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that the rule may disproportionately affect small municipalities, Tribal governments, and local water authorities.

Response: As the Department is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this IFR, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) does not apply. The RFA generally requires agencies to assess the impact of final rules on small entities. Even if the RFA were to apply, this rule does not directly regulate small entities. Rather, the rule applies to Federal agencies and sets forth the process for their compliance with NEPA.

E.O. 12866 provides that the OIRA in the OMB will review all significant rules. E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866, calling for improvements in the Federal Government's regulatory system to promote predictability, reduce uncertainty, and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory objectives. OMB determined that this final rule is a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, and has reviewed this final rule.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., and E.O. 13272, Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking (August 13, 2002), generally require agencies to assess the impacts of final rules on small entities by preparing a regulatory flexibility analysis. Under the RFA, small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a). As the Department was not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this final rule, the RFA does not apply.

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

DOI has determined that the rule will not have a significant effect on the environment because it will not authorize any specific agency activity or commit resources to a project that may affect the environment. Therefore, DOI does not intend to conduct additional NEPA review of the effects of this final rule. DOI finds this rulemaking is excluded pursuant to its categorical exclusion at 43 CFR 46.210(i). The categorical exclusion covers policies, directives, regulations, and guidelines that are “of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature; or whose environmental effects are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis and will later be subject to the NEPA process, either collectively or case-by-case.” Further, the final rule does not implicate any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215. The promulgation of NEPA implementing procedures is not generally itself subject to NEPA. Heartwood v. U.S. Forest Serv., 230 F.3d 947, 954-55 (7th Cir. 2000).

E.O. 13132 requires agencies to develop an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. Policies that have federalism implications include regulations that have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. This final rule does not have federalism implications because it applies to Federal agencies, not States.

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

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

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

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

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