On December 31, 2025, AMS published a direct final rule (90 FR 61261). The rule amended the Cotton Board Rules and Regulations, decreasing the value assigned to imported cotton for the purposes of calculating supplemental assessments collected for use by the Cotton Research and Promotion Program. That amendment is required each year to ensure that assessments collected on imported cotton and the cotton content of imported products will be the same as those paid on domestically produced cotton. In addition, in the direct final rule, AMS updated the Import Assessment Table to account for changes since the last assessment adjustment in 2024.

In the direct final rule, AMS stated that if significant adverse comment was received by January 30, 2026, AMS would withdraw the rule. Because AMS received a significant adverse comment on the rule, AMS is now withdrawing the direct final rule.

The OCC charters national banks under the authority of the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. 1 et seq. The National Bank Act “constitut[es] by itself a complete system for the establishment and government of national banks.”  1 Congress's grant of authority to the OCC with regard to the establishment of national banks under the National Bank Act culminates in the OCC's issuance of formal certificates authorizing national banks to conduct business, which are generally referred as charters. 2 In 1978, Congress amended the National Bank Act to expressly provide: “A National Bank Association, to which the Comptroller of the Currency has heretofore issued or hereafter issues such [charter] certificate, is not illegally constituted solely because its operations are or have been required by the Comptroller of the Currency to be limited to those of a trust company and activities related thereto.”  3

The OCC has referenced this express endorsement of its authority for nearly fifty years when chartering national banks whose operations are limited to those of a trust company and activities related thereto, which are commonly referred to as “national trust banks.” The OCC currently supervises approximately 60 national trust banks. The majority of the national trust banks are uninsured, but a few hold deposits and are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Section 5.20 provides for the general procedures for filing an application, the OCC's review, procedures for organizing the new bank, and other requirements. Since 1996, § 5.20(e)(1)(i)  4 has addressed certain statutory requirements for the OCC's chartering of a national bank. The regulation states that the OCC charters national banks under the authority of the National Bank Act and includes the requirement that a national bank's name must include the word “national.”  5

In 2003, the OCC proposed amendments to § 5.20(e)(1)(i) “to clarify that a limited purpose national bank may exist with respect to activities other than fiduciary activities, provided the activities in question are within the business of banking.”  6 This proposal included only the sentence: “The bank may be a special purpose bank that limits its activities to fiduciary activities or to any other activities within the business of banking.”  7

Commenters on the 2003 proposal were concerned that the reference to the business of banking in the proposed rule was “too broad.”  8 In response to this concern, the 2003 final rule added another sentence to § 5.20(e)(1)(i): “A special purpose bank that conducts activities other than fiduciary activities must conduct at least one of the following three core banking functions: Receiving deposits; paying checks; or lending money.”  9 The OCC did so “to provide further clarification of the scope of activities permissible for a limited purpose national bank, and . . . amended this provision to require limited purpose national banks to conduct at least one of the following core banking functions: (1) receiving deposits; (2) paying checks; or (3) lending money. These functions are based on 12 U.S.C. 36, which identifies activities that cause a facility to be considered a bank branch.”  10 The operations of a national trust bank typically include performing fiduciary activities under the authority of 12 U.S.C. 92a, 11 a separate source of authority from those activities within the business of banking under 12 U.S.C. 24(Seventh). 12

The OCC's addition of language to § 5.20(e)(1) was to address special purpose banks engaging in only activities within the business of banking. As noted in the preamble to the 2003 final rule, “The purpose of this proposed change was to clarify that a limited purpose national bank may exist with respect to activities other than fiduciary activities, provided the activities in question are part of the business of banking.”  13 In other words, the language in amended § 5.20(e)(1)(i) referencing a “bank that conducts activities other than fiduciary activities” was intended to clarify that the provision did not address national trust banks; the provision addressed special purpose banks that would engage in activities other than those of a trust company. The language was not intended, and has never been interpreted by the OCC, to circumscribe national trust bank activities, i.e., to prohibit a national trust bank from engaging in non-fiduciary activities. The authority to charter national trust banks under 12 U.S.C. 27(a) is clear on its face.

Nonetheless, the OCC believes that the language added in 2003 has the potential to raise confusion about the scope of the OCC's chartering authority under 12 U.S.C. 27(a) and the activities of national trust banks. Because the language does not explicitly exclude all national trust bank activities (just fiduciary activities), it could be mistakenly read to also impose limits on the activities of national trust banks that are different than those articulated in the last sentence of section 27(a). Such a reading would conflict with the intent of the regulatory text added in 2003, which did not intend to circumscribe the OCC's authority to charter national trust banks.

Moreover, reading the regulation to apply to national trust bank charters would run contrary to the OCC's long-held interpretation and historical practice. The OCC has never interpreted § 5.20(e)(1) in a way that restricts national trust banks. Both before and after the 2003 final rule, the OCC has chartered national trust banks that engage in activities that are not fiduciary. For example, the OCC considers custody and safekeeping activities to be generally non-fiduciary and authorized for national banks as part of the business of banking under 12 U.S.C. 24(Seventh). 14 National trust banks also frequently conduct non-fiduciary custody activities and currently hold nearly $2 trillion in assets in custody or safekeeping accounts. 15

To address these concerns, on January 12, 2026, the OCC published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend 12 CFR 5.20 to more closely align with its statutory authorization to charter national banks limited to the operations of a trust company and activities related thereto. 16 Specifically, the OCC proposed to amend § 5.20(e)(1)(i) to replace the term “fiduciary activities” with “the operations of a trust company and activities related thereto,” as stated in 12 U.S.C. 27(a). The OCC also proposed to make a conforming amendment to 12 CFR 5.20(l) by replacing the term “fiduciary activities” with “the operations of a trust company and activities related thereto” to align paragraph (l) with paragraph (e) and reflect consistent language with 12 U.S.C. 27(a). As explained in greater detail below, following review of the comments received on the proposal, the OCC is finalizing these proposed amendments without change.

The OCC received in total 19 comments on the notice of proposed rulemaking. The OCC received three requests to extend the public comment period, asserting that additional time was needed for analysis and to solicit the commenters' members' feedback. The Administrative Conference of the United States has recognized that 30 days is generally an appropriate period for rulemakings, such as this one, that are not significant regulatory actions under Executive Order 12866. 17 Further, as discussed in the proposed rule's Supplementary Information, the 2003 rulemaking setting forth the limited purpose language currently in § 5.20(e)(1)(i) was not intended to provide any constraints on the powers of national trust banks. The proposal was merely to change the regulatory language to mimic the statutory language in 12 U.S.C. 27(a), which has been in place for nearly fifty years. Additionally, the OCC published its understanding of the scope of section 27(a) five years ago in Interpretive Letter 1176. Because the proposed change to the regulation is straightforward, the OCC's chartering authority under section 27(a) has not recently changed, and the proven ability of stakeholders to comment on the nature of the trust bank authority, the OCC believes that 30 days was appropriate for the public comment period. 18

Five commenters expressed support for the proposed rule. One supportive commenter also requested that the OCC further indicate either through an amendment to § 5.20 or in an accompanying release that a national trust bank need not conduct any activities in a fiduciary capacity. As discussed in greater detail below, the OCC does not believe it is appropriate to amend the regulation further at this time with respect to the required scope of fiduciary activities for a national trust bank. The OCC will review all charter applications on their own merits and issue decisions in accordance with law, including the provisions of section 27(a).

One commenter, while not clearly voicing support for or opposition to the proposal, requested that the OCC prohibit national trust banks, other than those that are a subsidiary of a bank or bank holding company, from including the word “bank” in their names. The commenter noted that this would align with 12 CFR 5.20(f)(2)(i)(F), which prohibits banks from having a “title that misrepresents the nature of the institution or the services it offers.” The OCC declines to adopt this suggestion. As section 27(a) makes clear, a national trust bank is a national bank, albeit one limited to the “operations . . . of a trust company and activities related thereto.”  19 Although the precise language varies throughout the National Bank Act and other provisions of Federal law, statutes referencing national banks all clearly contain the word “bank” or “banking.”  20 Accordingly, a national trust bank is legally a “bank” that is permitted to engage in certain activities within the business of banking.

Multiple commenters asserted that the OCC is misconstruing the statutory authorization of section 27(a) and that the reference to “operations . . . of a trust company” must exclusively mean fiduciary powers. In support, commenters cite the 1979 opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in National State Bank of Elizabeth v. Smith. 21 The Third Circuit's decision was in response to litigation over the Comptroller's issuance of a limited purpose national trust bank charter. The court found that a charter limited by the Comptroller to “the general business of a commercial bank trust department and to engage in such activities as are necessary, incident or related to such business” was permissible under section 27(a). 22 The Third Circuit was not, however, required to analyze the scope of the authorization. Thus, the commenters' references are to dicta in the opinion. Moreover, the court was inconsistent in referring to the operations of a limited purpose trust bank authorized under section 27(a); at one point the opinion references “the trust or fiduciary operations of” a bank— i.e., distinguishing the two concepts. At another, the court specifically focused on the fiduciary powers authorized under 12 U.S.C. 92a. 23

The Third Circuit in National State Bank of Elizabeth is not alone in distinguishing between trust and fiduciary operations. In section 27(a), Congress provided for a national bank limited to “operations . . . of a trust company and activities related thereto.” By contrast, in 12 U.S.C. 92a, Congress specifically provided for the exercise of “fiduciary powers” by national banks. 24 If Congress had intended to use “fiduciary” in section 27(a), it would have done so. Further, in other statutes, Congress has expressly distinguished between trust and fiduciary operations. For example, in an exception from the definition of the term “bank” in the Bank Holding Company Act, Congress included certain “institution[s] that function[ ] solely in a trust or fiduciary capacity.”  25 As Congress is presumed to avoid surplusage, and every word of statute should be given meaning, “trust” and “fiduciary” must mean different things in the federal banking statutes. 26 Accordingly, the OCC is aligning the description of the authorization for national trust banks in § 5.20(e)(1)(i) with the statutory authorization in section 27(a), namely referring to trust operations. 27

Relatedly, some commenters appear to misunderstand the scope of the proposal. Contrary to some commenters' assertions, the OCC has not proposed a new limited purpose national bank charter untethered from the national trust bank authorization in section 27(a). Further, section 27(a) does not provide a separate source of authority for fiduciary activities or other trust operations. As discussed above with respect to National State Bank of Elizabeth, the provisions of sections 27(a) and 92a are complementary. Section 27(a) relates to the OCC's chartering authority and sets forth provisions related to the organization of a national bank and the OCC's authorization for it to conduct business. A national trust bank is simply a national bank with articles of association that limit its activities to the operations of a trust company and activities related thereto. Any national bank, however, must rely on other statutes for its authority to conduct activities. Section 92a provides the powers authority for national banks, including national trust banks, to engage in fiduciary activities. 28 Other activities are generally authorized by 12 U.S.C. 24. Regardless of the scope of activities permissible for a national trust bank, any non-fiduciary activity must be authorized by separate statutory authority, such as section 24(Seventh)'s authorization for national banks to engage in the business of banking.

The question of whether a limited purpose national bank chartered under section 27(a) must conduct fiduciary activities or whether there is any required quantum of fiduciary activities is therefore outside of the scope of this rulemaking. The purpose of the final rule is merely to align the OCC's regulations with the statutory authorization in section 27(a) to avoid any implication that national trust banks may not conduct any activities within the business of banking. These activities may be part of trust company operations, such as custody, or activities related thereto. The OCC will determine the source of authority for any proposed activities on a case-by-case basis as part of its ordinary review of licensing applications regarding national trust banks. To the extent there is any dispute by a party with standing over whether a particular national bank charter is authorized by the National Bank Act, it is the “[c]ourts [that] must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether [the OCC] has acted within its statutory authority, as the APA requires.”  29

One commenter asserted that the OCC would be acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner, and thus in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 30 if it does not specify what constitutes non-fiduciary activities a national trust bank may conduct and the extent of required fiduciary activities. As explained above, national trust banks have long been authorized to engage in certain non-fiduciary activities under 12 U.S.C. 24(Seventh) such as non-fiduciary custody. The APA requires that the OCC engage in “reasoned decisionmaking” and that the action “be within the scope of its lawful authority.”  31 The OCC's process must also be “logical and rational . . . rest[ing] on a consideration of the relevant factors.”  32

The OCC is authorized by 12 U.S.C. 93a to “prescribe rules and regulations to carry out the responsibilities of the office.” Section 5.20(e)(1)(i) sets forth the statutory authorization and requirements for the OCC to charter a national bank under the National Bank Act. As discussed above, current § 5.20(e)(1)(i) is unclear with respect to the statutory authorization in 12 U.S.C. 27(a). Thus, the OCC is revising its regulation to align more clearly with its statutory authorization to charter national trust banks. The proposed revisions did not seek to define the scope of fiduciary, non-fiduciary or other activities under the National Bank Act. Thus, the commenter's request is beyond the scope of the rulemaking. Rather, in faithfully following the Congress's statutory action in enacting 12 U.S.C. 27(a) and issuing the final rule after notice and considering comments, the OCC has followed the requirements of the APA. 33 The OCC will make appropriate determinations in the course of reviewing licensing applications whether, based on the information provided, the proposed bank may be chartered in accordance with the OCC's statutory authority.

Likewise, one commenter requested that the OCC provide the full scope of the extent of “operations of a trust company,” and two commenters requested that the OCC define or provide more guidance as to the scope of “related thereto.” As described above, the OCC will review proposed activities in the context of applications and determine whether they are within the operations of a trust company, related thereto, or neither. 34

Finally, commenters made various requests and raised various policy concerns with respect to the OCC's chartering of national trust banks, such as requesting clear regulatory, supervisory, and resolution frameworks, claiming that the OCC's chartering is deviating from the OCC's core mission, asserting that the OCC should require a public interest framework, and requesting a moratorium on national trust bank applications. The comments are beyond the scope of the rulemaking, and OCC is not making any changes to the final rule with respect to these items. Rather, the OCC will continue to consider these items, as relevant, as part of its ongoing supervision of national trust banks and its review of applications, which will continue in the ordinary course. As discussed above, the proposed and final rule focus solely on the legal authorization for chartering a national bank limited to the operations of a trust company and activities related thereto.

As discussed above, the OCC is amending § 5.20(e)(1)(i) as proposed to replace the term “fiduciary activities” with “the operations of a trust company and activities related thereto,” as stated in 12 U.S.C. 27(a). The OCC believes that these amendments will eliminate potential confusion as to the intent, and the OCC's interpretation, of the existing regulation. The OCC also believes that these revisions will reinforce the OCC's reliance on the statutory terms of its chartering authorities.

The OCC is also making a conforming amendment to 12 CFR 5.20(l) by replacing the term “fiduciary activities” with “the operations of a trust company and activities related thereto” to align paragraph (l) with paragraph (e) and reflect consistent language with 12 U.S.C. 27(a). 35

To be clear, through the above noted revisions in 12 CFR 5.20, the OCC intends to neither expand nor contract the OCC's authority to charter a national bank. As discussed above, the National Bank Act “constitute[es] by itself a complete system for the establishment and government of national banks”  36 and is “the source of the Comptroller's powers and duties in the granting of a national bank charter.”  37 Revising a potentially unclear provision of the OCC's regulations that purports to interpret its statutory authority will not deprive the public of information regarding the OCC's chartering and supervision authorities. As it always has, the OCC will evaluate all applications to charter a national bank within the confines of and consistent with the authority that Congress has granted to it under the National Bank Act.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995  38 (PRA) states that no agency may conduct or sponsor, nor is the respondent required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OCC has reviewed this final rule and determined that it does not create any information collection or revise any existing collection of information. Accordingly, no PRA submissions to OMB will be made with respect to this final rule.

In general, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)  39 requires an agency, in connection with a final rule, to prepare a final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis describing the impact of the rule on small entities (defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration for purposes of the RFA to include commercial banks and savings institutions with total assets of $850 million or less and trust companies with total assets of $47 million or less). However, under section 605(b) of the RFA, this analysis is not required if an agency certifies that the final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and publishes its certification and a short explanatory statement in the Federal Register along with its final rule.

The OCC currently supervises 997 institutions (commercial banks, trust companies, Federal savings associations, and branches or agencies of foreign banks), 40 of which approximately 609 are small entities under the RFA. 41

In general, the OCC classifies the economic impact on an individual small entity as significant if the total estimated impact in one year is greater than 5 percent of the small entity's total annual salaries and benefits or greater than 2.5 percent of the small entity's total non-interest expense. Furthermore, the OCC considers 5 percent or more of OCC-supervised small entities to be a substantial number, and at present, 30 OCC-supervised small entities would constitute a substantial number. This final rule would impose no new mandates, and thus no direct costs, on affected OCC-supervised institutions. Therefore, the OCC certifies that this final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is thus not required.

The OCC has analyzed the final rule under the factors in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA). 42 Under this analysis, the OCC considered whether the final rule includes a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year ($187 million as adjusted annually for inflation). Pursuant to section 202 of the UMRA, 43 if a final rule meets this UMRA threshold, the OCC would need to prepare a written statement that includes, among other things, a cost-benefit analysis of the proposal. The UMRA does not apply to regulations that incorporate requirements specifically set forth in law.

This final rule would impose no new mandates, and thus no direct costs, on affected OCC-supervised institutions. The OCC, therefore, concludes that the final rule would not result in an expenditure of $187 million or more annually by state, local, and tribal governments, or by the private sector. Accordingly, the OCC has not prepared the written statement described in section 202 of the UMRA.

Pursuant to section 302(a) of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994, 12 U.S.C. 4802(a), in determining the effective date and administrative compliance requirements for new regulations that impose additional reporting, disclosure, or other requirements on insured depository institutions, the OCC must consider, consistent with principles of safety and soundness and the public interest: (1) any administrative burdens that the final rule would place on depository institutions, including small depository institutions and customers of depository institutions; and (2) the benefits of the final rule. In addition, section 302(b) of RCDRIA requires new regulations and amendments to regulations that impose additional reporting, disclosures, or other new requirements on insured depository institutions generally to take effect on the first day of a calendar quarter that begins on or after the date on which the regulations are published in final form.

The OCC has considered the changes made by this final rule and believes that the overall effective date of April 1, 2026, will provide OCC-regulated institutions with adequate time to comply with the rule. The final rule will not impose any new administrative compliance requirements for OCC-regulated institutions.

Executive Order 12866, titled “Regulatory Planning and Review,” as amended, requires the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to determine whether a final rule is a “significant regulatory action” prior to the disclosure of the final rule to the public. If OIRA determines the final rule to be a “significant regulatory action,” Executive Order 12866 requires the OCC to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the final rule. Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as a regulatory action that is likely to (1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in Executive Order 12866.

OMB has determined that this final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 14192, titled “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” requires that an agency, unless prohibited by law, identify at least 10 existing regulations to be repealed when the agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation with total costs greater than zero. Executive Order 14192 further requires that new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least ten prior regulations. This rule is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

For purposes of the Congressional Review Act, OMB makes a determination as to whether a final rule constitutes a “major rule.”  44 If a rule is deemed a “major rule” by OMB, the Congressional Review Act generally provides that the rule may not take effect until at least 60 days following its publication. 45

The Congressional Review Act defines a “major rule” as any rule that the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the OMB finds has resulted in or is likely to result in: (1) an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; (2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or (3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets. 46

OMB has determined that the final rule is not a major rule for purposes of the Congressional Review Act. As required, the OCC will submit the final rule and other appropriate reports to Congress and the Government Accountability Office for review.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, and under the authority of 12 U.S.C. 93a, the OCC amends chapter I of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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 amends the legal description for Class D airspace extending upward from the surface at Republic Airport, Farmingdale, NY.

Class D airspace is published in paragraph 5000 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.

An airspace review revealed that administrative updates were needed for both the geographic coordinates and the FAA publication referenced in the Class D airspace legal description at Republic Airport, Farmingdale, NY. Accordingly, this action amends 14 CFR part 71 by updating the airport's geographic coordinates and replacing “Airport/Facility Directory” with “Chart Supplement” to comply with current FAA policy.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) authorizes agencies to dispense with ordinary notice and comment requirements for rules when the agency for “good cause” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a final rule without first publishing a proposed rule subject to public notice and comment. This rule constitutes an administrative change that constitutes “a routine determination, insignificant in nature and impact, and inconsequential to the industry and to the public.” Mack Trucks, Inc. v. EPA, 682 F.3d 87, 94 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (quoting Util. Solid Waste Activities Grp. v. EPA, 236 F.3d 749, 755 (D.C. Cir. 2001)); see also Attorney General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act (1947), at 31; U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Order 2100.6B, paragraph 11.j(1)(b) (saying proposed rules are not required for “[r]ules for which notice and comment is unnecessary to inform the rulemaking, such as rules correcting de minimis technical or clerical errors or rules addressing other minor and insubstantial matters, provided the reasons to forgo public comment are explained in the preamble to the final rule”.).

This amendment will not impose any additional or amended substantive restrictions or requirements on the persons affected by these regulations as it does not affect the airspace boundaries or operating requirements. The changes are ministerial in nature only. Accordingly, the FAA finds good cause that notice and public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary.

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 qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1G, “FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures” paragraph B-2.5(a). This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant the preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

The FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register (91 FR 8729; February 24, 2026) establishing United States Area Navigation (RNAV) Route Q-151 and revoking Jet Route J-517 in the northern United States due to the lack of navigational signal coverage, restricting usage of J-517. After the publication of that final rule, the FAA discovered that the effective date in the rule was incorrect. The effective date listed in the final rule was listed as May 19, 2026, and should have been listed as May 14, 2026. This rule corrects this error.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the effective date of the final rule for Docket No. FAA-2025-2023 as published in the Federal Register on February 24, 2026 (91 FR 8729), FR Doc. 2026-03649, is corrected as follows:

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, part 107, subpart D, prescribes the eligibility and operating requirements for civil sUA to operate over human beings in the United States. To be eligible for use, the sUA must meet the requirements of § 107.120(a) for Category 2 operations or § 107.130(a) for Category 3 operations. These sections require the sUA to be designed, produced or modified such that it will not cause injury to a human being above a specified severity limit, does not contain any exposed rotating parts that would lacerate human skin, and does not contain any safety defects. Section 107.155 requires that means of compliance with § 107.120(a) or § 107.130(a) be established and FAA-accepted. Section 107.160 requires an applicant to declare that sUA for Category 2 or Category 3 operations meet an FAA-accepted means of compliance.

This notification of availability serves as a formal acceptance by the FAA of ParaZero's “ParaZero Part 107 Operations Over People Means of Compliance,” version 1.5, as an acceptable means of compliance, but not the only means of compliance with §§ 107.120(a) and 107.130(a). Applicants may also propose alternative means of compliance for FAA review and possible acceptance.

Revisions to ParaZero's “ParaZero Part 107 Operations Over People Means of Compliance,” version 1.5, will not be automatically accepted and will require further FAA acceptance for any revisions to be considered an accepted means of compliance. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on February 25, 2026.

In this final rule, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) permanently places clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazolam and their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers, whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical designation, in schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

The United States is a party to the 1971 United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances (1971 Convention), Feb. 21, 1971, 32 U.S.T. 543, 1019 U.N.T.S. 175, as amended. Procedures respecting changes in drug schedules under the 1971 Convention are governed domestically by 21 U.S.C. 811(d)(2)-(4). When the United States receives notification of a scheduling decision pursuant to Article 2 of the 1971 Convention indicating that a drug or other substance has been added to a schedule specified in the notification, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), 1 after consultation with the Attorney General, shall first determine whether existing legal controls under subchapter I of the CSA and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act  2 meet the requirements of the schedule specified in the notification with respect to the specific drug or substance. 3 In the event that the Secretary did not so consult with the Attorney General, and the Attorney General did not issue a temporary order, as provided under 21 U.S.C. 811(d)(4), the procedures for permanent scheduling set forth in 21 U.S.C. 811(a) and (b) control.

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

Clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazolam are central nervous system depressants that are structurally and pharmacologically related to classical benzodiazepines, such as alprazolam. On May 7, 2020, the Secretariat of the United Nations advised the Secretary of State of the United States that the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND), during its 63rd Session on March 4, 2020, voted to place etizolam and flualprazolam in Schedule IV of the 1971 Convention (CND Decisions 63/12, 63/13). On June 10, 2021, the Secretariat advised the Secretary of State that the CND, during its 64th Session, voted to place clonazolam, diclazepam, and flubromazolam in Schedule IV of the 1971 Convention (CND Decisions 64/6, 64/7, 64/8). As a signatory to the 1971 Convention, the United States is required, by scheduling under the CSA, to place appropriate controls on these five designer benzodiazepines to meet the requirements of this treaty.

To meet the minimum requirements of this treaty and to confront these emerging substances, DEA published an order in the Federal Register on July 26, 2023, temporarily placing clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazolam in schedule I of the CSA based upon a finding that these substances pose an imminent hazard to the public safety under 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). 4 That temporary order was effective upon the date of publication. On July 25, 2025, DEA published a temporary scheduling order to extend the temporary schedule I status of these five substances for one year, or until the permanent scheduling action for these substances is completed, whichever occurs first. 5

In letters dated March 17 and 24, 2022, in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(b), the former Administrator requested that the former Assistant Secretary for Health of HHS provide DEA with a scientific and medical evaluation of available information and a scheduling recommendation for clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazolam. In a letter dated June 18, 2025, HHS provided DEA with a scientific and medical evaluation of available information for these five substances and a scheduling recommendation for schedule I placement of these substances under the CSA.

DEA reviewed HHS's scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation, as well as all other relevant data, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(b) and (c), and conducted its own analysis under the eight factors stipulated in 21 U.S.C. 811(c). DEA found, under 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1), that these substances warrant control in schedule I. Both DEA's and HHS's eight-factor analyses are available in their entirety under the tab Supporting Documents of the public docket for this action at https://www.regulations.gov under docket number DEA-989.

On July 25, 2025, DEA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to permanently control clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazolam in schedule I. 6 Specifically, DEA proposed to add clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazolam to the list of depressant substances under 21 CFR 1308.11(e). The NPRM provided an opportunity for interested persons to file a request for a hearing, in accordance with DEA regulations, on or before August 25, 2025. DEA did not receive any requests for such a hearing. The NPRM also provided an opportunity for interested persons to submit comments on or before August 25, 2025.

DEA received 19 comments in response to the NPRM for the placement of clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazolam into schedule I of the CSA. The submissions were from individuals or anonymous commenters. Of these 19 submissions, 5 commenters provided support for the NPRM; 6 commenters were against the placement of clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, or flubromazolam in schedule I of the CSA; 2 commenters requested placement in another schedule; and 6 commenters provided statements that were neither explicitly for nor against the proposed rule.

Support of rulemaking: DEA received five comments, including from medical professionals, in support of the placement of clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazolam in schedule I of the CSA.

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

Opposition to rulemaking: DEA received six comments explicitly against the placement of clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, or flubromazolam in schedule I of the CSA. Of these six comments, three commentors asserted that these five substances are analogues of benzodiazepines with therapeutic use; four commentors noted that etizolam is prescribed clinically in other countries; and two commentors expressed concerns that research would be restricted due to schedule I status. The following is DEA's response to the comments against the proposed rulemaking.

DEA response: DEA appreciates these comments and would like to provide further clarification regarding the control of clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazolam. These five substances have been internationally controlled. To comply with treaty obligations, DEA must place these five substances under the most appropriate schedule, taking into consideration all appropriate scientific data. As set forth in the NPRM, these five substances have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, nor were there any New Drug Applications. Regarding etizolam specifically, HHS noted in its scientific and medical evaluation that etizolam is used as an approved medical drug in other countries for the treatment of anxiety disorders, insomnia, and neurosis. Nevertheless, HHS concluded that etizolam lacked a currently accepted medical use in the United States, finding that the few published clinical studies on etizolam in particular (1) had important limitations, (2) did not address the human abuse potential of etizolam, and (3) did not meet the threshold for findings of safety or efficacy of etizolam for any medical uses. HHS also stated that no qualified experts or groups have been identified in the United States who have asserted or supported that etizolam has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. Therefore, these five substances must be placed in schedule I of the CSA, alongside other substances that have no currently accepted medical use, lack accepted safety for use under medical supervision, and possess high potential for abuse. With respect to research for potential for medical use, the placement of substances in schedule I of the CSA does not preclude academic research on these substances. 7 Those wishing to conduct research on clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, or flubromazolam must seek permission to do so with DEA. 8

Considerations for rulemaking: DEA received two comments that did not oppose scheduling clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazolam under the CSA. Of these two comments, one commentor requested placement of these five substances in another schedule, such that research on the therapeutic potential of these substances may be accomplished; and the other commenter did not oppose placement of four of the five substances in schedule I, requesting a different schedule for etizolam specifically. The following is DEA's response to the comments requesting modifications to the proposed rulemaking.

DEA response: DEA appreciates these comments and would like to provide further clarification regarding the control of clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazolam. As noted above, DEA must place these five substances under the most appropriate schedule, taking into consideration all appropriate scientific data, to comply with treaty obligations. These five substances have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, nor were there any New Drug Applications. Therefore, these five substances must be placed in schedule I of the CSA, which does not preclude academic research, and those who wish to conduct research on the therapeutic potential of clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, or flubromazolam must seek permission to do so with DEA.

General comments: DEA received six comments that were neither explicitly for nor against the proposed rule.

DEA response: DEA appreciates these comments.

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

The CSA establishes five schedules of controlled substances known as schedules I, II, III, IV, and V. The CSA also specifies the findings required to place a drug or other substance in any particular schedule. 9 After consideration of the interested persons' comments above, analysis and recommendation of the Assistant Secretary for Health of HHS, and all other available data, the Administrator of DEA, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1), finds that:

(1) Clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazolam have a high potential for abuse. These five substances are pharmacologically similar to classical benzodiazepines ( e.g., diazepam), which have been shown to produce dependence and are abused by millions of individuals in the United States. In vitro binding affinity and functional activity studies, as well as in vivo drug discrimination studies, demonstrate that these substances are highly potent positive allosteric modulators of GABA A receptors—a mechanism of action that accounts for the inhibitory effects of GABA, decreased neuronal activity, and result in the pharmacological properties of the benzodiazepine class. These pharmacological properties include CNS depressant effects, such as anxiolytic, amnesic, anticonvulsant, sedative-hypnotic, respiratory depressant, and muscle relaxant effects. This finding is consistent with drug abuse patterns and adverse outcomes from epidemiological data sources.

(2) Clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazolam have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. According to HHS, FDA has not approved a marketing application for clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, or flubromazolam. In addition, these five substances have no known therapeutic applications in the United States. DEA is not aware of any evidence suggesting that these five substances have a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. 10

(3) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazolam under medical supervision. As stated by HHS, because these five substances have no approved medical use and have not been investigated as new drugs, their safety for use under medical supervision has not been determined.

Based on these findings, the Administrator of DEA concludes that clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazolam, including their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible, warrant continued control in schedule I of the CSA.

Clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazolam are subject to the CSA's schedule I regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to the manufacture, distribution, reverse distribution, import, export, engagement in research, conduct instructional activities or chemical analysis with, and possession of schedule I controlled substances, including the following:

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

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

3. Security. Clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazolam are subject to schedule I security requirements and must be handled and stored pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823 and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.71-1301.76, as of the effective date of this final scheduling action. Non-practitioners handling these five substances also must comply with the screening requirements of 21 CFR 1301.90-1301.93.

4. Labeling and Packaging. All labels, labeling, and packaging for commercial containers of clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, or flubromazolam must comply with 21 U.S.C. 825 and be in accordance with 21 CFR part 1302.

5. Quota. Generally, only registered manufacturers are permitted to manufacture clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazolam in accordance with a quota assigned pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 826 and in accordance with 21 CFR part 1303.

6. Inventory. Every DEA registrant who possesses any quantity of clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, or flubromazolam must take an inventory of these substances on hand, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11(a) and (d).

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

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

7. Records and Reports. Every DEA registrant must maintain records and submit reports with respect to clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazolam pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.74(b) and (c), 1301.76(b), and parts 1304, 1312, and 1317. Manufacturers and distributors must submit reports regarding clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazolam to the Automation of Reports and Consolidated Order System pursuant 21 U.S.C. 827, and in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1304 and 1312.

8. Order Forms. Every DEA registrant who distributes clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, or flubromazolam must comply with the order form requirements pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 828 and 21 CFR part 1305.

9. Importation and Exportation. All importation and exportation of clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, or flubromazolam must comply with 21 U.S.C. 952, 953, 957, and 958 and in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1304 and 1312.

10. Liability. Any activity involving clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, or flubromazolam not authorized by, or in violation of, the CSA or its implementing regulations, is unlawful, and may subject the person to administrative, civil, and/or criminal sanctions.

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

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

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

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

This action does not impose a new collection or modify an existing collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 11 Also, this rule does not impose new or modify existing recordkeeping or reporting requirements on state or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. However, this rule would require compliance with the following existing OMB collections: 1117-0003, 1117-0004, 1117-0006, 1117-0008, 1117-0009, 1117-0010, 1117-0012, 1117-0014, 1117-0021, 1117-0023, 1117-0029, and 1117-0056. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

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

DEA is placing clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazolam, including its salts, isomers, and salts of isomers, in schedule I of the CSA on a permanent basis to enable the United States to meet its obligations under the 1971 Convention. This action imposes the regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to schedule I controlled substances on persons who handle (manufacture, distribute, reverse distribute, import, export, engage in research, conduct instructional activities or chemical analysis with, or possess) or propose to handle clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, or flubromazolam.

Based on DEA's review of HHS's scientific and medical evaluation and all other relevant data, DEA determined that, in agreement with HHS, the five designer benzodiazepines—clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazolam—have a high potential for abuse, have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and lack accepted safety for use under medical supervision. There appear to be no legitimate sources for clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, or flubromazolam as a marketed drug in the United States, but DEA notes that these substances are available for purchase from legitimate suppliers for scientific research. Significant diversion of these five substances from legitimate suppliers is not evident. Therefore, this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not a major rule as defined by the Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 804. However, pursuant to the CRA, DEA is submitting a copy of the final rule to both Houses of Congress and to the Comptroller General.

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

Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of this IFR via one of the methods and by the deadline stated above. All comments must be submitted in English, or accompanied by an English translation. The Department of Justice (“DOJ” or the “Department”) also invites comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or federalism effects that might result from this IFR. Comments that will provide the most assistance to the Department will reference a specific portion of the IFR; explain the reason for any recommended change; and include data, information, or authority that support such recommended change.

Please note that all comments received are considered part of the public record and made available for public inspection at https://www.regulations.gov. Such information includes personally identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter.

If you want to submit personally identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment, but do not want it to be posted online, you must include the phrase “PERSONALLY IDENTIFYING INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what information you want redacted.

If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment but do not want it to be posted online, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You also must prominently identify confidential business information to be redacted within the comment. If a comment has so much confidential business information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

Personally identifying information located as set forth above will be placed in the agency's public docket file, but not posted online. Confidential business information identified and located as set forth above will not be placed in the public docket file. The Department may withhold from public viewing information provided in comments that they determine may impact the privacy of an individual or is offensive. For additional information, please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of https://www.regulations.gov. To inspect the agency's public docket file in person, you must make an appointment with the agency. Please see the For Further Information Contact paragraph above for agency contact information.

In May 2014, OCAHO began piloting a voluntary program in which parties may file and serve case-related documents by email in cases before OCAHO. See Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer Electronic Filing Pilot Program, 79 FR 31143 (May 30, 2014). That successful pilot was extended indefinitely while EOIR developed a complete electronic filing application. See EOIR, OCAHO Filing (June 4, 2021), https://www.justice.gov/eoir/ocaho-filing [ https://perma.cc/8HPG-QFR2 ].

EOIR has now developed an electronic filing application, known as the OCAHO Portal, through which parties can file and receive service of case documents electronically and view all documents in their OCAHO cases online. See EOIR, OCAHO Portal, https://ocaho.eoir.justice.gov/. With its release, EOIR is amending the regulatory sections necessary to effectively implement this electronic filing application, including by mandating electronic filing for most users. This IFR also includes several additional minor changes to OCAHO's rules of practice and procedure to clarify and improve upon the existing regulatory language.

OCAHO is one of three EOIR adjudicatory components, along with the Immigration Courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”). Beginning in 2003, EOIR engaged in a long-term effort to develop and implement electronic case access and filing applications for the Immigration Courts and the Board, which was completed with the full implementation of the EOIR Courts & Appeals System (“ECAS”). See generally Executive Office for Immigration Review Electronic Case Access and Filing, 85 FR 78240, 78241 (Dec. 4, 2020) (detailing the history of EOIR's efforts in this area). In addition to and in concert with this broader effort, EOIR has been working to implement a fully electronic case access and filing system for cases before OCAHO.

First, as previously noted, in May 2014, OCAHO began operating a voluntary email-based electronic filing pilot program. See 79 FR 31143-44. Under this pilot program, parties in enrolled cases could file case documents with OCAHO by email, and would similarly receive service by email of orders and decisions issued by OCAHO's Administrative Law Judges (“ALJs”) and the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (“CAHO”). 79 FR 31144. This email-based pilot program was intended to be temporary in nature, with a goal of using the experience gained to develop a “more comprehensive and permanent electronic filing system.” 79 FR 31143.

Next, EOIR successfully implemented ECAS before the Immigration Courts and the Board, which allowed the agency to gain significant experience in developing and implementing electronic filing and records applications. See generally EOIR, ECAS: Attorneys and Accredited Representatives, https://www.justice.gov/eoir/ecas-attorneys-and-accredited-representatives [ https://perma.cc/5E6X-GGEL ] (program overview and FAQs).

With the benefit of the experience gained from these projects, EOIR has developed the OCAHO Portal, a secure public application with case access and electronic filing capabilities for OCAHO, to integrate with OCAHO's internal case management system. EOIR has deployed the OCAHO Portal for all cases before OCAHO. The OCAHO Portal will take the place of OCAHO's email filing pilot program.

This IFR provides for implementation of the OCAHO Portal for electronic case access and filing in OCAHO cases. Under this IFR, electronic filing through the OCAHO Portal is mandatory for all attorneys and other authorized representatives in OCAHO cases. See 28 CFR 68.6(b)(1). This includes, for example, mandatory electronic filing of new complaints by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) in cases under sections 274A and 274C of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. 1324a and 1324c, or by the Department's Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (“IER”) or private attorneys or authorized representatives, when applicable, in cases under section 274B of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1324b. In order to complete implementation of this electronic filing application, EOIR is making the following changes to OCAHO's regulations.

This IFR makes electronic filing through the OCAHO Portal mandatory for DHS, IER, and attorneys and other authorized representatives who represent complainants or respondents in OCAHO cases, and applies to both new cases and cases currently pending before OCAHO. See 28 CFR 68.6(b)(1).

By mandating electronic filing for attorneys and authorized representatives, OCAHO will eventually be able to maintain a complete electronic record for many cases from beginning to end. Similar to EOIR's experience with electronic filings and records through ECAS, OCAHO anticipates that this will create significant efficiencies for the parties and OCAHO. For example, registered parties will be able to file documents electronically from any location with internet access, and will be able to view all of the documents filed in their case online and on-demand. Furthermore, electronic filing will allow for near-instantaneous delivery and receipt of case filings, without the delays associated with delivery times for filings sent by physical mail. Similarly, OCAHO will be able to quickly process electronic filings and maintain case records through an electronic system.

OCAHO is also making electronic filing available on a voluntary basis to unrepresented (“pro se”) complainants and respondents because all of the efficiencies listed above may also flow to those individuals if they choose to use electronic filing. See 28 CFR 68.6(b)(2). Although opting in to electronic filing is voluntary for pro se complainants and respondents, individuals who choose to opt in will do so for the life of their case and may not opt out without leave from the presiding ALJ or the CAHO. Id.

Voluntary electronic filing for pro se complainants and respondents is subject to one exception. See 28 CFR 68.6(b)(1). Specifically, ALJs or the CAHO may require pro se complainants and respondents to electronically file documents where paper filing is infeasible or impracticable. This authority only applies to individual cases and in limited scenarios, such as where there are issues with mail delivery or there is a need for the expedited exchange of documents, particularly where parties reside outside the continental United States.

In order to file electronically with OCAHO, an attorney, authorized representative, or pro se complainant or respondent must register with OCAHO using a DOJ authentication application—currently DOJ Login—similar to the process for ECAS registration. See, e.g., EOIR, ECAS: Attorneys and Accredited Representatives, https://www.justice.gov/eoir/ecas-attorneys-and-accredited-representatives [ https://perma.cc/5E6X-GGEL ] (under the heading “Frequently Asked Questions” and the subheading “DOJ Login and ECAS Account Creation,” answering the question “What is DOJ Login?” by stating that “DOJ Login is a cloud-based identity management and authentication service. The Department of Justice authenticates the identity of end users for access to DOJ applications and networks, including remote access.”). The registration process requires each individual to provide basic identifying and contact information, including the user's name, email address, phone number, and user type (DHS, IER, or private individual). The registration system then uses a multi-factor authentication tool to validate the user's identity and allow the user to log in to the application. Users with existing DOJ Login accounts for ECAS may also use those accounts.

All OCAHO cases will be eligible for electronic filing, regardless of whether the case is filed by DHS, IER, or by a private complainant. See 28 CFR 68.6(a). Electronic filing will be available for users regardless of whether the opposing party or parties in the case have elected to participate in electronic filing. However, for those cases in which one or more parties to the case have chosen not to participate in electronic filing, those parties who are enrolled in electronic filing will be required to serve electronically filed documents on parties not enrolled in electronic filing by another approved method of service, as discussed further in Section III.B of this preamble. See 28 CFR 68.6(c)(2).

This IFR provides guidance for how a party subject to electronic filing requirements should proceed if OCAHO's electronic filing application is unavailable. See 28 CFR 68.6(b)(3). If OCAHO's electronic filing application is unavailable due to an unplanned system outage on the last day for filing in a specific case, OCAHO will evaluate the overall impact and make appropriate filing deadline adjustments ( e.g., extension of filing deadlines to the next business day that the electronic filing application becomes accessible). Id. OCAHO will determine whether the electronic filing application is unavailable due to a system outage sufficient to trigger the extended filing deadline, and OCAHO will communicate such outages to external users through email, EOIR's website, or other methods of communication, as available. Id.

Parties will maintain the ability to request an extension of deadlines from the ALJ or the CAHO, as appropriate, or to submit a motion to accept an untimely filing. See, e.g., Tingling v. City of Richmond, Va., 13 OCAHO no. 1324c (2021) (discussing standards for granting extensions of time in OCAHO cases). Both the ALJs and the CAHO have the discretion to accept untimely filings. See, e.g., United States v. Bhattacharya, 14 OCAHO no. 1380b, 3 n.3, 5-6, 6 n.8 (2021) (discussing the authority of OCAHO adjudicators to accept filings that were untimely or improperly filed or served). Additionally, in the event that OCAHO's electronic filing application is unavailable, parties are permitted to file paper or email motions or requests for extension of time.

This unplanned unavailability policy tracks the policy of the Immigration Courts and the Board for ECAS, see 85 FR 78244-45, and is similar to the Federal courts' policy for their electronic filing system, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(3)(A); Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(3)(A).

On the other hand, if OCAHO's electronic filing application is unavailable due to a planned, previously announced system outage on the last day for filing in a specific case, this IFR provides that the user must plan accordingly to electronically file their documents during system availability or be prepared to file the documents in paper or email form with OCAHO in order to meet any applicable filing deadlines. See 28 CFR 68.6(b)(3). OCAHO will communicate these planned outages to external users through email, EOIR's website, or other methods of communication, as available. Id. This IFR will not change the authority of the ALJs or the CAHO to determine how to treat an untimely filing, nor will it prevent parties from making a motion to accept an untimely filing.

Lastly, in all cases, the IFR also provides ALJs and the CAHO with the authority to accept paper or email filings at their discretion.

OCAHO's electronic filing application is not rated for classified information. See 28 CFR 68.6(b)(6). Users should not file classified information through OCAHO's electronic filing application, and the application does not change the users' or the agency's responsibilities related to classified information. Id. Users will need to file any classified information by paper and follow existing procedures for the filing of classified information. See 28 CFR 68.42(b) (detailing procedures for filing classified or sensitive information in OCAHO cases). OCAHO staff will maintain a paper record for any case that contains classified information.

This IFR includes language allowing OCAHO to suspend a user's access to the OCAHO electronic filing application for repeated misuse or abuse of the system. See 28 CFR 68.6(b)(8). This will ensure that OCAHO has the ability to address repeated violations of the system, such as inappropriate or harassing filings, “spamming” large numbers of filings, or fraudulent activity, among others. See, e.g., Ravines de Schur v. Easter Seals-Goodwill Northern Rocky Mountain, Inc., 15 OCAHO no. 1388a (2021) (detailing a party's inability or unwillingness to comply with the terms of the OCAHO email filing pilot); United States v. Pasquel Hermanos, Inc., 18 OCAHO no. 1506a (2024) (same). In lieu of electronic filings through the OCAHO electronic filing application, suspended users may, for example, paper file documents with OCAHO. See 28 CFR 68.6(b)(4).

This IFR also changes and clarifies how filing and service of process is accomplished in cases before OCAHO. See generally 28 CFR 68.6. In this IFR, EOIR is updating OCAHO's regulations to expressly allow for electronic filing and service of all pleadings by adding electronic filing to the list of permissible methods of filing and service in OCAHO cases. See 28 CFR 68.6(a)(2). Moreover, as explained in Section III.A.1 of this preamble, EOIR is amending OCAHO's regulations to require all represented parties to file all case documents (including complaints) electronically. See 28 CFR 68.6(b)(1).

In order to simplify the filing and service process, OCAHO will also complete service electronically on behalf of the parties for all cases in which all parties are using electronic filing. See 28 CFR 68.6(c)(1). When a party successfully uploads a document to OCAHO's electronic filing application and all parties are using electronic filing, OCAHO's electronic filing application will send the parties an electronic notification of the new filing. Id. This will simplify the filing process for electronic filers by only requiring them to file their documents with OCAHO in eligible cases rather than needing to execute multiple mailings to complete service requirements.

However, if one or more parties to an OCAHO case are not participating in electronic filing for that particular case, the electronic filer will have to complete service of process on the opposing party by another authorized means of service. See 28 CFR 68.6(c)(2). Similarly, in circumstances where the filer is otherwise allowed to file outside of OCAHO's electronic filing application, either due to system unavailability or pursuant to OCAHO's discretion, the filer will need to complete service on the opposing party. See 28 CFR 68.6(b)(3)-(4).

In all cases, consistent with existing practice, all filers must include a certificate of service with each filing as proof of completed service on the opposing party or parties. See 28 CFR 68.6(c)(1)-(2). For example, if all parties are using OCAHO's electronic filing application, then electronic filers can include a certificate of service that states: “This document was electronically filed through OCAHO's electronic filing application and both parties are participating in electronic filing. Therefore, no separate service was completed.”

When parties need to complete service themselves, this IFR will also provide parties with the option to complete service electronically. See 28 CFR 68.6(c)(2)(iii). Under this IFR, in situations where the parties need to complete service outside of the OCAHO electronic filing application, the parties may complete service by email, by postal mail, or by personal delivery. 28 CFR 68.6(c)(2). In doing so, this IFR removes the current, limited ability to file by facsimile in certain circumstances, which is now unnecessary in light of the ability to file electronically through OCAHO's electronic filing application, or by email where allowed.

OCAHO will also serve notices, orders, and decisions issued by OCAHO ALJs or the CAHO by email notification to parties that are participating in electronic filing. See 28 CFR 68.3(a)(4). This notification will constitute completed service and begin the administrative review or appeal period, if applicable. Id. If a party is not participating in electronic filing, OCAHO will continue to serve such notices, orders, and decisions on that party by mail or other personal delivery. See 28 CFR 68.3(a)(1)-(3). In cases where one party is participating in electronic filing and another party is not, OCAHO will serve the participating party electronically and the non-participating party by mail or other personal delivery.

In order for OCAHO to effectuate electronic service, the parties must maintain a valid email address within the OCAHO electronic filing application. 28 CFR 68.6(c)(3). If a user's email address changes, the user must immediately contact EOIR to update their account. Id.

OCAHO considers service completed when the electronic notification is delivered to the last email address on file provided by the user. Id.

This IFR also provides standards for signatures on pleadings and other documents submitted in OCAHO cases. See 28 CFR 68.6(b)(7), 68.7(a)(2). Under this IFR, OCAHO will allow four different types of signatures, depending on the type of document being filed and the method by which the document is being filed: (1) original, handwritten ink signatures; (2) encrypted, digital signatures; (3) electronic signatures; and (4) conformed signatures. 1 Id.

First, whether filing electronically or on paper, OCAHO will accept documents with original, handwritten ink signatures; encrypted, digital signatures; or electronic signatures. Id. If filed electronically, the document may be signed with an encrypted, digital signature; an electronic signature; or an original, handwritten ink signature which is then scanned for upload to the OCAHO electronic filing application. 28 CFR 68.6(b)(7). If a user signs a document using an encrypted digital signature but the OCAHO electronic filing application is unavailable, the user may print the document with the digital signature and paper file the document with OCAHO. Paper documents filed by OCAHO may also be signed by electronic signature or original, handwritten ink signature.

Second, for documents filed through the OCAHO electronic filing application, this IFR will allow users to sign their own name with a conformed signature. 28 CFR 68.6(b)(7). Conformed signatures will not be accepted for anyone other than the user who is submitting the document. Conformed signatures typically consist of the user typing “/s/” followed by the user's name into the signature block. By signing into the electronic filing application, the user has demonstrated that they have completed the registration and identity verification process for the electronic filing application, thereby allowing the use of a conformed signature.

These signature rules are subject to any specific form, application, or document signature requirements. 28 CFR 68.6(b)(7), 68.7(a)(2). For example, if an application's instructions require an original, handwritten ink signature, then the user must follow the application instructions instead of the signature allowances provided for in this IFR. In practice, if the user was electronically filing, the user would sign the application in ink and then scan and electronically file the application with EOIR. The user is also required to make the original available upon request.

This IFR updates OCAHO's regulations to clarify that parties are not required to submit extra copies of pleadings (including the complaint) if they are filing electronically. See 28 CFR 68.6(a). However, parties are required to file the requisite number of copies of each pleading if filing by paper. Id.

This IFR also makes a number of other minor amendments to OCAHO's regulations.

First, the IFR adds a definition of “notice of hearing” to 28 CFR 68.2 to reflect the document's current name in OCAHO's practice as well as to provide flexibility to OCAHO in the event the document changes title in the future.

Second, the IFR revises 28 CFR 68.5 (regarding notices of hearings) to allow ALJs increased flexibility in the scheduling of hearings and prehearing conferences, and to expressly allow for OCAHO hearings to be conducted by video teleconference in appropriate circumstances. In particular, the IFR removes the requirement that an ALJ schedule a hearing, a pre-hearing conference, or both within 30 days of receiving a respondent's answer to a complaint. With rare exceptions, nearly all OCAHO cases are decided through dispositive motions or settlements, making the setting of a hearing date at such an early stage of the case—and typically before discovery has commenced—inefficient for case processing. Further, OCAHO's usual practice is to issue a general scheduling order and seek prehearing statements from the parties, see 28 CFR 68.12, before scheduling a prehearing conference, making the setting of a prehearing conference at the stage contemplated by 28 CFR 68.5 similarly inefficient. The revision to 28 CFR 68.5 simply removes the 30-day requirement to provide full flexibility for OCAHO ALJs to manage their cases in the most efficient manner based on the particular circumstances of each case.

Third, the IFR revises 28 CFR 68.13 (regarding conferences) to expressly include the authority for ALJs to refer appropriate cases to a settlement officer, in accordance with OCAHO's Settlement Officer Program. See OCAHO Practice Manual, Chapter 4.7 (Apr. 3, 2025), https://www.justice.gov/eoir/reference-materials/ocaho/chapter-4/7 [ https://perma.cc/44ZU-UTRK ].

Fourth, the IFR clarifies that discovery requests, answers, or responses should not be filed with the ALJ. Rather, upon motion of a party or on the ALJ's own initiative, the ALJ may order that such requests for discovery, answers, or responses thereto be filed. 28 CFR 68.18(a).

Fifth, the IFR replaces the outdated reference to providing a copy of a proposed final order to the ALJ “on a 3.5” microdisk” in 28 CFR 68.52.

Finally, the IFR clarifies the requirements in 28 CFR 68.54 for filing a request for administrative review and related documents by adding an electronic filing option and removing a cross-reference to 28 CFR 68.6(c) in favor of simply stating the filing and service requirements for documents related to administrative review in that section.

The Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) generally requires agencies to publish notice of a proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register and, after such notice, “give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking through submission of written data, views, or arguments.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (c). The APA further provides that the required publication or service of a substantive rule shall be made not less than 30 days before its effective date, except in certain circumstances. Id. 553(d). However, the APA provides exceptions to these general requirements, as explained in more detail below.

Consistent with the APA and for the reasons explained below, this IFR is exempt from notice-and-comment procedures and the delayed-effective-date requirement, because it is a rule of agency procedure and practice. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), (d)(3). At the same time, the Department seeks and welcomes post-promulgation comments on this IFR.

The APA's notice-and-comment requirements do not apply to “rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). Courts “have used the term `procedural exception' as shorthand for that exemption.” AFL-CIO v. NLRB, 57 F.4th 1023, 1034 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (cleaned up). “[T]he critical feature of a rule that satisfies the . . . procedural exception is that it covers agency actions that do not themselves alter the rights or interests of parties, although it may alter the manner in which the parties present themselves or their viewpoints to the agency.” Id. (cleaned up); cf. Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 176 (5th Cir. 2015) (holding that a rule is not procedural when it “modifies substantive rights and interests” (quoting U.S. Dep't of Lab. v. Kast Metals Corp., 744 F.2d 1145, 1153 (5th Cir. 1984))).

The Department has determined that this rule regulates agency procedure and is therefore exempt from notice-and-comment procedures under the APA. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). The changes in this IFR do not affect the substantive legal requirements for OCAHO cases; rather, the IFR merely makes procedural changes to provide for electronic filing, and thus focuses on “the manner in which the parties present themselves or their viewpoints to the agency.” See AFL-CIO, 57 F.4th at 1034. This IFR is also consistent with prior OCAHO procedural rulemakings pertaining solely to agency procedures and practices regarding the processing of cases before OCAHO. See, e.g., Rules of Practice and Procedure for Administrative Hearings Before Administrative Law Judges in Cases Involving Allegations of Unlawful Employment of Aliens and Unfair Immigration-related Employment Practices, 56 FR 50049, 50052 (Oct. 3, 1991); Rules of Practice and Procedure for Administrative Hearings Before Administrative Law Judges in Cases Involving Allegations of Unlawful Employment of Aliens, Unfair Immigration-Related Employment Practices, and Document Fraud, 64 FR 7066, 7072 (Feb. 12, 1999).

Furthermore, the Department has determined that, this rule relates solely to agency procedure and practice and thus is not subject to the 30-day- delayed-effective-date requirement for “substantive rules” under 5 U.S.C. 553(d). See 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) (providing that “[t]he required publication or service of a substantive rule shall be made not less than 30 days before its effective date . . . except as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule”) (emphasis added).

The Department has reviewed this IFR in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act and has determined that this IFR does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). This rulemaking regulates attorneys and other authorized representatives, most of whom qualify as “small entities” under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. See 5 U.S.C. 601(3)-(4), (6).

However, the Department anticipates that the adoption of electronic filing in OCAHO cases will lead to net cost savings for these attorneys and authorized representatives because they will no longer be required to bear the burdens and expenses of mailing or serving paper copies in each of their cases for filings submitted to OCAHO or for service of process on opposing counsel. Therefore, this IFR will not have an adverse economic effect on attorneys or authorized representatives, but instead is expected to result in cost savings. A more detailed analysis of the costs and benefits of this IFR is provided in Section IV.E of this preamble.

This IFR will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

This IFR is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Congressional Review Act. 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This IFR will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of using the best available methods to quantify costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has determined that this IFR is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. It will neither result in an annual effect on the economy greater than $100 million nor adversely affect the economy or sectors of the economy. It does not pertain to entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, nor does it raise novel legal or policy issues. It does not create inconsistencies or interfere with actions taken by other agencies. Accordingly, this IFR is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB pursuant to Executive Order 12866. Moreover, the Department certifies that this IFR has been drafted in accordance with the principles of Executive Order 13563.

This rule is separately exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 14192 beccause it relates to the immigration-related functions of the United States. See Exec. Order 14192, Sec. 5(a).

Although a cost-benefit analysis is not required under Executive Order 12866, the Department has nevertheless weighed the costs and benefits of this IFR and believes that the rule will provide significant efficiency-related savings, which outweigh any potential costs. The main costs of the rule are expected to be de minimis, and largely focused on any familiarization costs by users of OCAHO's electronic filing application. Additionally, any costs associated with developing or maintaining the OCAHO electronic filing application are already being borne by the agency and are separate from this rulemaking, which focuses on providing standards for, and in most cases mandating use of, the application.

In contrast, the Department anticipates that this IFR will result in significant efficiency gains for OCAHO through the usage of electronic filing, records, and service of process. Under this IFR, OCAHO will be able to efficiently: (1) intake electronic documents, which will be automatically added to an electronic record of proceeding; (2) maintain and review fully electronic records of proceeding;  2 and (3) issue electronic orders and decisions that will be electronically served on participating parties.

EOIR similarly realized all of these efficiency gains at the Immigration Courts and the Board through the full implementation of ECAS. See, e.g., 86 FR 70714 (explaining for example that, in the initial ECAS pilot program, the agency processed charging documents “nearly 10 times faster” and non-charging documents “approximately 25 percent faster” than paper filings).

In addition to ECAS's resounding success, OCAHO has also piloted electronic filing through an email-based pilot program. Although that pilot was more limited—for instance, by not having automatic service of process—OCAHO has reported noticeable efficiency gains from the email pilot, which will only further increase with the implementation of OCAHO's electronic filing application. Now that the OCAHO electronic filing application has been implemented and this IFR has been issued, OCAHO will be able to move towards electronically intaking documents and maintaining the record of proceeding fully electronically, which will save significant labor costs associated with printing, scanning, storing, and otherwise using paper case files.

Replacing paper mail filing with electronic filing will also address a number of issues currently faced by OCAHO. For instance, instantaneous electronic filing will eliminate most mail delays, including those involving parties located outside of the continental United States. See, e.g., Zajradhara v. Kang Corp., 19 OCAHO no. 1555 (2024) (describing the “significant delays inherent with mail filing” for case based out of Saipan). Case deadlines can also be set quickly, as deadlines in cases with electronic filing do not require additional time to account for paper mail delivery. See 28 CFR 68.8(c)(3) (requiring the addition of five days to relevant response deadlines whenever documents are sent by ordinary mail). Electronic filing will also resolve ambiguities and confusion surrounding filing dates and deadlines. See, e.g., Y.Y. v. Zuora, Inc., 15 OCAHO no. 1402 (2021) (discussing uncertainty and delay in a party's receipt of a copy of the complaint when it was sent by mail); United States v. Terrapower, LLC, 19 OCAHO no. 1548e (2025) (“It is possible, or perhaps even likely, that registration in e-filing would minimize instances of motions arriving after a matter has already been adjudicated.”); United States v. Silverado Stages, Inc., 10 OCAHO no. 1185 (2013) (CAHO order finding that “[t]he date on the certificate of service is contradicted by the actual date on which filing and service was made”); In re Investigation of Space Expl. Techs. Corp., 14 OCAHO no. 1378 (2020) (finding a petition to modify or revoke a subpoena untimely where it was emailed to the other party by the deadline but mailed to OCAHO and thus not received and considered filed until after the deadline).

As such, based on the significant experience gained from these projects, the Department anticipates similar benefits to OCAHO with the implementation of OCAHO's electronic filing application.

The Department similarly anticipates costs savings for the public, mainly for attorneys and authorized representatives—including DHS and IER—who will be required to electronically file with OCAHO under this rule. Primarily, these parties will be able to forgo paper filings and any attendant mailing or courier costs. Pro se parties will similarly benefit from the availability of electronic filing. See Zajradhara v. Costa World Corp., 19 OCAHO no. 1546c (2024) (ALJ order allowing a pro se complainant to electronically file a document because “he was experiencing financial difficulty, which could impact his ability to mail a filing”).

Additionally, the Department anticipates that any costs related to familiarization with OCAHO's electronic filing application will be de minimis, as the application is straightforward and most users should be generally familiar with electronically uploading documents online. Moreover, EOIR has published step-by-step guidance on its website explaining the online registration and electronic filing process. See EOIR, OCAHO Portal for E-Filing User Guide (June 13, 2025), https://ocaho.eoir.justice.gov/Content/OCAHOPortalUserGuide.pdf [ https://perma.cc/63PD-RVN7 ].

Finally, the Department believes any costs related to the IFR's minor changes contained in Section III.E of this preamble to be de minimis, and are outweighed by the benefits described in that section. Perhaps most significantly, the IFR codifies procedures for the use of settlement conferences in cases before OCAHO. However, such settlement conferences are voluntary and require the consent of all parties. Therefore, the Department does not anticipate any additional costs on the parties but, rather, potential efficiency savings by engaging in the settlement process rather than proceeding through a full adjudication before OCAHO.

This IFR will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this IFR does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

This IFR meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

This IFR does not include new or revisions to existing “collection[s] of information” as that term is defined in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320. As most relevant here, the OCAHO electronic filing application is a previously approved collection of information under OMB Control No. 1125-0019.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, and by the authority vested in the Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review, by the Attorney General Order Number 6260-2025, the Department amends part 68 of title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

The Department published a direct final rule (DFR), “Offshore Downhole Commingling Regulatory Updates,” in the Federal Register on August 13, 2025 (90 FR 38935). The final rule became effective on October 14, 2025. In relevant part, the DFR stated that, if significant adverse comments were received by September 12, 2025, the Department would publish notice in the Federal Register and either withdraw the rule or issue a new rule that responded to the comments. The Department is hereby providing notice that it received a significant adverse comment regarding the DFR and is responding to that comment in this DFR.

This DFR revises the regulatory provisions in 30 CFR 250.1158 in response to the applicable OBBB provisions, Public Law 119-21, which the President signed into law on July 4, 2025. The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to promulgate regulations that carry out the provisions in OCSLA. Those regulations include provisions that require lessees to safely produce any oil, gas, or both at rates consistent with applicable law and orders to assure the maximum rate of production that may be sustained without loss of ultimate recovery of oil, gas, or both under sound engineering and economic principles. BSEE performs technical analyses for downhole commingling to ensure that production methods meet OCSLA's requirement for ultimate recovery and safety. This rule revises BSEE regulations to reflect the offshore commingling language in the OBBB regarding safety and ultimate recovery and to clarify how BSEE will apply the OBBB's standards when reviewing commingling requests.

The Department's authority for this DFR is derived from OCSLA, codified at 43 U.S.C. 1331-1356a. OCSLA, enacted in 1953 and substantially revised in 1978, authorizes the Secretary to regulate and administer mineral and oil and gas exploration, development, and production operations on the OCS. The Secretary has delegated authority to perform certain of these functions to BSEE under Secretary's Order 3299. 1

To carry out its responsibilities, BSEE regulates offshore oil and gas and mineral operations to enhance the safety of oil and gas and mineral exploration, development, and production on the OCS, and to implement advancements in technology. BSEE also conducts onsite inspections to ensure compliance with regulations, lease terms, and approved plans and permits. Detailed information concerning the BSEE-administered regulations and guidance to the offshore oil and gas and mineral industries may be found on BSEE's website at: https://www.bsee.gov/protection.

BSEE administers a regulatory program that covers a wide range of OCS facilities and activities that offshore operators  2 perform throughout the OCS. See 30 CFR part 250. This DFR is applicable to requests for BSEE approval of downhole commingling operations.

OCSLA authorizes the Secretary to promulgate regulations that carry out the provisions in OCSLA. In part, OCSLA requires lessees to safely produce any oil, gas, or both at rates consistent with applicable law and orders to assure the maximum rate of production that may be sustained without loss of ultimate recovery of oil, gas, or both under sound engineering and economic principles. 43 U.S.C. 1344(a) and (g).

Under OBBB section 50102, the “Secretary of the Interior shall approve a request of an operator to commingle oil or gas production from multiple reservoirs within a single wellbore completed on the outer Continental Shelf in the Gulf of America Region unless the Secretary of the Interior determines that conclusive evidence establishes that the commingling—(1) could not be conducted by the operator in a safe manner; or (2) would result in an ultimate recovery from the applicable reservoirs to be reduced in comparison to the expected recovery of those reservoirs if they had not been commingled.”

BSEE performs technical analyses for downhole commingling to ensure that production methods meet OCSLA's requirement for ultimate recovery. This rule revises the BSEE regulations to align with the offshore commingling language in the OBBB to ensure that commingling will be conducted in a safe manner and the operation will not reduce ultimate recovery.

BSEE received a comment expressing concern with its decision to issue a DFR rather than a notice of proposed rulemaking, which provides for the traditional opportunity for public notice and comment. The commenter expressed concern with the OBBB. The comment specifically stated that OBBB section 50102 shifts or eliminates the operator's responsibility to ensure proposed commingling operations demonstrate that safety, environmental, and resource conservation risks have been fully considered and effectively mitigated by requiring BSEE approval unless BSEE proves conclusively that the operation could not be conducted safely or that resource recovery would be reduced.

The commenter asserted that an opportunity for notice and comment is necessary to ensure that section 50102 is implemented in a manner that minimizes safety, environmental, and resource conservation risks. The commenter cited BSEE's commingling fact sheet that acknowledges that crossflow risks may exist when there are large pressure differences between commingled reservoirs or fluid compatibility risks that may be present if fluids from different reservoirs are unsafely mixed, causing well integrity and efficiency issues. The commenter questioned whether an independent assessment of Gulf of America downhole commingling safety and resource recovery risks should be conducted before finalizing a rule that mandates approval of all applications. The commenter also questioned what criteria BSEE will use in determining that there is “conclusive evidence” that a commingling request would be unsafe or would reduce ultimate resource recovery.

Aside from these risk concerns, the commenter also referenced an April 2025 commingling policy whose development was informed by a University of Texas (UT) study of the unique Paleogene fields in the Gulf of America. The policy implemented new parameters for downhole commingling in the Paleogene (Wilcox) reservoirs, expanding the allowable pressure differential between commingled intervals from 200 psi to 1500 psi. The commenter posed certain questions in relation to that study. For example, does BSEE have evidence that supports the applicability of the study results to other fields? What are BSEE's plans for such a study and other related research? What operational boundaries does the rule impose, like the 1500 psi pressure differential threshold in the April 2025 policy, for safe downhole commingling and optimal reservoir management?

Finally, the commenter also posed general questions about BSEE's commingling program. For example, how will BSEE ensure that production from each interval is accurately measured and accounted for? How will BSEE ensure that long term production benefits are not sacrificed in the interest of accelerated downhole commingling payouts?

The commenter believed that the public should provide input on both the technical issues and regulatory policy implications of the OBBB mandate, including recommending implementation policies that would most effectively mitigate operational risks.

Therefore, the commenter recommended that the downhole commingling rule should be published in draft form with a comment period of at least 90 days. The commenter also recommended that BSEE consider hosting a public forum during the comment period to present research on downhole commingling and to accept input on mitigations and implementation policies.

BSEE disagrees with the commenter's assertion about the overall effect and impact this final rule will have on safety or resource conservation. The rule does not eliminate operator responsibility. Instead, it aligns existing regulations with the statutory mandate of OBBB section 50102, which requires approval of commingling requests unless conclusive evidence shows the operation would be unsafe or reduce ultimate recovery.

Operators must still ensure proposed commingling operations demonstrate that safety, environmental, and resource conservation risks have been fully considered and effectively mitigated. More specifically, this final rule does not change requirements in § 250.1167 related to the technical data operators must submit to obtain BSEE's approval for downhole commingling. The operator must submit various types of information about its commingling proposal, including maps ( e.g., geologic and geographic), seismic data, well logs, engineering data, and other types of information about the proposal ( e.g., economic analysis and explanation for how maximum recovery will be achieved). Operators must also comply with all other applicable regulations in 30 CFR part 250, including, but not limited to, regulations that address drilling operations (subpart D), well-completion operations (subpart E), and production safety systems (subpart H), all of which address operational safety and environmental protection.

In addition, this DFR does not relieve the operator from complying with § 250.107, “What must I do to protect health, safety, property, and the environment?,” which addresses the need to protect health, safety, property, and the environment by performing all operations in a safe and workmanlike manner, maintaining all equipment and work areas in a safe condition, and utilizing recognized engineering practices that reduce risks to the lowest level practicable. Operators also must still comply with § 250.106. “What standards will the Director use to regulate lease operations?,” which addresses the need to promote orderly exploration, development, and production, prevent injury or loss of life, and prevent damage to or waste of any natural resource, property, or the environment. Collectively, compliance with these regulations help ensure operators demonstrate, and BSEE confirms, that a commingling proposal is safe, protects the environment, and ensures resource conservation.

BSEE disagrees with the commenter's suggestion that an independent assessment of Gulf of America downhole commingling safety and resource recovery risks be performed before issuing a final rule. This DFR only revises the regulations to conform to the statutory requirement in the OBBB. The OBBB's mandate remains in effect regardless of whether this DFR is issued. Therefore, conducting an independent assessment will not change the statutory mandate. As outlined in the OBBB and BSEE regulations, BSEE will continue its mission to ensure safe operations and welcomes the suggestion to conduct an independent assessment, which it will consider in the future. BSEE will also continue to evaluate commingling risks and ensure the commingling request comply with applicable regulations.

With respect to the UT study that helped inform the development of the April 2025 commingling policy, BSEE is not applying the results of that study outside of the Paleogene (Wilcox) reservoirs, which was the limit of the study's scope. However, BSEE is interested in evaluating the study's applicability or methodology to other geologic provinces. As referenced in BSEE's downhole commingling fact sheet, 3 $500,000 has been allocated for further study to ensure commingling policies remain effective and aligned with the latest science and industry practices. And while the UT study was helpful in establishing implementation policies that address specific developments, it would not be beneficial to incorporate such a prescription in the regulations as circumstances may be different in other development areas. It is more appropriate for BSEE to evaluate each commingling request on a case-by-case basis to address site-specific conditions for safe downhole commingling and optimal reservoir management.

With respect to accurate production measurements, BSEE will still apply its oil and gas measurement requirements in 30 CFR subpart L, which address ongoing well-monitoring, surveillance, and reporting to ensure accurate production accounting. Operators must obtain measurement approval from BSEE before commencing production. BSEE will continue to ensure appropriate measurement for royalty purposes and reporting.

With respect to concerns about the lack of opportunity to provide public input, BSEE did not use notice and comment rulemaking consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act, which allows agencies to skip notice-and-comment procedures if the rule is deemed noncontroversial and technical in nature. This DFR's scope was to ensure consistency with the OBBB when BSEE reviews a request for downhole commingling.

As discussed above, this rule does not relieve BSEE of its obligation to carry out the provisions in OCSLA, including provisions that require lessees to safely produce any oil, gas, or both at rates consistent with applicable law and orders to assure the maximum rate of production that may be sustained without loss of ultimate recovery of oil, gas, or both under sound engineering and economic principles. Nor does it relieve the operator's obligation to comply with other requirements in BSEE's regulations for lease operations. BSEE has evaluated the commenter's concerns about public comment and, due to the nature of the updates in this rule to be consistent with the OBBB, BSEE will not withdraw the rule. However, BSEE agrees that a public forum or workshop may improve stakeholder overall understanding of commingling operations and may consider hosting downhole commingling outreach at a later time.

Another commenter generally supported the alignment with the OBBB and recommended that BSEE ensure that safety standards and environmental protections remain the highest priority in all commingling approvals. The commenter also suggested that clear guidance for industry compliance and transparent public reporting would also strengthen confidence in this rule.

BSEE agrees with the commenter's concerns. BSEE is committed to maintaining the highest standards of safety and environmental stewardship. As previously discussed, BSEE will continue to review each commingling request on a case-by-case basis to ensure that each operator's proposal maximizes resource recovery while minimizing risks to human safety and the environment. As part of that review process, BSEE will consider how advanced monitoring technologies, such as intelligent completions, which allow for real-time control of each reservoir zone, could enable operators to independently monitor each reservoir's performance, ensuring that higher-pressure zones do not suppress lower-pressure ones, which could cause inefficiency or well damage. And looking ahead, BSEE is working to update its overall downhole commingling guidance to ensure that all stakeholders are involved in the ongoing dialogue regarding best practices. BSEE will consider how this collaborative approach may achieve greater transparency to the public.

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

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

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for all rules unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish notice of a proposed rule. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a). The RFA does not apply because the Department is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this DFR.

This DFR is not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Specifically, the DFR: (1) will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (2) will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or (3) will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.

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

Under the criteria in E.O. 12630, this DFR does not have significant takings implications. The rule is not a governmental action capable of interference with constitutionally protected property rights. Therefore, a takings implication assessment is not required.

Under the criteria in E.O. 13132, this DFR will not have federalism implications. This rule will not substantially and directly affect the relationship between the Federal and State governments. To the extent that State and local governments have a role in OCS activities, this rule will not affect that role. Therefore, a federalism assessment is not required.

This DFR complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. Specifically, this rule:

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

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

BSEE strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationships with federally recognized Indian Tribes through a commitment to consultation with the Tribes and recognition of their right to Tribal self-governance and sovereignty. We are also respectful of our responsibilities for consultation with Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) Corporations and the Native Hawaiian Community. BSEE is committed to compliance with E.O. 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (dated November 6, 2000), and DOI's policies and procedures on consultation with Indian Tribes, Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act corporations, and the Native Hawaiian Community (512 Departmental Manual 4, dated November 30, 2022, 512 Departmental Manual 6, dated November 30, 2022, 513 Departmental Manual 1, dated January 16, 2025, 512 Departmental Manual 5, dated November 30, 2022, Departmental Manual 7, dated November 30, 2022, and 513 Departmental Manual 2, dated January 16, 2025, respectively).

BSEE evaluated this DFR under E.O. 13175 and the Department's consultation policies and procedures. BSEE determined that this DFR has no substantial direct effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes, ANCSA corporations, or the Native Hawaiian Community and that consultation under the Department's consultation policies is not required.

This rule does not contain any new information collection requirements. Thus, a submission to OMB under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq, is not required. BSEE may not conduct or sponsor, and you are not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Please reference OMB Control Number 1014-0019 which covers BSEE's Information Collection under 30 CFR part 250; Subpart K, “Oil and Gas Production Requirements.”

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

In developing this DFR, we did not conduct or use a study, experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Data Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554, app. C, sec. 515, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A-153-154).

This DFR is not a significant energy action under the definition in E.O. 13211 because the rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a statement of energy effects is not required.

We are required by E.O. 12866, E.O. 12988, and by the Presidential memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:

(1) Be logically organized;

(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;

(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;

(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and

(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.

If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs that you find unclear, which sections or sentences are too long, or the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement amends 30 CFR part 250 as follows:

This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's website: https://ofac.treasury.gov/.

On December 15, 2025, OFAC issued GL 13 to authorize certain transactions otherwise prohibited by the Belarus Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 548. GL 13 was made available on OFAC's website ( https://ofac.treasury.gov ) when it was issued. The text of this GL is provided below.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by the Belarus Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 548 (BSR), involving the following entities are authorized:

(1) Joint Stock Company Belarusian Potash Company;

(2) Agrorozkvit LLC;

(3) Belaruskali OAO; or

(4) Any entity in which one or more of the above persons own, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, a 50 percent or greater interest.

(b) This general license does not authorize:

(1) The unblocking of any property blocked pursuant to any part of 31 CFR chapter V; or

(2) Any transactions otherwise prohibited by the BSR, including transactions involving the property or interests in property of any person blocked pursuant to the BSR other than the blocked persons described in paragraph (a) of this general license, unless separately authorized.

This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's website: https://ofac.treasury.gov/.

On November 4, 2025, OFAC issued GL 12 to authorize certain transactions otherwise prohibited by the Belarus Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 548. GL 12 was made available on OFAC's website ( https://ofac.treasury.gov ) when it was issued. The text of this GL is provided below.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by the Belarus Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 548 (BSR), related to the following aircraft are authorized:

(1) aircraft with tail number EW-001PA and serial number 33079;

(2) aircraft with tail number EW-001PB and serial number 33968; or

(3) aircraft with tail number EW-001PH and serial number 31835.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this general license, the aircraft identified in paragraph (a) of this general license are unblocked.

(c) This general license does not authorize:

(1) The unblocking of any funds that were blocked on or before 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, November 4, 2025; or

(2) Any transactions otherwise prohibited by the BSR, including transactions involving any person blocked pursuant to the BSR other than those persons and transactions described in the note to paragraph (a) of this general license.

This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's website: https://ofac.treasury.gov/.

On November 14, 2025, OFAC issued GLs 124B, 128A, 130, and 131 to authorize certain transactions otherwise prohibited by the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 587. These GLs were made available on OFAC's website ( https://ofac.treasury.gov ) when they were issued. GLs 128A and 131 are now expired. GL 130 has an expiration date of April 29, 2026. The text of these GLs is provided below.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by the determination of January 10, 2025 made pursuant to section 1(a)(ii) of Executive Order (E.O.) 14071 (“Prohibition on Petroleum Services”) that are related to the operation of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, Tengizchevroil, or Karachaganak projects are authorized.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by E.O. 14024 involving one or more of the following blocked persons that are related to the operation of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, Tengizchevroil, or Karachaganak projects are authorized:

(1) Rosneft Oil Company;

(2) Public Joint-Stock Company Oil Company Lukoil; or

(3) Any entity in which one or more of the above persons own, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, a 50 percent or greater interest.

(c) This general license does not authorize:

(1) Any transactions for the sale, disposition, or transfer of any interest in the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, Tengizchevroil, or Karachaganak projects; or

(2) Any transactions otherwise prohibited by the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 587 (RuHSR), including transactions involving any person blocked pursuant to the RuHSR, other than the blocked persons described in paragraph (b), unless separately authorized.

(d) Effective November 14, 2025, General License No. 124A, dated October 22, 2025, is replaced and superseded in its entirety by this General License No. 124B.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by Executive Order (E.O.) 14024 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the purchase of goods and services from, or the maintenance, operation, or wind down of Lukoil retail service stations located outside of the Russian Federation (“Lukoil Retail Service Stations”), are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, December 13, 2025, provided that any payment, directly or indirectly, to a blocked person—other than blocked Lukoil Retail Service Stations—is made into a blocked account in accordance with the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 587 (RuHSR).

(b) Paragraph (a) of this general license does not authorize:

(1) Any transactions prohibited by Directive 2 under E.O. 14024, Prohibitions Related to Correspondent or Payable-Through Accounts and Processing of Transactions Involving Certain Foreign Financial Institutions;

(2) Any transactions prohibited by Directive 4 under E.O. 14024, Prohibitions Related to Transactions Involving the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, the National Wealth Fund of the Russian Federation, and the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation; or

(3) Any transactions otherwise prohibited by the RuHSR, unless separately authorized.

(c) Effective November 14, 2025, General License No. 128, dated October 22, 2025, is replaced and superseded in its entirety by this General License No. 128A.

This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's website: https://ofac.treasury.gov/.

On October 22, 2025, OFAC issued GLs 124A, 126, 127, and 128 to authorize certain transactions otherwise prohibited by the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 587. These GLs were made available on OFAC's website ( https://ofac.treasury.gov ) when they were issued. GL 124A replaced and superseded GL 124. GLs 126, 127, and 128 are now expired. The text of these GLs is provided below.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by the determination of January 10, 2025 made pursuant to section 1(a)(ii) of Executive Order (E.O.) 14071 (“Prohibition on Petroleum Services”) that are related to the Caspian Pipeline Consortium or Tengizchevroil projects are authorized.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by E.O. 14024 involving one or more of the following blocked persons that are related to the Caspian Pipeline Consortium or Tengizchevroil projects are authorized:

(1) Rosneft Oil Company;

(2) Public Joint-Stock Company Oil Company Lukoil; or

(3) Any entity in which one or more of the above persons own, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, a 50 percent or greater interest.

(c) This general license does not authorize any transactions otherwise prohibited by the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 587 (RuHSR), including transactions involving any person blocked pursuant to the RuHSR, other than the blocked persons described in paragraph (b), unless separately authorized.

(d) Effective October 22, 2025, General License No. 124, dated May 15, 2025, is replaced and superseded in its entirety by this General License No. 124A.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by Executive Order (E.O.) 14024 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of any transaction involving one or more of the following blocked persons are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, November 21, 2025, provided that any payment to a blocked person is made into a blocked account in accordance with the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 587 (RuHSR):

(1) Rosneft Oil Company;

(2) Public Joint-Stock Company Oil Company Lukoil; or

(3) Any entity in which one or more of the above persons own, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, a 50 percent or greater interest.

(b) This general license does not authorize:

(1) Any transactions prohibited by Directive 2 under E.O. 14024, Prohibitions Related to Correspondent or Payable-Through Accounts and Processing of Transactions Involving Certain Foreign Financial Institutions;

(2) Any transactions prohibited by Directive 4 under E.O. 14024, Prohibitions Related to Transactions Involving the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, the National Wealth Fund of the Russian Federation, and the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation; or

(3) Any transactions otherwise prohibited by the RuHSR, including transactions involving any person blocked pursuant to the RuHSR other than the blocked persons described in paragraph (a) of this general license, unless separately authorized.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by Executive Order (E.O.) 14024 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the divestment or transfer, or the facilitation of the divestment or transfer, of debt or equity issued or guaranteed by the following blocked entities (“Covered Debt or Equity”) to a non-U.S. person are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, November 21, 2025:

(1) Rosneft Oil Company;

(2) Public Joint-Stock Company Oil Company Lukoil; or

(3) Any entity in which one or more of the above persons own, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, a 50 percent or greater interest.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by E.O. 14024 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to facilitating, clearing, and settling trades of Covered Debt or Equity that were placed prior to 4:00 p.m. eastern daylight time, October 22, 2025 are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, November 21, 2025.

(c) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by E.O. 14024 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of derivative contracts entered into prior to 4:00 p.m. eastern daylight time, October 22, 2025 that (i) include a blocked person described in paragraph (a) of this general license as a counterparty or (ii) are linked to Covered Debt or Equity are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, November 21, 2025, provided that any payments to a blocked person are made into a blocked account in accordance with the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 587 (RuHSR).

(d) Paragraph (a) of this general license does not authorize:

(1) U.S. persons to sell, or to facilitate the sale of, Covered Debt or Equity to, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked; or

(2) U.S. persons to purchase or invest in, or to facilitate the purchase of or investment in, directly or indirectly, Covered Debt or Equity, other than purchases of or investments in Covered Debt or Equity ordinarily incident and necessary to the divestment or transfer, or the facilitation of the divestment or transfer, of Covered Debt or Equity as described in paragraph (a) of this general license.

(e) This general license does not authorize:

(1) Any transactions prohibited by Directive 2 under E.O. 14024, Prohibitions Related to Correspondent or Payable-Through Accounts and Processing of Transactions Involving Certain Foreign Financial Institutions;

(2) Any transactions prohibited by Directive 4 under E.O. 14024, Prohibitions Related to Transactions Involving the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, the National Wealth Fund of the Russian Federation, and the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation; or

(3) Any transactions otherwise prohibited by the RuHSR, including transactions involving any person blocked pursuant to the RuHSR other than the blocked persons described in paragraph (a) of this general license, unless separately authorized.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by Executive Order (E.O.) 14024 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the purchase of goods and services from, or the maintenance, operation, or wind down of Lukoil retail service stations located outside of the Russian Federation (“Lukoil Retail Service Stations”), are authorized through 12:01 eastern standard time, November 21, 2025, provided that any payment, directly or indirectly, to a blocked person—other than blocked Lukoil Retail Service Stations—is made into a blocked account in accordance with the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 587 (RuHSR).

(b) Paragraphs (a) of this general license does not authorize:

(1) Any transactions prohibited by Directive 2 under E.O. 14024, Prohibitions Related to Correspondent or Payable-Through Accounts and Processing of Transactions Involving Certain Foreign Financial Institutions;

(2) Any transactions prohibited by Directive 4 under E.O. 14024, Prohibitions Related to Transactions Involving the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, the National Wealth Fund of the Russian Federation, and the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation; or

(3) Any transactions otherwise prohibited by the RuHSR, unless separately authorized.

This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's website: https://ofac.treasury.gov/.

On December 10, 2025, OFAC issued GL 131A to authorize certain transactions otherwise prohibited by the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 587. This GL was made available on OFAC's website ( https://ofac.treasury.gov ) when it was issued. GL 131A replaced and superseded GL 131. GL 131A is now expired. The text of this GL is provided below.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by Executive Order (E.O.) 14024 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the negotiation of and entry into contracts with Public Joint-Stock Company Oil Company Lukoil or any of its affiliates for the sale, disposition, or transfer of Lukoil International GmbH (“LIG”) or any entity in which LIG owns, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, a 50 percent or greater interest (collectively, “LIG Entities”) are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, January 17, 2026, provided that the performance of any such contract is made expressly contingent upon the receipt of separate authorization from the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“contingent contracts”).

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by E.O. 14024 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the maintenance or wind down of operations, contracts, or other agreements of LIG Entities are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, January 17, 2026.

(c) All blocked accounts of LIG Entities may be used, debited, or credited for the transactions authorized in paragraph (b).

(d) This general license does not authorize:

(1) The unblocking of any property blocked pursuant to any part of 31 CFR chapter V, except as authorized in paragraph (c);

(2) Any transactions otherwise prohibited by the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 587 (RuHSR), including transactions involving any person blocked pursuant to the RuHSR, other than blocked persons described in paragraph (a) of this general license, unless separately authorized; or

(3) The transfer of funds to any person or account located in the Russian Federation.

(e) Effective December 10, 2025, General License No. 131, dated November 14, 2025, is replaced and superseded in its entirety by this General License No. 131A.

This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's website: https://ofac.treasury.gov/.

On December 4, 2025, OFAC issued GL 128B to authorize certain transactions otherwise prohibited by the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 587. This GL was made available on OFAC's website ( https://ofac.treasury.gov ) when it was issued. GL 128B, which has an expiration date of April 29, 2026, replaces and supersedes GL 128A. The text of this GL is provided below.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by Executive Order (E.O.) 14024 involving Lukoil International GmbH (LIG) or any entity in which LIG owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest, including Lukoil North America LLC and Lukoil Americas Corporation, (collectively, “LIG Entities”) that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the purchase of goods and services from, or the maintenance, operation, or wind down of, physical retail service stations located outside of the Russian Federation, are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, April 29, 2026.

(b) All blocked accounts of LIG Entities may be used, debited, or credited for the transactions authorized in paragraph (a).

(c) This general license does not authorize:

(1) Any transactions prohibited by Directive 2 under E.O. 14024, Prohibitions Related to Correspondent or Payable-Through Accounts and Processing of Transactions Involving Certain Foreign Financial Institutions;

(2) Any transactions prohibited by Directive 4 under E.O. 14024, Prohibitions Related to Transactions Involving the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, the National Wealth Fund of the Russian Federation, and the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation;

(3) Any transactions otherwise prohibited by the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 587 (RuHSR), including transactions involving any person blocked pursuant to the RuHSR other than the LIG Entities described in paragraph (a) of this general license, unless separately authorized; or

(4) The transfer of funds to any person or account located in the Russian Federation.

(d) Effective December 4, 2025, General License No. 128A, dated November 14, 2025, is replaced and superseded in its entirety by this General License No. 128B.

This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's website: https://ofac.treasury.gov/.

On January 14, 2026, OFAC issued GL 131B to authorize certain transactions otherwise prohibited by the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 587. This GL was made available on OFAC's website ( https://ofac.treasury.gov ) when it was issued. GL 131B replaced and superseded GL 131A. GL 131B has an expiration date of February 28, 2026. The text of this GL is provided below.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by Executive Order (E.O.) 14024 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the negotiation of and entry into contracts with Public Joint-Stock Company Oil Company Lukoil or any of its affiliates for the sale, disposition, or transfer of Lukoil International GmbH (“LIG”) or any entity in which LIG owns, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, a 50 percent or greater interest (collectively, “LIG Entities”) are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, February 28, 2026, provided that the performance of any such contract is made expressly contingent upon the receipt of separate authorization from the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“contingent contracts”).

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by E.O. 14024 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the maintenance or wind down of operations, contracts, or other agreements of LIG Entities are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, February 28, 2026.

(c) All blocked accounts of LIG Entities may be used, debited, or credited for the transactions authorized in paragraph (b).

(d) This general license does not authorize:

(1) The unblocking of any property blocked pursuant to any part of 31 CFR chapter V, except as authorized in paragraph (c);

(2) Any transactions otherwise prohibited by the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 587 (RuHSR), including transactions involving any person blocked pursuant to the RuHSR, other than blocked persons described in paragraph (a) of this general license, unless separately authorized; or

(3) The transfer of funds to any person or account located in the Russian Federation.

(e) Effective January 14, 2026, General License No. 131A, dated December 10, 2025, is replaced and superseded in its entirety by this General License No. 131B.

This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's website: https://ofac.treasury.gov/.

On December 19, 2025, OFAC issued GL 5T to authorize certain transactions otherwise prohibited by the Venezuela Sanctions Regulations (VSR), 31 CFR part 591. GL 5T replaced and superseded GL 5S, which was issued on June 20, 2025. This GL was made available on OFAC's website ( https://ofac.treasury.gov ) when it was issued. The text of this GL is provided below.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this general license, on or after February 3, 2026, all transactions related to, the provision of financing for, and other dealings in the Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. 2020 8.5 Percent Bond that would be prohibited by subsection l(a)(iii) of Executive Order (E.O.) 13835 of May 21, 2018, as amended by E.O. 13857 of January 25, 2019, and incorporated into the Venezuela Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 591 (the VSR), are authorized.

(b) This general license does not authorize any transactions or activities otherwise prohibited by the VSR, or any other part of 31 CFR chapter V.

(c) Effective December 19, 2025, General License No. 5S, dated June 20, 2025, is replaced and superseded in its entirety by this General License No. 5T.

Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-2039. All documents in the docket are listed at https://www.regulations.gov. Although listed, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only as PDF versions that can only be accessed on EPA computers in the docket office reading room. Certain databases and physical items cannot be downloaded from the docket but may be requested by contacting the docket office at (202) 566-1744. The docket office has up to 10 business days to respond to these requests. With the exception of such material, publicly available docket materials are available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov.

Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this preamble the use of “we,” “us,” or “our” is intended to refer to the EPA. We use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:

Entities potentially affected by this final action are fuel producers and distributors who do business in the Louisville Area.

The above table is not intended to be exhaustive but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. The table lists the types of entities of which the EPA is aware that potentially could be affected by this final action. Other types of entities not listed on the table could also be affected by this final action. To determine whether your organization could be affected by this final action, you should carefully examine the regulations in 40 CFR 1090.285—RFG covered areas. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

The statutory authority for this action is granted to the EPA by CAA sections 211(c), 211(k), and 301(a), as amended; 42 U.S.C. 7545(c) and (k) and 7601(a).

The EPA is announcing the approval of Kentucky's request to opt the Commonwealth out of the RFG program applicable to gasoline introduced into commerce from June 1 to September 15 of each year for the Kentucky portion of the Louisville Area. Specifically, the EPA is announcing that the effective date for the opt-out is May 27, 2026, consistent with the EPA Administrator's February 26, 2026, letter to the Governor of Kentucky and which aligns with the transition period for the start of the high ozone season or summer season. The EPA defines “high ozone season” or “summer season” as “the period from June 1 through September 15 for retailers and wholesale purchaser consumers, and May 1 through September 15 for all other persons, or an RVP control period specified in a State implementation plan if it is longer.”  2 As discussed in section III of this document, for areas not requiring a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision, the opt-out cannot be effective less than 90 days from the EPA's written notification to the State approving the RFG opt-out request.

This approval is based on Kentucky's February 28, 2025, and August 4, 2025, submissions to the EPA providing the information required by 40 CFR 1090.290(d) to opt out of the RFG program. Additional information regarding background and Kentucky's petition and documentation can be found in sections III and IV of this notice, respectively. This action does not revise the list of areas subject to the Federal RFG program in 40 CFR 1090.285; the EPA will complete this revision as a ministerial rule in a separate future action. 3

The 1990 CAA Amendments established specific requirements for the RFG program to reduce ozone levels in certain areas in the country experiencing ground-level ozone or smog problems by reducing vehicle emissions of compounds that form ozone, specifically volatile organic compounds (VOCs). CAA section 211(k)(5) directed the EPA to issue regulations that specify how gasoline can be “reformulated” so as to result in significant reductions in vehicle emissions of ozone-forming and toxic air pollutants relative to the 1990 baseline fuel and to require the use of such RFG in certain “covered areas.” The CAA defines certain nonattainment areas as “covered areas” which are required to use RFG and provides other areas with an ability to opt in to the RFG program. CAA section 211(k)(6) provides an opportunity for an area classified as a Marginal, Moderate, Serious, or Severe ozone nonattainment area, or an area which is in the ozone transport region established by CAA section 184(a), to opt into the RFG program upon application by the Governor of the State (or his authorized representative) and subsequent action by the EPA.

RFG opt-in areas are subject to the prohibition in CAA section 211(k)(5) on the sale or dispensing by any person of conventional (non-RFG) gasoline to ultimate consumers in the covered area. The prohibition also includes the sale or dispensing by any refiner, blender, importer, or marketer of conventional gasoline for resale in any covered areas, without segregating the conventional gasoline from RFG and clearly marking conventional gasoline as not for sale to ultimate consumers in a covered area. The EPA first published regulations for the RFG program on February 16, 1994. 4 A current listing of the RFG covered areas and a summary of RFG requirements can be found on the EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards/reformulated-gasoline.

Jefferson County and portions of Bullitt and Oldham Counties in Kentucky along with Clark and Floyd Counties in Indiana were designated as a bi-state Moderate nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone standard (the “bi-state 1-hour ozone Louisville, KY-IN Area”). 5 In 1993, Kentucky voluntarily petitioned to opt into the RFG program under Phase I of a two-phase nationwide program. 6 Kentucky elected to stay in the program under Phase II, which was more stringent than Phase I. After establishing the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the EPA revised the form of the standard to 8 hours and promulgated other ozone NAAQS and designated the Kentucky portion of the Louisville Area in accordance with the air quality in the Louisville Area at the time of the designations. 7

On October 1, 2015, the EPA revised the 8-hour ozone NAAQS from 0.075 parts per million (ppm) to 0.070 ppm (the “2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS”), effective December 28, 2015. 8 Bullitt, Jefferson, and Oldham Counties in Kentucky and Clark and Floyd Counties in Indiana were designated as Marginal nonattainment for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS on June 4, 2018. 9 Areas that were designated as Marginal ozone nonattainment areas were required to attain the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS no later than August 3, 2021, based on 2018-2020 monitoring data. The Kentucky portion of the Louisville Area was reclassified by operation of law from Marginal to Moderate nonattainment on October 7, 2022, following the EPA's finding of failure to attain by the Marginal area attainment date. 10 Since the area is currently classified as a Moderate nonattainment area, the area may opt out of RFG using the opt-out procedures in 40 CFR 1090.290(d). The EPA intends to address the associated maintenance plan separately from this action. 11

The RFG regulations at 40 CFR 1090.290 provide the process and criteria for a reasonable transition out of the RFG program if a State decides to opt out and meets the relevant criteria. 12 These opt-out regulations provide that the Governor of the State must submit a petition to the Administrator requesting to opt out of the RFG program. The petition must include specific information on how, if at all, the State has relied on RFG in a submitted or approved SIP or plan revision and, if RFG is relied upon, how the SIP will be revised to reflect the State's opt-out from RFG. If the State is not withdrawing any submitted SIP that has not yet been approved and does not intend to submit a revision to any approved SIP or any submitted SIP that has not yet been approved, the State must describe why no revision is necessary. 13 The opt-out regulations provide that the EPA will notify the State in writing of the Agency's action on the petition and the date the opt out becomes effective ( i.e., the date RFG is no longer required in the affected area) if the petition is approved. The opt-out regulations also provide that the EPA will publish a Federal Register document announcing the approval of any opt-out petition and the effective date of such opt out. If a SIP revision is not required, the effective date of the EPA's approval of the opt out can be no less than 90 days from the Agency's written notification to the State approving the RFG opt-out request. 14

The EPA determined in the RFG Opt-out Rule that it would not be necessary to conduct a separate rulemaking for each future opt-out request. 15 The EPA established a petition process to address, on a case-by-case basis, future individual State requests to opt out of the RFG program. As the EPA stated in the preamble to the RFG Opt-out Rule, this application of regulatory criteria on a case-by-case basis to individual opt-out requests does not require notice-and-comment rulemaking, either under CAA section 307(d) or the Administrative Procedure Act. 16 The EPA has also long acknowledged the role of States in air quality planning. For example, the preamble to the RFG Opt-out Rule explained that the opt-out procedures would “maintain[s] the flexibility that States have in air quality planning by honoring their right to opt out and substitute alternative control measures where the State considers appropriate.”  17 Thus, in this action, the EPA is applying criteria and following procedures specified in its RFG opt-out regulations to approve the Commonwealth's petition. The EPA is using this notification to provide sufficient notice of Kentucky's opt out of RFG ahead of the start of the 2026 summer fuel season.

On February 28, 2025, the Commonwealth submitted a petition to the EPA Administrator requesting to opt out from the RFG program for the Kentucky portion of the Louisville Area, including the information required by the opt-out procedure in 40 CFR 1090.290(d)(1). The purpose of the information required in the petition is to provide the EPA the assurance that the Commonwealth has provided information required by applicable statutory and regulatory requirements associated with the opt-out. 18 Kentucky submitted supplemental information, including a noninterference demonstration, on August 4, 2025, to support the Commonwealth's opt-out petition titled “40 CFR 1090.290 RFG Opt-Out Request for the Counties of Bullitt, Jefferson, and Oldham” (the “August 2025 Submission”). 19 See section IV of this notice for additional information on the August 2025 Submission and how it supports the Commonwealth's petition.

As noted above, the Commonwealth submitted supplemental information, including a noninterference demonstration, on August 4, 2025, to support its opt-out petition. This noninterference demonstration evaluates the impact that removing RFG from the Kentucky portion of the Louisville Area would have on the Area's ability to attain or maintain the ozone NAAQS and any other NAAQS. 20

Kentucky modeled the anticipated impacts on VOC and nitrogen oxides (NO X ) emissions from onroad mobile sources in the Kentucky portion of the Louisville Area from the removal of the Federal RFG requirements. 21 Onroad mobile sources include vehicles used on roads for transportation of passengers or freight. Specifically, Kentucky's noninterference analysis utilized the EPA's latest mobile source emissions model, MOtor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES5), to estimate emissions for years 2025, 2026, 2030, and 2035 for onroad mobile sources. Given the timing of Kentucky's request and submittal, it is anticipated that the earliest year that the RFG requirements could be removed is 2026, making that a particularly relevant year for this demonstration. 22 VOC and NO X emissions were calculated for a typical summer July day to represent the peak ozone season.

The MOVES5 projections demonstrate that without RFG, daily ozone season onroad NO X emissions are projected to increase by 0.06 tons in 2026 and 0.01 tons in 2035. Without RFG, daily onroad mobile VOC emissions are projected to increase by 0.20 tons in 2026 and 0.14 tons in 2035 during the high ozone season. The modeling shows an overall downward trend in onroad emissions despite removing RFG from the Kentucky portion of the Louisville Area. From 2025 to 2035 without RFG, daily NO X emissions are projected to decrease by 57.1 percent, and daily VOC emissions are projected to decrease by 36.8 percent.

In the August 2025 Submission, Kentucky provided emissions inventories for VOC and NO X for the following general source categories: point (electric generating units and non-electric generating units and aircraft emissions), nonpoint, nonroad mobile, and onroad mobile. 23 The point, nonpoint, and nonroad projected emissions inventories were developed using the EPA's 2022v1 Emissions Modeling Platform  24 and account for projected growth rates in population, traffic, economic activity, and other parameters. Kentucky determined there were no changes in VOC and NO X emissions from the point, nonpoint, and nonroad categories that would be impacted by the RFG removal in the Kentucky portion of the Louisville Area.

Kentucky's nonroad projections for VOC emissions utilized the EPA's 2022v1 Emissions Modeling Platform and did not account for emissions increases due to the increased Reid vapor pressure of conventional gasoline. The EPA estimated the anticipated impacts on VOC emissions from nonroad mobile sources in Bullitt, Jefferson, and Oldham Counties from removal of the RFG requirements using MOVES5. Only VOC emissions changes are discussed since NO X emissions from the nonroad sector did not change significantly as a result of the removal of RFG. The EPA's estimated VOC emissions changes from nonroad sources are summarized in Table 2 in tons per summer day (tpsd).

The EPA notes that, even with the changes in VOC and NO X emissions from onroad and nonroad sources due to removal of RFG, total emissions from all sectors in the nonattainment area will decrease over time. Tables 3 and 4 show VOC and NO X emissions, respectively, in 2025 with RFG, and in 2026 and 2035 with and without RFG for the entire Kentucky portion of the Louisville Area, including onroad and nonroad estimates calculated using MOVES5. 25

Kentucky's noninterference demonstration included an analysis of the ozone sensitivity in the area. Kentucky cited studies that found the Kentucky portion of the Louisville Area to be NO X -limited, meaning that reductions of NO X emissions are more effective at reducing ozone concentrations. 26 Therefore, increases in VOC emissions are not expected to have a significant impact on ozone concentrations in the area. 27

Kentucky described how the removal of RFG will not have a significant impact on continued attainment of the other NAAQS, including for sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, lead, nitrogen dioxide, and carbon monoxide. 28 The Kentucky portion of the Louisville Area is currently designated attainment/unclassifiable for these NAAQS. As mentioned previously, the RFG program was developed to address emissions of the ozone precursors, VOC and NO X . As a result, the Commonwealth provided the required documentation to show that removing the RFG requirements in Bullitt, Jefferson, and Oldham Counties will not interfere with Kentucky's ability to continue attaining these NAAQS.

By letter dated February 26, 2026, to the Governor of Kentucky, the EPA has approved the Commonwealth's petition and set an effective date for the opt out from the RFG program as May 27, 2026. 29 This opt out effective date applies to retailers, wholesale purchasers, consumers, refiners, importers, and distributors.

As provided by the RFG regulations in 40 CFR 1090.290(e), the EPA will publish a final rule at a later date to remove the three counties in the Kentucky portion of the Louisville Area from the list of RFG covered areas in 40 CFR 1090.285(d) after the effective date of the opt out. The EPA expects that completing this ministerial exercise to revise the list of covered areas in the Code of Federal Regulations after the effective date of the opt out allows the opt out to become effective within the timeframe described in 40 CFR 1090.290(d) and allows the EPA to keep the lists of RFG covered areas in 40 CFR 1090.285 up to date.