This final rule amends the Board's regulations under the Freedom of Information Act to incorporate changes made to the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552, by the Open Government Act of 2007, Public Law, 110-175 and the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, Public Law 114-185, 130 Stat. 538 (June 30, 2016). The OPEN Government Act of 2007 states that agencies may not charge fees for searches or copies if they miss the statutory timeframe for responding to a FOIA request unless unusual or exceptional circumstances exist. The FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 provides that agencies must allow a minimum of 90 days for requesters to file an administrative appeal. The FOIA Improvement Act also requires that agencies notify requesters of the availability of dispute resolution services and the FOIA public liaison at various times throughout the FOIA process. Finally, the FOIA Improvement Act provided additional duties for the Chief FOIA Officer. This final rule updates the DNFSB's regulations in 10 CFR part 1703 to reflect those statutory changes.

In addition, this final rule changes position titles to incorporate amendments to the AEA and to incorporate changes made after a reorganization. It also corrects a regulatory citation error that incorrectly referenced a reserved section. This final rule incorporates the new statutory restrictions on charging fees in certain circumstances.

Finally, this final rule removes language overruled by the Supreme Court regarding exemption 4 and revises the definitions of “representative of the news media” and “educational institution” to reflect developments in case law and to be consistent with definitions contained in the OPEN Government Act of 2007.

This final rule defines processing order and provides for multi-track processing and aggregating requests to provide for faster processing. Finally, this final rule defines what information should be included in denial letters as required by the FOIA and corrects a citation reference to align with the new subsection added to § 1703.108.

The proposed rule published at 90 FR 52893, on November 24, 2025.

The section heading is revised to remove “words denoting number, gender and tense.” The definitions paragraph is revised to change word “Chairman” to Chairperson. The AEA was amended by the FY 2022 NDAA to change the word “Chairman” to Chairperson. This final rule is also revised to state that the Designated FOIA Officer serves as the Chief FOIA Officer and to state that the Chief Administrative Officer, not the General Manager, is the chief administrative officer. The General Manager position was abolished during an agency reorganization. The final rule adds the responsibilities of the Chief FOIA Officer contained in the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016. These responsibilities include offering training to employees and serving as the primary liaison to the Office of Government Information Services and the Office of Information Policy and as a member of the Chief FOIA Officer Council.

Section 1703.103(b)(7) is revised to correct a regulatory citation error by removing § 1703.104 and replacing it with § 1704.4.

Section 1703.105(b)(2) only permits submission of FOIA requests by mail. The Board is amending this paragraph to permit submission of FOIA requests by electronic mail at FOIA@dnfsb.gov and the government-wide FOIA.gov portal.

Section 1703.107(b)(1) is also revised to conform to recent D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decisions addressing two FOIA fee categories: representative of the news media and educational institution. Cause of Action v. FTC, 799 F.3d 1108 (D.C. Cir. 2015) and Sack v. DOD, 823 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. 2016). The final rule also includes revisions to conform with the definition of representative of news media under the OPEN Government Act of 2007. The Board's existing regulations define a representative of the news media as “any person actively gathering news for an entity that is organized and operated to publish or broadcast to news to the public.” In Cause of Action, the Court held that a representative of the news media need not work for an entity that is “organized and operated” to publish or broadcast news. Therefore, the definition of “representative of the news media” is revised to remove the “organized and operated” requirement and to adopt the definition contained in the OPEN Government Act of 2007. The definition of a representative of the news media is expanded to include gathering information, using editorial skills to turn raw materials into a distinct work, and distributing the work to an audience. The definition of “educational institution” is revised to reflect the holding, in Sack, 823 F.3d at 688, that students who make FOIA requests in furtherance of their coursework or other school-sponsored activities may qualify under this requester category.

Paragraph (b)(2)(iv) is revised to conform with the OPEN Government Act. It is revised to state that the Board will not assess search fees or duplication fees from educational and noncommercial scientific institution if it has failed to meet the regulatory deadline.

Paragraphs (b)(2)(ix) and (x) are added to state that Board may charge search fees or may charge duplication fees for requesters with preferred fee status if unusual circumstances apply and more than 5,000 pages are necessary to respond to the request provided it has given notice of the unusual circumstances and how to limit the request. Similarly, if a court determines that “exceptional circumstances” exist, the Board's failure to comply with a time limit will be excused by the court order.

Paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f) are redesignated as paragraphs (f), (g), (h), and (i) and new paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) are added to include that requests will be processed in order of receipt. There will be a specific track for expedited requests and a different process track for simple and more complex requests based upon amount time and work needed to process the request. The final rule also provides for aggregating multiple requests for purposes of satisfying unusual circumstances when there are multiple requests by one requester or a group of requests acting in concert constitute a single request that would otherwise constitute unusual circumstances.

Newly redesignated paragraph (g) adds a sentence that alerts the requester to the availability of Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) to provide dispute resolution services.

Paragraph (j) is added and provides the information to be included in the denial of a request. It includes the identity of the person denying the request, the reason for denial and exemption used, number of pages being withheld, appeal procedures and the availability dispute resolution services from OGIS and assistance from the FOIA public liaison.

The paragraph headings in the proposed rule for paragraphs (d), (e), and (j) have been deleted in conformance with guidance from the Office of the Federal Register. The remainder of these paragraphs remain unchanged from the proposed rule.

Paragraph (a)(1) is revised by removing 30 days to appeal a fee waiver denial and replacing it with 90 days as required by the FOIA Improvement Act. Paragraph (b) is revised by removing the reference to § 1703.108(c) and replacing it with § 1703.108(f). The revisions to § 1703.108 redesignated paragraphs (c) through (f).

This final rule changes the title of this section to “Privileged or confidential information” and removes the title of “Request for privileged treatment of documents submitted to the board.” This new title is consistent with the statutory language of exemption 4 of the FOIA under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), which exempts from release trade secrets, and commercial or financial information obtained from a person that is privileged or confidential. When determining whether exemption 4 of the FOIA can be applied, the current regulation required the Board to determine substantial harm to a competitive position of the owner of the information. The Supreme Court, in Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, 139 S.Ct. 2356 (2019), overturned the current regulatory language. The final rule removes the language to make it consistent with the Supreme Court's decision. The final rule also adds the word “confidential” to each relevant paragraph.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, agencies must consider the impact of their rulemakings on “small entities” (small businesses, small organizations, and local governments) when publishing regulations subject to the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. An agency must prepare an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) unless it determines and certifies that the rule, if promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 605(b). The FOIA authorizes Federal agencies to charge fees only to certain requesters, and only to recover the direct costs of searching for, reviewing, and duplicating agency records. Under this rulemaking, the Board will continue to charge fees in accordance with the FOIA and guidelines from DOJ and OMB. The fees that the Board assesses for processing FOIA requests are nominal and will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the RFA. Accordingly, the Board certifies that this rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, Tribal, and local governments, and the private sector to the extent that such regulations incorporate requirements specifically set forth in law. Before promulgating a rule that may result in the expenditure by a State, Tribal, or local government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million, adjusted annually for inflation, in any 1 year, an agency must prepare a written statement that assesses the effects on State, Tribal, and local governments and the private sector. 2 U.S.C. 1532. This rulemaking will apply only to requesters under the FOIA and will not result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, Tribal, and local governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. This rulemaking will also not impose any enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or otherwise have any effect on small governments subject to the requirements of 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538.

E.O. 12866, “Regulation Planning and Review,” as supplemented and affirmed by, Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs will review any regulatory action that qualifies as a “significant regulatory action” within the meaning of the E.O. This rulemaking has been reviewed in compliance with Executive Order 14219, “Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's `Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative.” This rulemaking does not qualify as a significant regulatory action.

Under section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, agencies must review their regulations to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguities, draft them to minimize litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. Section 3(b) provides a list of specific matters that agencies must consider when conducting the review required by section 3(a). The Board has conducted this review and determined that this rulemaking complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988.

This rulemaking contains no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. This update to the Board's FOIA regulations does not require or request information from members of the public. Therefore, this rulemaking is not covered by the restrictions of the PRA.

This rulemaking will not result in and is not likely to result in (A) an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; (B) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or (C) 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. As such, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.

For the reasons described in the preamble, the Board amends 10 CFR part 1703 as follows:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Helicopters Model EC120B helicopters. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on November 28, 2025 (90 FR 54601). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2024-0243, dated December 13, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0243) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. The MCAI advises of a report that a pilot experienced several occurrences of a cyclic flight control restriction when turning right during an instruction flight. Subsequent investigation determined that the bonding braid on the socket of the pilot cyclic stick had moved to an incorrect position, which limited full movement of the pilot cyclic stick. This condition, if not addressed, could result in a cyclic flight control restriction during flight and consequent loss of control of the helicopter.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require a one-time inspection of the position of the bonding braid on the socket of the pilot cyclic stick and, depending on the results, correcting the positioning of the bonding braid and installing a binding clamp.

The FAA is issuing this AD to detect and correct the incorrect positioning of the bonding braid on the socket of the pilot cyclic stick. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in a cyclic flight control restriction during flight and consequent loss of control of the helicopter.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-5036.

The FAA received comments from one commenter. The commenter supported the NPRM without change.

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

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2024-0243, which specifies a one-time inspection of the position of the bonding braid on the socket of the pilot cyclic stick and, depending on the results, correcting the positioning of the bonding braid and installing a binding clamp. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 72 helicopters of the U.S. registry.

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

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any repairs that would be required based on the results of the inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of helicopters that might need this repair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Helicopters Model AS332C, AS332C1, AS332L, AS332L1, and AS332L2 helicopters. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on November 28, 2025 (90 FR 54596). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2025-0116, dated May 19, 2025, (EASA AD 2025-0116) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. The MCAI states that an occurrence was reported of rupture of the scissors link of the rotating swashplate assembly resulting from a seized ball joint-cups assembly. The MCAI further states subsequent investigation revealed the following probable causes: the cups and ball joint that are normally paired were unpaired or mixed during an overhaul; and the cups and ball joint assembly had not been properly lubricated during overhaul. In addition, the cups and the ball joint are made of tungsten carbide, whose failure mode can cause a sudden seizure of the assembly. This condition, if not addressed, could lead to loss of connection between rotor shaft and rotating swashplate and consequent loss of control of the helicopter.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require Group 1 helicopters (as defined in the MCAI) to replace the rotor shaft assembly, Group 2 helicopters (as defined in the MCAI) to modify the rotating swashplate assembly to replace each of the three ball joint-cups assemblies with one-piece self-lubricated spherical bearings or replace the MRH assembly with an MRH assembly in post-mod 0728849 and post-mod 0743046 configurations, and AS332C and AS332L helicopters to modify the scissors hinges and swashplate trunnions on the main rotor, as applicable. The NPRM also proposed to require Group 3 helicopters (as defined in the MCAI) to apply an anti-corrosion agent, if applicable. Additionally, the NPRM proposed to prohibit installing a MRH assembly or rotor shaft assembly on a helicopter unless certain requirements are met.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-5034.

The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the costs.

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

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2025-0116, which specifies procedures for replacing the rotor shaft assembly, modifying the rotating swashplate assembly, or replacing the MRH assembly as an alternative action for certain helicopters, as applicable. EASA AD 2025-0116 also specifies procedures for certain helicopters to incorporate modification 0743046 either before or concurrently with the modification of the rotating swashplate assembly. Additionally, EASA AD 2025-0116 specifies procedures for applying anti-corrosion agent on the parts, as applicable. EASA AD 2025-0116 prohibits installing a MRH assembly or a rotor shaft assembly unless it is a post-mod 0728849 configuration.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 12 helicopters of U.S. registry.

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

The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for replacing the rotor shaft assembly with a rotor shaft assembly that has incorporated modifications 0743714 and 0728849, modifying the rotating swashplate assembly to incorporate modification 0743046, or for the optional action of replacing the MRH assembly with an MRH assembly that has incorporated modifications 0728849 and 0743046 specified in this AD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments using a method listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2026-2284; Project Identifier MCAI-2026-00071-R” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

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

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

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Emergency AD 2026-0015-E, dated January 22, 2026 (EASA Emergency AD 2026-0015-E) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition on Airbus Helicopters Model AS 332 C, AS 332 C1, AS 332 L, AS 332 L1, AS 332 L2, and EC 225 LP helicopters. The MCAI states a report was received of an incident where Airbus Model EC 225 LP helicopter suffered a loss of the horizontal stabilizer during flight. The MCAI further states due to design similarity, Model AS 332 helicopters might also be affected. The MCAI states that EASA considers the MCAI an interim action.

The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent the loss of the horizontal stabilizer. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in the loss of control of the helicopter.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2026-2284.

The FAA reviewed EASA Emergency AD 2026-0015-E, which specifies procedures for an initial visual inspection of horizontal stabilizer, part number (P/N) 332A1310XXXX (manufacturer P/N 332A13-10XX-XX) for AS 332 helicopters (where “XXXX” or “XX-XX” represents any numerical sequence); and metallic horizontal stabilizers, any P/N for EC 225 helicopters. EASA Emergency AD 2026-0015-E specifies that the initial inspection includes removing the horizontal stabilizer from the helicopter, inspecting the flange for cracks, inspecting the tightening torque on the nut that attaches the tube assembly and the horizontal stabilizer, and measuring the ovalization of the attachment holes and the diameter of horizontal stabilizer internal bracket and the end of the tube assembly. Depending on the results of the inspections, EASA Emergency AD 2026-0015-E specifies contacting Airbus Helicopters for repair instructions.

Additionally, EASA Emergency AD 2026-0015-E specifies procedures for repetitive inspections, without the horizontal stabilizer removed, which include borescope inspecting the horizontal stabilizer for cracks, nicks, or corrosion and depending on the inspection results, contacting Airbus Helicopters for repair instructions.

EASA Emergency AD 2026-0015-E also specifies that an affected part may be installed on a helicopter, if it is a new part (not previously installed on any helicopter) and concurrently with the installation, the part passed an inspection (no damage detected) as required by EASA Emergency AD 2026-0015-E.

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

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

This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in EASA Emergency AD 2026-0015-E, described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. See “Differences Between this AD and the MCAI” for a discussion of these differences.

Where the MCAI specifies contacting Airbus Helicopters for repair instructions or corrective actions, this AD requires using a method approved by the FAA, EASA, or Airbus Helicopters' EASA Design Organization Approval.

The FAA considers that this AD is an interim action. If final action is later identified, the FAA might consider further rulemaking.

In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some CAA ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA incorporates EASA Emergency AD 2026-0015-E by reference in the FAA final rule. This AD requires compliance with EASA Emergency AD 2026-0015-E in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA Emergency AD 2026-0015-E does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA Emergency AD 2026-0015-E. Material required by EASA Emergency AD 2026-0015-E for compliance will be available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2026-2284 after the FAA final rule is published.

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

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies forgoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because the separation of the horizontal stabilizer in flight, if not addressed, could result in the loss of control of the helicopter. The actions required by this AD must be accomplished within 20 hours time in-service or 30 days, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD. This compliance time in this AD is shorter than the time necessary for the public to comment and for publication of the final rule. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

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

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 44 helicopters of U.S. registry.

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

The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the on-condition repairs specified in this AD.

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

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

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

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

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

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are adopting final amendments to the following rules and forms:

Section 16(a)  2 of the Exchange Act requires directors, 3 officers, 4 and persons who beneficially own more than 10 percent of any class of equity securities registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act (“10 percent holders,” and collectively with directors and officers, as applicable, “Section 16 reporting persons”) to disclose their holdings of the issuer's equity securities and transactions in the issuer's equity securities through filings with the Commission (“Section 16 reports”). 5 Section 16(b)  6 of the Exchange Act requires the disgorgement of any profits realized by a Section 16 reporting person from any purchase and sale of any equity security of an issuer within a period of less than six months. Section 16(c)  7 prohibits Section 16 reporting persons from engaging in certain short sales of the issuer's equity securities, with certain exceptions provided by Commission rules. 8

The HFIA Act, 9 enacted on December 18, 2025, amended Section 16(a) to require every person who is a director or an officer of a “foreign private issuer,” as that term is defined in Exchange Act Rule 3b-4, 10 with a class of equity securities registered pursuant to Section 12 (but not 10 percent holders of FPIs  11 ) to file Section 16 reports electronically and in English. 12 The Section 16(a) filing requirements for directors and officers of FPIs will become effective 90 days after enactment of the HFIA Act, or March 18, 2026. 13 The HFIA Act states that if any provision of Exchange Act Rule 3a12-3(b), which currently exempts securities registered by an FPI from all Section 16 obligations, is inconsistent with the amendments to Section 16(a), then such provision of Rule 3a12-3(b) will have no force or effect after the effective date of the HFIA Act. 14 The HFIA Act mandates that the Commission issue final regulations (or amend or rescind, in whole or in part, existing regulations) to carry out the amendments made by the act no later than 90 days after the date of enactment. 15 The HFIA Act did not amend Section 16(b) or Section 16(c), which provisions, accordingly, remain inapplicable to Section 16 reporting persons of FPIs.

As mandated by the HFIA Act, we are adopting final amendments to Rule 3a12-3(b), Rule 16a-2, and Forms 3, 4, and 5 to conform these rules and forms to the HFIA Act.

• We are amending Rule 3a12-3(b) to be consistent with the HFIA Act by removing the current exemption from Section 16 in its entirety and replacing it with exemptions from Section 16(b) and Section 16(c) only. 16 Accordingly, Rule 3a12-3(b) will no longer exempt directors and officers of FPIs  17 with a class of equity securities registered under Section 12 from the filing obligations imposed by Section 16(a) and Rule 16a-2 (and related rules).

• The HFIA Act did not extend Section 16(a) filing requirements to 10 percent holders of equity securities of FPIs registered under Section 12. We are therefore amending Rule 16a-2, which identifies persons and transactions subject to Section 16, to exclude 10 percent holders of FPIs' equity securities from the requirements of Section 16(a) and related rules.

• We are amending Section 16 reports to reflect the changes made by the HFIA Act. We are amending General Instructions 1.(a)(i), (ii), and (iv) to Form 3 to include directors and officers of FPIs and exclude 10 percent holders of FPIs from the requirement to file the form.

• We are making technical amendments to each of the Section 16 reports to include an optional field for a foreign trading symbol, 18 a postal code, and a country code as part of the address of the reporting person. 19 Although Forms 3, 4, and 5 are already filed by certain individuals with foreign addresses who provide country codes in the “State” field, we believe that the increased number of filings by foreign individuals that will result from the enactment of the HFIA Act warrants a clearer designation of the reporting person's country. 20

If any of the provisions of these rules, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or application of such provisions to other persons or circumstances that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.

The Office of Management Budget has determined that this action is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as amended, and therefore it was not subject to Executive Order 12866 review. Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 21 the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has designated these amendments as not a “major rule,” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

The Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) generally requires an agency to publish notice of a proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register and provide an opportunity for public comment. 22 This requirement does not apply, however, if the agency “for good cause finds . . . that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”  23 As discussed in Section I above, the HFIA Act amended the Exchange Act to extend Section 16(a) reporting requirements to directors and officers of FPIs and mandated that the Commission issue final regulations (or amend or rescind, in whole or in part, existing regulations) to carry out the amendments made by the HFIA Act no later than 90 days after the date of enactment of the Act. Because the amendments described in Section II above simply conform the Commission's rules and forms to the requirements of the HFIA Act and involve limited exercise of agency discretion, we find that notice and public comment are unnecessary. 24

The APA also generally requires that an agency publish an adopted rule in the Federal Register 30 days before it becomes effective. 25 This requirement, however, does not apply if the agency finds good cause for making the rule effective sooner. 26 For the same reasons as we are forgoing notice and comment, we find good cause to make the rules effective on March 18, 2026.

We are mindful of the costs imposed by, and the benefits obtained from, our rules. Under Section 3(f) of the Exchange Act, 27 whenever the Commission is engaged in rulemaking and required to consider or determine whether an action is necessary or appropriate in (or, with respect to the Investment Company Act, consistent with) the public interest, it shall also consider, in addition to the protection of investors, whether the action will promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation. In addition, Section 23(a)(2) of the Exchange Act requires the Commission to consider the impact on competition of any rules the Commission adopts under the Exchange Act and prohibits the Commission from adopting any rule that would impose a burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. 28

We have considered the economic effects of the final amendments, including their effects on competition, efficiency, and capital formation. As discussed in Section II above, the final amendments conform the Commission's rules and forms to the requirements of the HFIA Act. Accordingly, when we discuss the economic effects of the final amendments, we are discussing costs and benefits that stem directly from the changes made by the HFIA Act. 29

Many of the effects discussed below cannot be quantified. For example, the magnitude of indirect costs incurred by directors and officers is difficult to quantify because the indirect costs are complex and difficult to observe. Relatedly, while we cite evidence, where available, of the potential information benefits from trade disclosures, it is difficult to predict whether their magnitude would be similar to the benefits realized today in the case of issuers other than FPIs, or for the subset of FPI directors and officers whose trade disclosures are available today. 30 Consequently, while we have, wherever possible, attempted to quantify the economic effects expected from the final amendments, much of the discussion remains qualitative in nature. Where we are unable to quantify the economic effects of the final amendments, we provide a qualitative assessment of the potential benefits, costs, and impacts of the amendments on efficiency, competition, and capital formation.

The final amendments are expected to provide greater transparency to investors in FPIs with a class of equity securities registered under Section 12. Specifically, the amendments are expected to decrease information asymmetries between Section 16 reporting persons and investors about director and officer trading, as well as directors' and officers' beneficial ownership positions, enabling potentially more informed investment and voting decisions.

Through increased transparency due to directors and officers of FPIs being subject to Section 16(a) reporting and the ensuing potential for market and regulatory scrutiny of their trades and other transactions in the issuer's securities, 31 the final amendments also may deter trading based on material nonpublic information (“MNPI”) by such directors and officers, resulting in potential benefits to investors and improvement in incentives of the FPI directors and officers. 32 Due to their access to MNPI, FPI directors and officers can obtain illegitimate profits through the strategic timing of trades in the issuer's securities. In addition, such trading can: distort the incentives of FPI directors and officers, resulting in a loss of shareholder value and erosion of investor confidence in the markets; lead to reputational costs for issuers; and negatively affect the willingness of investors to trade the issuer's shares, the liquidity of the issuer's shares, and market efficiency, as well as capital formation and the ability to fund investments. 33

Under the current reporting framework, the information currently available to investors and other market participants regarding the trading and beneficial ownership positions of FPI directors and officers is limited. As a result, investors cannot currently use such information when valuing an FPI's shares. The disclosure required by the final amendments will provide greater transparency to investors and decrease information asymmetries between FPI directors and officers and outside investors about the directors' and officers' trading and beneficial ownership positions, enabling more informed decisions about whether to invest in the FPI's shares and at what valuation. 34 This added transparency may result in more efficient capital allocation and more informationally efficient pricing. The additional disclosure requirements may also indirectly yield potential capital formation benefits if they increase investor confidence in the alignment of the incentives of the FPI directors and officers with shareholder interests.

All the effects described above will be smaller to the extent that some information already is available regarding trading and beneficial ownership positions of FPI directors and officers today. It is important to note that the economic effects of the final amendments, including both the incremental benefits and the costs, will be lower in cases of FPIs whose directors and officers are already subject to similar reporting requirements in their home country jurisdictions. 35 As a further consideration, the informational effects of the amendments will be smaller to the extent that some information is already disclosed in Form 144 filings (required to be filed by directors and officers of FPIs with respect to proposed sales of restricted and/or control securities under that Securities Act safe harbor). 36 Nevertheless, Section 16 requirements are expected to provide more comprehensive disclosure with respect to the trading and beneficial ownership positions of FPI directors and officers because they also cover dispositions other than Rule 144 resales and acquisitions, as well as the initial reporting of beneficial ownership positions, which is not currently required. 37 As a further general consideration, the effect on share prices of the information contained in Section 16 reports may vary depending on the types of transactions reported by directors and officers. 38

As a caveat, the trading research cited above generally focuses on non-FPIs, characterized by dispersed ownership structure and more homogeneity in corporate governance standards, as well as certain additional requirements. For example, directors and officers of non-FPIs are subject to Section 16(b) and 16(c), which provide additional deterrents against directors and officers from engaging in activities that Section 16 is intended to address. Non-FPIs also have to disclose information about any noncompliance with Section 16(a) filing requirements by directors and officers in their annual Form 10-K filings, proxy statements and information statements. The HFIA Act extends only Section 16(a) reporting to FPI directors and officers, without subjecting the directors and officers to the short-swing profit disgorgement provision of Section 16(b) or the short sale prohibition provision of Section 16(c). Neither the HFIA Act nor the Commission rules include a requirement for FPIs to disclose non-compliance with Section 16(a) filing requirements by directors and officers. In addition, some FPIs may have different attributes, such as concentrated ownership ( e.g., due to a large management, or non-management, block holder)  39 and weaker or more varied governance standards, 40 although there is some evidence from comparative research indicating that trading by insiders has information content in those scenarios as well. 41

On a general level, some information about the likelihood of FPI directors and officers trading today based on MNPI may also be gleaned from: (1) the existing disclosure of an FPI's insider trading policies and procedures required by Item 16J of Form 20-F and/or (2) the existing disclosure of an FPI's code of ethics. 42 This may reduce the effects of the amendments. Nevertheless, the final amendments will provide more detailed information about ownership and trading by FPI directors and officers, including timely reporting on completed acquisitions and dispositions, by directors and officers of FPIs, which is not available today (other than some information that may be included in home country filings and voluntary Section 16 reports filed by directors and officers of FPIs).

The baseline against which the benefits, costs, and the effects on efficiency, competition, and capital formation of the final amendments are measured consists of the pre-HFIA Act regulatory framework with respect to disclosure by FPIs and disclosures related to trading by Section 16 reporting persons and the scope of those parties who will be affected by the final amendments, specifically, FPIs, their directors and officers, and their investors. 43

The regulatory baseline includes Section 16 reporting requirements in effect prior to the enactment of the HFIA Act. Before the HFIA Act was enacted, officers, directors, and 10 percent holders of non-FPI issuers with a class of equity securities registered under Section 12 were subject to beneficial ownership reporting requirements in Section 16(a) and Commission regulations adopted thereunder, which required them to file Forms 3, 4, and 5 to report their holdings and transactions. 44 In 2003, the Commission adopted rules requiring the forms to be filed electronically on the Commission's Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval system (“EDGAR”) in XML format, rather than on paper. 45 Form 3, the initial statement of beneficial ownership of equity securities, is required to be filed within 10 days of the filer becoming a reporting person ( e.g., assuming an officer or director role), or in the case of an issuer that is registering a class of equity securities (other than certain exempted securities) for the first time under Section 12, no later than the effective date of the registration statement. 46 Form 4, a statement of changes in beneficial ownership, must be filed within two business days of the transaction resulting in the change, to ensure timely availability of information about those transactions. 47 Form 5, an annual report of any transactions that were not otherwise reported on Form 3 or Form 4, must be filed within 45 days after the issuer's fiscal year-end. 48

Persons who are affiliates of either FPI or non-FPI issuers and intend to sell restricted and/or control securities under Rule 144 must file a notice of proposed sale of securities on Form 144 under certain circumstances. 49 As of April 2023, Form 144 must also be filed electronically in XML format. 50

Within the framework of Commission rules, FPIs are afforded various exemptions and disclosure accommodations. 51 Nevertheless, in the context of insider trading, Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, and the general anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws, apply. FPIs also are subject to the requirement to disclose their insider trading policies and procedures (required by Item 16J of Form 20-F  52 ) and codes of ethics. 53 Exchange-listed FPIs with a class of securities registered under Section 12(b) are subject to certain governance requirements of national securities exchanges, scaled for FPI issuers. 54

In addition, FPIs and their Section 16 reporting persons also are subject to the securities and other laws and regulations in their respective home country jurisdictions. These jurisdictions may require disclosure of certain types of insider transactions. 55

The HFIA Act and the final amendments will affect directors and officers of FPIs that will be newly subject to Section 16(a) reporting, as well as investors in such issuers, and the issuers themselves.

Based on staff review of filings and amendments to them during calendar year 2024, we estimate that there are approximately 1,112 FPIs filing on Forms 20-F and 40-F  56 that have a class of equity securities registered under Section 12, 57 and thus whose directors and officers will be newly subject to Section 16(a) reporting requirements.

Limited disclosure about trading and other changes in the holdings of FPI directors and officers (as well as the unstructured and heterogeneous nature of disclosure about the list of FPI directors and officers) make it difficult to precisely estimate the number of directors and officers that will make multiple filings under the amendments. We estimate the number of affected filers in several different ways that reflect persons who would have to file Forms 3, 4, and 5 under Section 16. 58 As a caveat, in a few instances, directors and officers of FPIs voluntarily file Section 16 reports today. 59

First, we calculate the average number of persons filing Section 16 reports per issuer, based on recent data on filings for non-FPI issuers, whose directors and officers are subject to Section 16(a) today, which is 10.5. 60 We multiply this average by the number of FPIs (1,112), which yields an estimate of approximately 11,676 new filers that could be expected to file Section 16 reports during a typical calendar year under the HFIA Act. As a caveat, this estimate does not account for potential differences between FPIs and non-FPIs with respect to the number of directors and officers per issuer or the degree of directors' and officers' trading ( e.g., due to potential differences in stock-based compensation or propensity to own or trade shares in their company). Considering the count of unique directors and officers ( i.e., suppressing cases of multiple issuers associated with a given officer or director that may have multiple board appointments at, and report holdings and trades for, multiple issuers) yields an estimate of approximately 9,786 new filers. 61

Second, to partly account for potential differences between FPI and non-FPI issuers, we adjust the estimate above by the relative propensity of FPI and non-FPI directors and officers to make Form 144 filings, as one proxy for the differences between FPI and non-FPI directors and officers. 62 Adjusting the above estimate, 11,676, by the ratio of the average number of directors and officers who file Form 144 per FPI (0.8)  63 to the average number of directors and officers who file Form 144 per non-FPI (2.1), 64 yields an estimate of 4,448  65 FPI directors and officers that could be expected to file Section 16 reports during a typical calendar year under the HFIA Act. If we instead take the above estimate of unique directors and officers ( i.e., approximately 9,786) and adjust it by the relative propensity of FPI and non-FPI directors and officers to make Form 144 filings, the estimate would be approximately 3,728 FPI directors and officers that would be expected to file Section 16 reports in a typical year of compliance. 66 It is difficult to determine this number with precision because Form 144 is only used for proposed resales of restricted and/or control securities above a certain threshold under the Rule 144 safe harbor, and there may be other systematic differences in transactions by directors and officers not reported on Form 144; however, this adjustment may help account for some of the differences between directors and officers of FPI and non-FPI issuers.

As a final approach, we estimate the average number of all directors and officers per FPI based on information in S&P Capital IQ, which is 18.9, 67 and multiply it by the number of FPIs (1,112), yielding an estimate of 21,017  68 FPI director and officer filers that would become subject to Section 16(a) under the HFIA Act. While this definition may be more inclusive of all FPI directors and officers that would be subject to Section 16(a), compared to the prior two approaches, it is likely to be overinclusive of the number of directors and officers that would be expected to file one or more Section 16 reports during a typical year of compliance (since not all directors and officers may have reportable transactions (for purposes of Forms 4 and 5) during a given calendar year). Considering the count of unique directors and officers ( i.e., suppressing cases of multiple issuers associated with a given officer or director) yields an estimate of approximately 19,682 filers. 69

The results of the three approaches are summarized in Table 1 below, yielding a range of approximately 3,728-21,017 potentially affected FPI directors and officers who could be Section 16 reporting persons.

While the amendments will also affect current and prospective FPI investors, as discussed in detail in Section IV.A above and Section IV.C below, we lack the data to estimate the number of affected investors.

Section IV.A above addressed broad economic considerations related to the impact of disclosure of trading and beneficial ownership positions of FPI directors and officers, and the potential factors that may affect the magnitude of the economic effects of the final amendments. Below we provide a more detailed discussion of the anticipated benefits and costs of the HFIA Act and the final amendments relative to the baseline, as well as the anticipated effects of the HFIA Act and the final amendments on efficiency, competition, and capital formation.

Extending Section 16(a) reporting requirements to directors and officers of FPIs will benefit investors by providing greater transparency about the trading and beneficial ownership positions of FPI directors and officers. 71 This enhanced transparency can aid investors in obtaining a more accurate picture of incentives of directors and officers of FPIs and a potentially more accurate valuation of the issuer's shares, enabling better informed investment decisions and contributing to more efficient allocation of investor capital.

We expect these benefits to result from the disclosure of acquisition and disposition transactions as well as ownership positions under Section 16(a) and the Commission's rules thereunder. While a purchase or sale transaction may be motivated by liquidity needs, rebalancing, or other routine considerations, prior studies show that purchases and/or sales reported under Section 16 may be relevant to investors. 72 Disclosure about ownership positions, as well as partial information about equity compensation awards that are reported among other transactions on Form 4, can provide new information to investors about the equity incentives of FPI directors and officers and the extent of alignment of directors' and officers' interests with those of shareholders that is not available in other FPI disclosures. Such granular, officer/director-level information will provide investors with context for supplementing and understanding other corporate disclosures that are used to value the companies' shares and make informed investment decisions (especially to the extent that FPIs provide disclosures that are different from U.S. domestic issuers due to certain FPI accommodations). 73

Further, the timing of the trades, relative to the issuance of other corporate disclosures, may provide investors with insight into potential actions by FPI directors and officers that may affect firm value. Moreover, by drawing market scrutiny to trades by FPI directors and officers, additional disclosure may deter trading based on MNPI, benefiting investors and decreasing the economic costs and inefficiencies associated with such trading, as discussed in Section IV.A above.

These informational benefits should be considered in the context of the existing baseline, which includes partial disclosure of information about trades by directors and officers of certain FPIs through home country reporting and Form 144 filings. 74 Further, informational benefits of the new disclosure may be lower to the extent that directors and officers of FPIs do not undertake trades in, or hold, shares of the FPI, or to the extent that their reportable trades are routine, for instance, motivated by liquidity needs and similar considerations unrelated to MNPI. 75

The new mandatory Section 16(a) disclosures will significantly increase the transparency regarding the trading and beneficial ownership of an FPI's equity securities by its directors and officers (in the case of FPIs from home country jurisdictions without a similar reporting requirement), which may not be attained under a voluntary regime. Although such reporting may reveal additional information to investors, enabling better informed investment decisions and more efficient allocation of capital as well as more orderly and efficient markets, FPI directors and officers may have a conflict of interest due to the private cost of disclosure that disincentivizes voluntary disclosure of trading and ownership information. For instance, the disclosure may impact share prices, affecting the prices at which the FPI officer's or director's subsequent trades are executed, or invite additional market scrutiny of directors' and officers' trades. Thus, a voluntary disclosure regime is likely to result in an inefficiently low level of disclosure about transactions by the FPI directors and officers.

Amending Forms 3, 4, and 5 to accommodate FPI director and officer reporting newly required under Section 16(a) is expected to make it easier for investors and other market participants to obtain and use this information due to the extensive market experience with electronic filings on these forms required for insiders of non-FPI issuers. 76 The structured data requirements of Forms 3, 4, and 5 are expected to facilitate access to, and analysis of, the disclosures by investors, potentially leading to more useful and timely insights. In particular, structured data on holdings of FPI directors and officers, as well as transaction disclosures, will enable automated extraction of detailed data on such holdings and trading, allowing investors to efficiently perform large-scale analyses and comparisons of holdings and trades across FPI directors and officers, issuers, and time periods. Structured data on holdings and trades of FPI directors and officers may also be efficiently combined with other information that is available in a structured data language in corporate filings and with market data contained in external machine-readable databases. Reporting this information in a structured data language is also expected to enable faster and more accurate analysis of the disclosed data by investors, including by facilitating investor analyses using machine learning tools.

The Section 16 reports required by the HFIA Act and the final amendments will impose direct (legal and compliance-related) costs on directors and officers of FPIs. Such costs include preparing the disclosure and gathering and verifying the information required to comply with the new disclosure requirements. Such legal and compliance costs are expected to be somewhat lower for directors and officers that already report trades to comply with the requirements of the FPI's home country jurisdiction, 77 or the very small number of directors and officers of FPIs that voluntarily report under Section 16(a) today. 78 Directors and officers are likely to have information about their acquisition and disposition of securities readily available and/or accessible from their brokers or issuers. Directors and officers also may have this information for purposes of internal compliance with an issuer's insider trading policies and programs (which issuers may implement for various reasons, including, but not limited to, the application of Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 to directors and officers of FPIs). Nevertheless, some directors and officers may not be systematically collecting such information or organizing it in the format required by Forms 3, 4, and 5 today. In such cases, directors and officers are likely to incur additional costs to compile information about their acquisitions and dispositions of securities and report it pursuant to the timing requirements, specifically, in the case of Form 4. The requirement to prepare the Section 16 disclosures in the XML format required for Forms 3, 4, and 5 should not impose incremental compliance costs on the affected directors and officers, because affected directors and officers would be able to complete a fillable web form on EDGAR that automatically converts the inputted disclosures to XML. 79 Any affected directors and officers that wish to submit an XML-tagged Form 3, 4, or 5 rather than use the fillable form would be able to do so. 80

Overall, we estimate that complying with the new Section 16(a) disclosure requirements will require in the aggregate 20,510 additional burden hours per year, 81 which is equivalent to approximately $9.5 million per year in dollar terms (at a rate of $463 per hour). 82 The requirement to file the Section 16 disclosures electronically on EDGAR, which currently applies to Forms 3, 4, and 5, is expected to impose a small additional cost, mainly during the first year of compliance to establish EDGAR access and obtain filings codes. Directors and officers that have not previously used EDGAR for filing are expected to expend an aggregate 5,330 hours to submit Form ID, 83 which is equivalent to a one-time aggregate compliance cost of approximately $2.5 million (at a rate of $463 per hour). 84

While these are aggregate average estimates, it is possible that there will be some variation in compliance costs. Initial costs of Section 16(a) reporting may be somewhat larger than ongoing compliance costs because all directors and officers of FPIs will have to file an initial Form 3, even if they do not have any holdings in the FPI's securities or make subsequent transaction disclosures on Forms 4 and 5. Initial compliance costs also may vary based on directors' and officers' existing recordkeeping processes. Somewhat higher compliance costs are expected to be incurred, especially initially, by FPI directors and officers that do not report their trades in the FPI's home country jurisdiction; FPI directors and officers that have no prior individual experience with filing on EDGAR; FPI directors and officers with more shareholdings and trades; FPI directors and officers whose broker does not provide electronic or otherwise readily accessible trade confirmations; and FPI directors and officers who must undertake the incremental effort to translate and compile trade records for Section 16 reporting in English. While there may be variation in compliance costs across filers, the average compliance cost per filer is expected to be modest. 85 In addition, FPIs may assist directors and officers with retaining a preparer or leveraging the expertise of the issuer's personnel to help directors and officers comply with their filing obligations, which may make compliance less costly and more efficient for individual filers.

Next, we discuss the indirect costs of the new Section 16(a) disclosure requirements. One potential indirect cost to affected FPI directors and officers, and potentially issuers themselves, is the potential share price movement that may make directors' and officers', and potentially issuers', subsequent trades costlier. For example, if the market price rises (or falls) following the Section 16(a) disclosure, irrespective of the reason for the trade reported under Section 16(a), and the officer or director, or the issuer, plans to undertake future share purchases (or sales), such future transactions may be executed at a less favorable price. Affected directors and officers may be able to structure multiple trades into a shorter time period in anticipation of the timing of the Form 4 disclosure, although placing a single larger trade may also result in price impact. Issuers also may implement policies regarding director and officer trading around the timing of issuer trades, to mitigate potential spillovers.

Another potential indirect cost of the new Section 16(a) disclosure requirements is that they may reveal details about directors' and officers' incentives and compensation structures that are not otherwise required to be disclosed under existing regulations, which could potentially reveal sensitive proprietary information about individual directors' and directors' compensation structures and executive talent retention strategy to competitors. For example, compensation disclosures for FPI directors and officers required by Form 20-F and Form 40-F can be provided on an aggregated basis if home country laws do not require disclosure of compensation on an individual basis (and such individualized compensation disclosure is not otherwise publicly provided). 86 It also may invite market scrutiny to FPI director and officer compensation arrangements and equity incentives, potentially prompting issuers to make changes to such arrangements. In anticipation of the costs of compliance and market scrutiny of Section 16 reports, some directors and officers of FPIs may seek to restructure their securities holdings. In some other instances, directors and officers may negotiate changes to compensation when facing additional compliance requirements. 87 If the existing ownership and compensation incentives already were optimal, such changes may be inefficient. As a general consideration, costs incurred by issuers would be borne by their existing shareholders.

FPI directors and officers, and the issuers themselves, may incur other indirect costs as the result of additional market scrutiny of directors' and officers' trades by investors and other market participants in response to the Section 16 disclosures, including additional expenditures on investor relations and even potential reputational concerns, without regard to the reasons for the trades, including liquidity considerations. Some FPI directors and officers might hesitate to trade, even when confronted with liquidity needs, to avoid drawing heightened investor scrutiny. Such costs are expected to be higher in cases of directors and officers that do not already report their trades of the FPI's equity securities (whether in the FPI's home country jurisdiction or, in the case of sales, on Form 144), as well as directors and officers that engage in more trades.

In this section, we report the total monetized benefits and costs of the new Section 16(a) disclosure requirements in two alternative ways. These presentations are intended to address the fact that the various benefits and costs of the amendments will not accrue at the same point in time; rather, benefits and costs that accrue sooner are generally more valuable than those that occur later in time. Specifically, we report below (1) the present values of expected benefits and costs that are monetized in our economic analysis over a 10-year time horizon, starting in 2026, as well as (2) the annualized values over the same time horizon that are derived from the present values. This 10-year time horizon represents the period over which the principal benefits and costs that are monetized in the economic analysis are expected to accrue. 88 The present values and annualized values account for the timing of benefits and costs through discounting, which is a procedure that accounts for the time value of money. 89 The present values and annualized values are computed for total monetized benefits and costs, combining one-time and recurring monetized benefits and costs, across all affected persons over the time horizon.

Table 2 reports the present values of monetized benefits and costs using annual real discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent over a 10-year time horizon, starting in 2026. 90

Table 3 reports annualized monetized benefits and costs using real discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent over a 10-year horizon. 91 The lump sum present values of monetized benefits and costs reported in Table 2 are converted in Table 3 into a constant stream of annualized benefits and costs over a 10-year time horizon, starting in 2026. 92 Annualized benefits and costs may differ from the recurring monetized annual benefits and costs discussed earlier in this economic analysis because they incorporate the timing of benefits and costs, through discounting, and combine one-time and recurring benefits and costs. 93

In sum, Tables 2 and 3 report in two alternative ways expected total benefits and costs, across all affected persons, which are monetized in our economic analysis, using real discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent over a 10-year time horizon.

We expect the HFIA Act and the final amendments to reduce the information asymmetry between directors and officers of FPIs and outside investors by providing additional details about the trading and beneficial ownership positions of FPI directors and officers. The reduction in information asymmetry as a result of the new Section 16(a) disclosure requirements should result in more informationally efficient stock prices. 94 Because disclosure of trading and beneficial ownership positions of FPI directors and officers can reveal directors' and officers' incentives, which may affect shareholder value as discussed in Section IV.A above, the additional disclosure may also better inform investment decisions (enabling more efficient allocation of capital in investor portfolios) and voting decisions.

Importantly, the new Section 16(a) disclosure requirements may draw additional market scrutiny to the trading of directors and officers of FPIs and thus may serve to deter trading by FPI directors and officers on the basis of MNPI. As discussed in Section IV.A. above, this potential scrutiny could strengthen the alignment of directors' and officers' objectives with those of shareholders.

A lower risk of trading against an informed director or officer of an FPI may increase investor confidence and the willingness of market participants to buy and trade in the issuer's shares. These effects should indirectly make it easier for the issuer to gain greater investor confidence and raise capital from investors, resulting in capital formation benefits for such issuers. 95

Finally, in line with the discussion in Section IV.A. above, the new Section 16(a) disclosure requirements may affect competition. Decreasing the ability of directors and officers of FPIs to trade on MNPI will weaken their competitive edge in trading, promoting competition among other investors in the market for the FPI's shares. A lower risk of an officer or director with a significant private information advantage trading the FPI's shares should strengthen the incentive of other market participants to trade those shares and compete in gathering and processing information about the issuer. Disclosure of transactions of an FPI's equity securities by its directors and officers will also enable investors to access and compare such information across all issuers, including other FPIs and non-FPI issuers, potentially enhancing issuers' incentives to compete in, and establish a reputation for, having robust practices in the area of director and officer trading.

The new Section 16(a) disclosure requirements may reduce trading by FPI directors and officers on the basis of MNPI. Decrease in such trading should also limit such persons' incentives to engage in inefficient corporate decisions associated with such trading. 96 The effects of the new disclosure requirements on the efficiency of corporate investment and other decisions are not fully certain because the amendments may induce FPI directors and officers to adjust their holdings in response to the reduced liquidity and potentially lead companies to adjust incentive and compensation structure or other policies and practices in response to the amendments.

Further, limiting the ability of FPI directors and officers to trade on MNPI may decrease the incentives of affected directors and officers to influence the timing and content of corporate disclosures. More timely and higher-quality corporate disclosures will provide more information to investors, which should result in more informationally efficient share prices in the secondary market and more efficient allocation of investor capital across investment opportunities in their portfolio. A reduction in trading on the basis of MNPI by FPI directors and officers may also benefit market efficiency. 97

All effects described above will be weaker to the extent that some information about the trading of directors and officers of FPIs may already be available today, as discussed in greater detail in Section IV.A. above.

It is possible that for some companies and directors and officers, the direct and indirect costs of complying with the new Section 16(a) requirements detailed in Section IV.C above may be so significant as to affect, on the margin, the decision to remain registered under Section 12, or to pursue a new registration under Section 12. If that were to occur, it would reduce the number of FPIs with a class of securities registered under Section 12 in the U.S. market, potentially impacting access to capital and U.S. investors' ability to diversify their portfolios within the U.S. securities market. However, given that there are likely other, more substantial regulatory costs and economic cost-and-benefit considerations of having a class of shares registered under Section 12, we believe that the new Section 16(a) disclosure requirements are unlikely to have a significant effect on this decision.

Certain provisions of Form 3, Form 4, and Form 5 that will be affected by the final amendments contain “collection of information” requirements within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”). 98 The final amendments will also necessitate an increase in respondents to Form ID required for filings on EDGAR by FPI directors and officers to comply with Section 16(a), but will not change the form itself. The Commission is submitting the final amendments to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for review in accordance with the PRA. 99 We are seeking emergency approval from OMB for the revised burden estimates associated with the HFIA Act requirements and the related final amendments to Form 3, Form 4, and Form 5 and the revised burden estimates for Form ID in accordance with the procedures of the PRA. In a separate notice, we will seek public comment on the revised burden estimates.

The titles for the collections of information are:

(1) “Form 3—Initial Statement of Beneficial Ownership of Securities” (OMB Control No. 3235-0104);

(2) “Form 4—Statement of Changes in Beneficial Ownership of Securities” (OMB Control No. 3235-0287);

(3) “Form 5—Annual Statement of Beneficial Ownership” (OMB Control No. 3235-0362); and

(4) “Form ID—Application for EDGAR Access” (OMB Control No. 3235-0328).

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information requirement unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Compliance with the information collections is mandatory. Responses to the information collections are not kept confidential and there is no mandatory retention period for the information disclosed. The affected Forms 3, 4, and 5 were adopted under the Exchange Act and are used by Section 16 reporting persons to disclose securities ownership information and securities transaction information under Exchange Act Section 16(a). Form ID is the application for EDGAR access, which is necessary to file required reports on EDGAR, including those on Form 3, 4, and 5. The hours and costs associated with preparing and filing the forms constitute reporting and cost burdens imposed by each collection of information.

As described in more detail in Section II above, we are adopting final amendments to reflect the requirements of the HFIA Act. The HFIA Act amended Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act to require directors and officers of FPIs with a class of equity securities registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act to provide disclosure as to their beneficial ownership and transactions involving the company's equity securities. The final amendments revise the Commission's rules and forms to reflect these statutory requirements.

We anticipate that the HFIA Act requirements and the related final amendments will increase the number of respondents on Forms 3, 4, and 5, and thus the total annual burden hours for those forms. Given that directors and officers of FPIs were not previously subject to Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act, and the limited information on variables that are highly specific to the unique circumstances of each type of person affected by the final amendments, our ability to predict the magnitude of corresponding burdens with any precision is constrained.

In deriving our estimates, we make certain assumptions. For example, we assume that FPIs' governing structures, and, therefore, number of directors and officers, are, on average, similar or proportionate to those of non-FPIs. We further assume that FPI directors and officers have similar trading habits to non-FPI directors and officers, for whom we have reporting data. We estimate the number of affected respondents to be 9,786 by determining the number of FPIs filing on Forms 20-F and 40-F  100 that have a class of equity securities registered under Section 12 (1,112 FPIs) and multiplying it by the average number of unique directors and officers filing Section 16 reports per non-FPI issuer (8.8 persons). 101

As a result of the HFIA Act requirements and the related final amendments, we estimate that, on an annual basis, there will be an additional 2,967 Forms 3 filed, an additional 35,703 Forms 4 filed, and an additional 1,174 Forms 5 filed. 102 In addition, the increase in the annual paperwork burden for Forms 3, 4, and 5 will be 1,484 hours, 17,852 hours, and 1,174 hours, respectively, and zero dollars of cost burden for each Form. 103

These estimates represent the average burdens for all affected respondents, regardless of their individual characteristics. In deriving our estimates, we recognize that the burdens will likely vary among individual respondents based on a number of factors. We believe that some respondents will experience burdens in excess of this average and some respondents may experience less than the average burden.

The table below shows the total annual compliance burden, in hours and in costs, of the collection of information resulting from the HFIA Act requirements and the related final amendments. The burden estimates were calculated by multiplying the estimated increase in the number of responses by the estimated average amount of time it would take a respondent to prepare and review the required information. The burden carried by the respondent internally is reflected in hours. For purposes of the PRA, we estimate that 100 percent of the burden of preparing Forms 3, 4, and 5 is carried by the respondent internally.

As a result of the HFIA Act requirements and the related final amendments, FPI directors and officers will be required to file specified disclosures on EDGAR. The final amendments will not change Form ID itself, but we anticipate that the number of Form ID filings will increase due to new respondents being required to comply with Section 16(a).

For purposes of this PRA analysis, we assume that most FPI directors and officers becoming subject to Section 16(a) reporting will not have filed an electronic submission with us previously and, therefore, will be required to file a Form ID. We further assume that each director and officer filing a Form ID will incur 0.6 total burden hours, with 100 percent of those hours being handled internally by the respondent. In total, this will correspond to approximately 8,883  104 additional Form ID filings and a total annual burden of 5,330 hours for the “Form ID” information collection (8,883 filings × 0.6 hours/filing).

The below table summarizes the estimated incremental paperwork burdens associated with Form ID.

The table below illustrates the estimated annual compliance burden of new information collections as a result of the HFIA Act requirements' and the related final amendments' estimated effect on the paperwork burden per response.

In 1965, Congress established the Assateague Island National Seashore (Seashore) to protect and develop Assateague Island and certain adjacent waters and small marsh islands for public outdoor recreation use and enjoyment. 16 U.S.C 459f. Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the NPS, to administer the Seashore for general purposes of public outdoor recreation, including conservation of natural features contributing to public enjoyment. 16 U.S.C. 459f-5. The NPS manages the Seashore as a unit of the National Park System. In addition to the Seashore that is managed by the NPS, other public lands on the island are managed by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (Assateague State Park) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge).

The dominant feature of the Seashore is Assateague Island, a barrier island that stretches 37 miles along the Atlantic Coast of Maryland and Virginia. The island is a dynamic place, altered daily by powerful wind and waves. It is the largest natural barrier island ecosystem in the mid-Atlantic region that remains predominantly unaffected by human development. Only a couple of miles wide at its broadest point, the island's terrain offers shelter to famed wild horses as well as sika deer, ghost crabs, and migratory birds such as the great blue heron and snowy egret. The Seashore is a three-hour drive from Washington, Baltimore, and Philadelphia. Visitors to the Seashore can explore sandy beaches, salt marshes, maritime forests, and coastal bays. Popular recreational activities include swimming in the ocean, paddling in coastal bays, fishing, hunting, stargazing, and photography.

The NPS Organic Act (54 U.S.C. 100101 et seq. ) gives the NPS broad authority to regulate the use of lands and waters under its jurisdiction, including a specific authority to promulgate regulations it considers necessary or proper for the use and management of National Park System units. 54 U.S.C. 100751(a). The enabling act for the Seashore confirms that NPS may use applicable legal authorities, including those provided by the Organic Act, for the conservation and management of natural resources. 16 U.S.C. 459f-5.

Executive Order (E.O.) 11644, “Use of Off-Road Vehicles on the Public Lands,” was issued in 1972 and amended by E.O. 11989 in 1977. E.O. 11644 required Federal agencies to issue regulations designating specific areas and routes on public lands where the use of off-road vehicles may be allowed. The NPS implemented these E.O.s, in part, by promulgating regulations at 36 CFR 4.10 (“Travel on park roads and designated routes”).

Under 36 CFR 4.10, the use of motor vehicles off park roads and parking areas is not permitted unless routes and areas are designated for off-road motor vehicle use by special regulation. Such routes and areas may be designated only in national recreation areas, national seashores, national lakeshores, and national preserves. The existing special regulations for the Seashore in 36 CFR 7.65(b) designate beaches and oversand routes for the use of oversand vehicles (OSVs) in compliance with 36 CFR 4.10 and E.O.s 11644 and 11989.

The use of OSVs for access and recreation is a traditional activity that occurred on Assateague Island prior to the establishment of the Seashore. Oversand driving continues to this day and allows visitors to access locations within the Seashore, including remote areas, for recreational activities such as fishing, crabbing, viewing wildlife, and enjoying coastal scenery.

The NPS formalized management of OSV use with the promulgation of special regulations in 1974 (39 FR 31633). These regulations established a system of oversand permits to manage the use of OSVs. These regulations designated areas for OSV use, established rules of travel, and authorized the suspension or revocation of a permit for violating the regulations. In 1976 the NPS amended the special regulations (41 FR 15008) to allow the superintendent to establish a system of special recreation permits and fees for OSVs. The revised regulations also authorized OSV use in designated areas; established quantified standards to determine whether an OSV qualifies for a permit; and restricted the use of towed travel trailers. The OSV regulations for the Seashore have not changed since 1976.

Using the superintendent's authority to establish a permit system, the superintendent has established additional management prescriptions for OSVs in the superintendent's compendium (or written compilation) of discretionary actions taken by the superintendent that is required to be made available to the public under 36 CFR 1.7(b). Among other actions, the compendium requires OSVs to have four-wheel or all-wheel drive and limits the number of OSVs that may be used in the Seashore. No more than 145 OSVs are allowed at any one time in designated OSV areas in Maryland. The NPS manages vehicle access on a one-off, one-on basis after this limit has been reached.

In 2021 the NPS issued a record of decision (ROD) finalizing a general management plan (GMP) for the Seashore. The GMP provides a decision-making framework that ensures that management decisions effectively and efficiently carry out the NPS mission at the Seashore into the future. The ROD states that the NPS will manage OSV use for maximum flexibility to respond to changing conditions, protect sensitive resources, and minimize conflicts with other uses of the Seashore. The ROD also states that the NPS will periodically review regulations for OSV use at the Seashore and make changes if conditions render changes necessary.

This rule amends the special regulations for the Seashore at 36 CFR 7.65(b) by changing the standards used to determine if a motor vehicle qualifies for a permit that authorizes driving on designated beaches and oversand routes. The rule removes requirements that (1) the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) does not exceed 10,000 pounds; (2) the vehicle has at least 7 inches of ground clearance; and (3) the vehicle does not exceed 26 feet in length and 8 feet in width. These requirements were established in 1976 and are no longer necessary. In addition, this rule would make several technical, non-substantive changes to the regulations. All of these changes are discussed in more detail below.

Gross vehicle weight is the base curb weight of a vehicle plus actual cargo weight and passengers. Gross vehicle weight is not a limit or specification. It is an actual weight that should never exceed the GVWR for the vehicle. The GVWR is established by the manufacturer and is the total weight the vehicle can safely carry. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requires manufacturers to label the GVWR on all vehicles, which includes passenger cars, trucks, and buses. The label is typically found on the driver's side door jamb or the door itself. While a vehicle's actual weight can fluctuate based on load, the GVWR is a specific figure that does not change.

The current regulations for the Seashore require the GVWR of a vehicle to be less than or equal to 10,000 pounds in order to be eligible for an OSV driving permit. 36 CFR 7.65(b)(2)(ii)(D). The Seashore is the only National Park System unit with an OSV permit system that prescribes a vehicle weight limit. 1 Although the NPS did not explain the need for this specific requirement when it was established in 1976, it was most likely established to help ensure the safe use of two bridges that provided access to and from private land within the boundary of the Seashore. These lands have since reverted to NPS ownership. No private property interests remain within the Seashore. One of the bridges no longer exists and the other is no longer open to motor vehicles.

The NPS does not expect the removal of the GVWR requirement to result in adverse impacts to resources at the Seashore. Soil compaction and self-repair from tide cycles mitigate damage to sand on beaches used by OSVs. The NPS uses vehicles that weigh more than 10,000 pounds for administrative actions ( e.g., moving beached whales, repairing boundary fences) that do not result in damage to the sand for those reasons. There are many other requirements in the special regulations for the Seashore that mitigate impacts to natural resources from beach driving, the most important being requirements to stay on designated routes and areas that keep OSVs away from dunes and vegetation. Cutting circles and needlessly defacing the sand also is prohibited.

Several models of trucks meet or exceed the current limit of 10,000 pounds. 2 This rule makes those vehicles eligible to receive OSV driving permits. This will create more opportunities for access and recreation by increasing the pool of applicants that is eligible to receive an OSV driving permit, without any adverse impacts to resources.

Ground clearance refers to the vertical distance between a vehicle's undercarriage or underside of the chassis and the ground. The current regulations for the Seashore require a vehicle to have a minimum ground clearance of 7 inches in order to be eligible for an OSV driving permit. 36 CFR 7.65(b)(2)(ii)(D). Like the GVWR requirement, the NPS did not explain the need for this specific requirement when it was established in 1976. The NPS assumes that it was established to help prevent vehicles from getting stuck on the sand. Although ground clearance can contribute to whether a vehicle becomes stuck, a specific, minimum ground clearance requirement has disadvantages as a management approach, and ground clearance in general is not among the most important factors that cause vehicles to become stuck.

Variation in vehicle design, manufacturing, and owner modifications have made the minimum ground clearance requirement difficult to measure and challenging to enforce. Ground level clearance can vary across the same model of a vehicle due to several factors such as trim levels, suspension types, packages and options, wheel and tire sizes, load and weight, production variations, and owner modifications. Further, the NPS has no documented or observational evidence that 7 inches of ground clearance is a meaningful distance compared to other clearance levels from the ground. Many contemporary sport-utility-vehicles (SUVs) have less than 7 inches of ground clearance. 3 The NPS has no reason to believe that vehicles with less than 7 inches of ground clearance, as a category, are incapable of driving directly over sand.

In general, insufficient vehicle ground clearance rarely causes vehicles to get stuck at the Seashore if other contributing factors are not present. In most cases, vehicles become stuck because the tires have not been properly deflated, which is recommended for all vehicles. In almost all other cases, vehicles become stuck because they are driven into dunes or wet sand, or because they do not have modern vehicle technology that did not exist when the existing regulations were issued in 1976. This technology includes electronic stability control, 4 traction control systems, modern four-wheel drive (4WD), and all-wheel drive (AWD). Tire choice and condition also has a meaningful effect on vehicle traction over sand. Driver judgement, skill, and responsibility are other key factors.

The NPS offers tips on the Seashore website to help avoid vehicles getting stuck. Examples are (1) spinning a vehicle's tires makes them dig deeper into the sand thereby increasing the chance the vehicle's frame will bottom out; (2) after stopping a vehicle back up several feet before proceeding forward; (3) carry 4 boards (2″ x 6″ x 36″) for placement under each tire when stuck; (4) driving in the tracks of another vehicle is easier than driving through fresh sand; and (5) walk across soft sand first to be sure that it will hold your vehicle. Existing regulations require vehicles to carry a shovel and a tow rope or chain that can help clear vehicles off the sand when they do get stuck. 36 CFR 7.65(b)(2)(ii)(A). The factors described above demonstrate that there are many ways to avoid vehicles getting stuck in the sand that do not require a minimum ground clearance requirement, which is poorly tailored to the problem it is intended to address and difficult to administer and enforce.

The current regulations for the Seashore require a vehicle to be no longer than 26 feet and no wider than 8 feet in order to be eligible for an OSV driving permit. 36 CFR 7.65(b)(2)(ii)(D). Like the GVWR and ground clearance requirements, the NPS did not explain the need for these specific requirements when they were established in 1976. The NPS speculates that they may have been established in reference to the size of military surplus vehicles that were commonly used at the time for off-road driving. In any event, the NPS does not manage vehicle dimensions using the length and width requirements in the regulations anymore. Vehicle width is limited in practice by the size of the gate that provides OSV access to the designated beaches and oversand routes. This limiting factor, together with the requirement in the special regulations that vehicles and towed trailers have no more than 2 axles, has proven to be sufficient to keep vehicles that are too large from entering the designated OSV routes and areas.

In addition to the changes described above, this rule makes several technical, non-substantive changes to the current regulations.

In the existing table codified at 36 CFR 7.65(b)(2)(ii)(D), there is a row entitled “maximum number of wheels (per axle)” but there is no corresponding number in the right-hand column. When the regulations were published in 1976, the table showed “2” as the maximum number of wheels per axle, but then in 1999, a printing error resulted in the omission of that number from the table, where it has not appeared for 25 years. For some time, the NPS has issued permits to OSVs that have up to four wheels per axle without any observed adverse impacts to resources or visitors. In order to eliminate potential confusion about what the CFR requires compared to current management of OSVs, this rule removes the reference to “maximum number of wheels (per axle)” in the regulations.

Because the rule removes all of the quantified standards in the existing table except for the requirement that vehicles and towed trailers have no more than two axles, having a table is no longer necessary. As a result, the rule removes the table and instead locates the no-more-than-two-axle requirement in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(D), in narrative form.

Revised paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(D) omits an existing reference to four-wheel-drive vehicles that is located in an introductory clause to the table, and the first two sentences in the paragraph immediately following the table that list specific requirements for two-wheel-drive vehicles, instead clarifying that the no-more-than-two-axle requirement applies to all vehicles and to all towed trailers. The specific requirements for two-wheel-drive vehicles are no longer necessary because two-wheel-drive vehicles are no longer used as OSVs at the Seashore, as reflected by the longstanding requirement in the superintendent's compendium that all OSVs must be 4WD or AWD.

The rule removes the rest of the paragraph immediately following the table, which provides an exception to the vehicle dimension requirements that is no longer necessary because this rule removes the dimension requirements.

Finally, the rule removes the defined term “dunes crossing” in paragraph (b)(1)(iv), which is not used elsewhere in the special regulations.

The NPS published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on January 17, 2025 (90 FR 5786). The NPS accepted public comments for 60 days via the mail, hand delivery, and the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Comments were accepted through March 18, 2025. The NPS received 66 comments on the proposed rule. Most commenters supported the proposed changes, in particular the removal of the GVWR requirement. After considering public comments and after additional review, the NPS is finalizing the proposed rule without change. A summary of the pertinent issues raised in the comments and NPS responses are provided below:

1. Comment: Several commenters expressed concerns about removing the minimum ground clearance requirement. Commenters stated that low-clearance vehicles will damage the ecology of the beach and result in hazardous conditions for other drivers by creating uneven terrain and becoming stuck in soft sand or rutted areas, which will impede the safe passage of properly equipped vehicles.

NPS Response: As explained above, there many reasons why OSVs become stuck in the sand that are unrelated to ground clearance, which is a difficult standard to administer. Imposing a strict a ground clearance requirement limits opportunities for access and recreation for visitors who can navigate beach conditions safely with OSVs that do not meet the requirement. NPS staff closely monitor changing beach conditions and communicate essential information to OSV users about hazardous conditions. Designated driving areas on the beach are generally wide enough to allow drivers to navigate around obstacles, including uneven terrain and stuck vehicles, until they are remediated. Vehicles of any ground clearance are capable of rutting the sand, and needlessly defacing the sand is prohibited by existing regulations at 36 CFR 7.65(b)(4)(i). Most OSV permit holders are skilled oversand drivers with sufficient knowledge and experience to navigate sandy terrains effectively, including how to maintain traction, manage tire pressure, and maneuver around obstacles.

2. Comment: Several commenters encouraged the NPS to increase monitoring and enforcement of OSV regulations to ensure that OSVs are permitted, properly equipped, and operated in compliance with speed limits. One commenter stated the NPS should conduct inspections of the required air pressure gauges, boards, tow ropes and shovels before issuing OSV permits.

NPS Response: This rule does not change any existing requirements related to permits, equipment, or speed limits. When operators sign permit applications, they accept responsibility for knowing and adhering to all OSV regulations. Failure to comply with these regulations and the terms and conditions of a permit may result in revocation of the OSV permit and other penalties under Federal law. The regulations authorize NPS staff to inspect vehicles prior to issuing a permit for compliance with permit eligibility requirements, including the need to have a shovel, jack, tow rope or chain, board or similar support for the jack, and low-pressure tire gauge. These inspections occur at the North Beach ranger station before operators receive OSVs permits. NPS staff routinely patrol OSV driving areas to promote compliance with applicable regulations, including speed limits. The need for enforcement has declined over time with improved compliance from permit-holders.

3. Comment: One commenter expressed concern that removing the GVWR limit will increase traffic at the Seashore.

NPS Response: As explained below, although removing the GVWR limit requirement will increase the number of vehicles that are eligible to receive a permit, on most days the number of vehicles on the beaches during peak season will not increase because the designated beaches and oversand routes will be at maximum capacity early in the morning through late evening. When this occurs, the NPS manages OSV access on a one-on, one-off basis. During the summer season, there can be delays entering the Seashore by vehicle because of the need to collect entrance fees, and traffic within the Seashore is higher compared to off-season. The NPS does not expect the removal of the GVWR limit requirement to have any noticeable increase in entrance delays or the level of traffic within the Seashore. The Seashore has experienced record attendance in recent years, receiving over 2.3 million visitors in 2022. Compared to the total volume of visitation, on average the NPS issues 1,000 OSV permits per year. Even if the NPS issues more OSV permits after this rule, permit holders will still represent a small fraction of total visitation.

4. Comment: Several commenters asked the NPS to increase the GVWR limit requirement for permit eligibility. One commenter recommended that the GVWR should not exceed 16,000 pounds in order to exclude medium duty trucks that are not designed for driving on sand.

NPS Response: The NPS is not aware of any specific data or research that supports a specific GVWR limit requirement for oversand driving. The NPS routinely drives vehicles that exceed the existing 10,000-pound limit for administrative purposes, with no observed adverse effects to resources for the reasons explained above. Establishing a GVWR limit of 16,000 would allow most vehicles to qualify for an OSV permit, including SUVs, pickup trucks, full-sized vans, extended bed cargo vans, and small buses. Other vehicles would be excluded, however, most notably RVs which are used for oversand driving. 5

Establishing a specific GVWR limit might unnecessarily restrict access and recreation by operators and passengers of heavier vehicles that pose no greater risk to resources and visitors than lighter vehicles due to other factors, such as the skill and experience of the driver, on-board equipment, and tire pressure and condition. New vehicle technology that enhances oversand driving capability, regardless of a vehicle's GVWR, could render assumptions about potential impacts to resources and visitors based upon vehicle weight obsolete. Some vehicles that are extremely heavy would be excluded for other reasons such as the requirement that vehicles may not have more than two axles, or lack the ability to pass through the gate for entering designated OSV driving areas. Examples include semi-trucks or tractor-trailers that are typically used for transporting freight and can weigh up to 80,000 pounds. 6 The NPS will continue to emphasize responsible use of all permitted OSVs, including compliance with applicable regulations, in a manner that allows for access and recreation while protecting resources and the experience of other visitors.

5. Comment: One commenter stated that AWD vehicles should not be eligible for OSV permits because they lack the same capabilities as traditional 4WD vehicles, and result in vehicles on the beach that should not be there, such as sedans and SUVs.

NPS Response: Many AWD vehicles operate safely and effectively within designated OSV areas where the terrain is level in most places and does not present steep inclines or rugged obstacles that require maximum power to the front wheels. The differential in AWD vehicles allows the wheels to spin independently, which helps the vehicle maintain stability and grip on soft surfaces. As discussed above, in most cases vehicles become stuck in the stand because the tires are not deflated properly or the vehicle has travelled outside of designated areas and routes. This can occur with vehicles that have AWD or 4WD. Requiring OSVs to have 4WD would prohibit a large class of vehicles from oversand driving that have proven in many cases to be capable of such travel.

6. Comment: One commenter stated that this rule will incentivize tow trucks to enter the OSV area and wait for low-clearance vehicles to become stranded. These tow trucks would contribute to the vehicle count within the zone, limiting access and recreational by other permit holders in favor of financial gain for private companies.

NPS Response: Engaging in or soliciting any business in a National Park System unit is generally prohibited except as specifically authorized in writing or pursuant to special regulations for that System unit. See 36 CFR 5.3. Towing companies must have a commercial use authorization (CUA) in order to provide towing services within the Seashore. The terms and conditions of the CUAs establish when a towing company can enter a designated OSV area to provide towing services for stranded vehicles. Towing companies are not permitted to patrol or wait inside of designated OSV areas if they are not responding to a service call. Tow trucks do not count toward the daily OSV limit for permit holders.

7. Comment: Several commenters raised concerns about impacts to wildlife from OSV use and expressed support for protections that ensure ecosystems in the Seashore remain healthy and sustainable for future generations.

NPS Response: The NPS agrees that the Seashore contains exceptional natural resources, including wildlife and ecosystems, that must be conserved for the enjoyment of future generations. The Seashore is one of the few coastal environments in the densely populated northeast United States where visitors can experience unspoiled beaches, tranquil bays and marshlands, natural sounds, quiet, dark night skies, and solitude. The NPS will continue to monitor the health of wildlife and ecosystems within, adjacent to, and nearby designated OSV areas and implement mitigation measures, such as seasonal closures to protect transient wildlife, as appropriate.

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

This rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). No small entities would be directly regulated by this rule, which modifies vehicle requirements for visitors seeking to obtain an OSV permit for driving on designated beaches and oversand routes. OSV permits are non-transferable which means that only those persons who initially receive a permit would be affected by changes to permitting requirements. There is no limit on the number of permits that can be issued. On average, the NPS issues 1,000 OSV permits per year.

In recent years, approximately 10 percent of permit applications have been denied due to vehicles not meeting the GWVR requirement. The NPS has not denied any permit applications for failure to meet the minimum ground clearance requirement or the vehicle dimension requirements because they have not been enforced by the NPS for the reasons explained above.

As discussed above, the NPS expects that the rule will slightly increase the pool of applicants eligible to receive an OSV permit by removing the GVWR requirement. This could lead to an incremental increase of visitor activity at the Seashore. The NPS expects this effect, however, to be mitigated by the fact that on many days in peak season the designated beaches and oversand routes are at maximum capacity for OSVs early in the morning through late evening. When this occurs, although the composition of visitors recreating in the designated OSV areas may be different, the total amount of visitor activity will remain the same.

In summary, the NPS has considered whether this rule will result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The NPS certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule:

(a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

(b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.

(c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local or Tribal governments or the private sector. It addresses public use of national park lands and imposes no requirements on other agencies or governments. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) is not required.

This rule does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have takings implications under E.O. 12630. A takings implication assessment is not required.

Under the criteria in section 1 of E.O. 13132, the rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. This rule only affects use of federally administered lands and waters. It has no direct effects on other areas. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.

This rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. This rule:

(a) 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

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

The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian Tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. The NPS has evaluated this rule under the criteria in E.O. 13175 and under the Department's Tribal consultation policy and has determined that Tribal consultation is not required because the rule will have no substantial direct effect on federally recognized Indian Tribes. Nevertheless, in support of the Department of the Interior's and the NPS's commitment to government-to-government consultation, the NPS sent letters of notification to Indian Tribes that are traditionally associated with the land that is now part of the Seashore, including the Accohannock, Pocomoke, Nanticoke, and Assateague peoples. The NPS did not receive a response from any Tribes.

This rule contains existing information collections. All information collections require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). We 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. OMB has reviewed and approved the information collection requirements associated with this rulemaking and assigned OMB Control Number 1024-0026 (expires March 31, 2027). This rule contains no new information requirements that will affect the currently approved information collection. The NPS will use Recreation.gov to collect information necessary to make the financial transaction required to purchase an OSV permit.

This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is not required because the rule is covered by a categorical exclusion. DOI NEPA Handbook, Appendix 2, 12.5 D.4 allows for the following to be categorically excluded: Minor changes in programs and regulations pertaining to visitor activities. This rule makes minor changes to the eligibility requirements for obtaining an OSV permit for the Seashore. The substantial majority of requirements for OSV use at the Seashore will remain the same. The NPS has also determined that the rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under NEPA.

This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in E.O. 13211; the rule is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, and the rule has not otherwise been designated by the Administrator of Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. A statement of energy effects is not required.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, and under the authority of 54 U.S.C. 100751, the National Park Service amends 36 CFR part 7, as set forth below:

Throughout this document, wherever “we” or “our” is used, it means “the EPA.”

In 1977, Congress established the national goal of preventing any future and remedying any existing impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas that results from manmade (anthropogenic) air pollution. 1 The Regional Haze Rule lays out the steps for States to develop and implement plans to address this national visibility goal. 2 States work in coordination with the EPA, the Federal Land Managers, and other interested parties, through an iterative process and series of implementation periods.

On July 25, 2022, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) submitted a regional haze State Implementation Plan revision (2022 regional haze SIP submission) to address the Regional Haze Rule requirements for the second implementation period (2018 through 2028). On December 4, 2024, the Alaska DEC updated specific analyses relied on in the 2022 regional haze SIP submission, and on October 6, 2025, the Alaska DEC clarified certain aspects of the submission.

The EPA proposed to approve Alaska's 2022 regional haze SIP submission for the second implementation period on October 30, 2025 (90 FR 48855). Specifically, the EPA proposed to approve the submission as meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) through (6), (g)(1) through (5), and (i). In addition, as requested by the Alaska DEC, the EPA proposed to approve, and incorporate by reference into the Alaska SIP at 40 CFR 52.70(c), two new regulatory provisions of Alaska Administrative Code Title 18 Environmental Conservation, Chapter 50 Air Quality Control (18 AAC 50), specifically, 18 AAC 50.025 and 18 AAC 50.265, State effective August 21, 2022. We note that we extended the comment period an additional 15 days to allow interested parties more time to develop and submit comments (90 FR 52308, November 20, 2025).

Our proposed action provided background on the requirements of the Clean Air Act and Regional Haze Rule, a summary of Alaska's 2022 regional haze SIP submission and the rationale for the EPA's proposed action. That background and rationale will not be restated here.

We received public comments from the following groups and individuals:

• National Parks Conservation Association, Coalition to Protect America's Parks, and Sierra Club;

• Elayna Bassuk;

• Citizen's Rulemaking Alliance;

• Alaska DEC;

• Delaney Barrett;

• Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union; and

• Anonymous commenter.

The full text of all comments received may be found in the docket for this action at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EPA-R10-OAR-2023-0348. The EPA's responses to all significant adverse comments received are presented in the EPA's response to comments document, file 211_EPA_Response_to_Comments_February_2026, which may be found in the docket for this action at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EPA-R10-OAR-2023-0348.

For the reasons stated in the proposed action, in the response to comments document, and in this preamble, the EPA is approving Alaska's 2022 regional haze SIP submission for the second implementation period as meeting the following requirements:

• 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)—calculation of baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions; progress to date; and the uniform rate of progress;

• 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)—long-term strategy requirements;

• 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)—reasonable progress goal requirements;

• 40 CFR 51.308(f)(4)—additional monitoring needed to address reasonably attributable visibility impairment;

• 40 CFR 51.308(f)(5)—progress report requirements;

• 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)—monitoring strategy and other plan requirements;

• 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) through (5)—progress report requirements; and

• 40 CFR 51.308(i)—State and Federal Land Manager coordination requirements.

The EPA is also approving, and incorporating by reference into the Alaska SIP at 40 CFR 52.70(c), the following submitted regulations:

• 18 AAC 50.025 Visibility and other special protection areas (defining the geographic scope of the regional haze visibility protection area), State effective August 21, 2022; and

• 18 AAC 50.265 Additional requirements for construction or operation of title V permitted sources and operation of minor stationary sources within the regional haze special protection area (requiring fuel-burning and industrial sources located in the visibility protection area to save maintenance records, submit emissions data to the State for purposes of the national emissions inventory, and in each permit application, provide an assessment of whether proposed emissions increases may impact the State's reasonable further progress goals), State effective August 21, 2022.

The EPA is taking this action pursuant to Clean Air Act sections 110 and 169A.

In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the regulatory provisions described in section III. of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 10 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the Clean Air Act as of the effective date of the final rule of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation. 3

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP revision that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP revisions, the EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) because SIP actions are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866;

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a State program;

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and

• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.

In addition, this action is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal Governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Consistent with EPA policy, the EPA contacted 24 Tribes located near Alaska Class I areas and offered an opportunity to consult on a government-to-government basis in letters dated January 31, 2023. We received no consultation or coordination requests. The letters may be found in the docket for this action.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 4, 2026. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows: